3 ms·

It's wild that you think this is rational analysis. No amount of history or math will ever change your mind because you've created a fantasy where somehow housi

It's wild that you think this is rational analysis. No amount of history or math will ever change your mind because you've created a fantasy where somehow housing people requires killing all but 10% of the population.

smsm42 2y ago
I observe that you choosing not to engage with my argument, but instead call me names and pretend I am insane. I hope one day you realize it's not how you make a coherent argument. Until then, good luck to you. > where somehow housing people requires killing all but 10% of the population. I never said that. I said that is the one of the small number of realistic scenarios where housing suddenly becomes abundant without consuming massive amount of resources which are to be acquired from somewhere and yet nobody is paying for them. This is a common fallacy which does not take into account economic scarcity - to make enough something for everybody, and deliver it at the point they need it to be consumed, takes certain resources, and the housing is one of the worst cases since - unlike food, for example - it's very hard to produce it where it'd be cheap to produce, and cheaply transport it to the place where it needs to be consumed. With grain or rice, for example, doing this is commonly feasible. With housing, not so much - we currently have no plausible technology that allows to do anything like that. Thus, "let's just make enough housing for everyone" is not a realistic proposal since there's no realistic way to do it in a way we need it done. If you know how to do it, you are welcome to enter the history of the humanity as a hero. Norman Borlaug did it, maybe you could do it too. If you think you can, don't waste time arguing with me - spend time saving the humanity.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  I didn't call you any names, but it does not surprise me that you're making more stuff up.

smsm42 2y ago

I observe that you choosing not to engage with my argument, but instead call me names and pretend I am insane. I hope one day you realize it's not how you make a coherent argument. Until then, good luck to you. > where somehow housing people requires killing all but 10% of the population. I never said that. I said that is the one of the small number of realistic scenarios where housing suddenly becomes abundant without consuming massive amount of resources which are to be acquired from somewhere and yet nobody is paying for them. This is a common fallacy which does not take into account economic scarcity - to make enough something for everybody, and deliver it at the point they need it to be consumed, takes certain resources, and the housing is one of the worst cases since - unlike food, for example - it's very hard to produce it where it'd be cheap to produce, and cheaply transport it to the place where it needs to be consumed. With grain or rice, for example, doing this is commonly feasible. With housing, not so much - we currently have no plausible technology that allows to do anything like that. Thus, "let's just make enough housing for everyone" is not a realistic proposal since there's no realistic way to do it in a way we need it done. If you know how to do it, you are welcome to enter the history of the humanity as a hero. Norman Borlaug did it, maybe you could do it too. If you think you can, don't waste time arguing with me - spend time saving the humanity.

krainboltgreene 2y ago
I didn't call you any names, but it does not surprise me that you're making more stuff up.