Daft reasoning. What is it about my Pit threads that brings out the schmucks?
There is plenty of housing for the foreseeable future. There’s more than enough, in fact. McMansions and new development outside city centers, basically for no other reason than to separate oneself from the undesirable rabble, is not necessary, and should have been curbed all over the country long, long ago. It has been curbed in some parts.
I’m having kids so that 50 years from now, there’ll be some people around who were raised to give a shit about the world we share, and who might, just might, call bullshit on YOUR “rape and pillage everything for a buck” kids.
Mod note: Removed “fucking” from the header per the Pit rules, which state: “No obscenities in thread titles.” It’s fine to rant about fucking this and that in the thread text, but we’re trying to be a little less conspicuous on the thread display page. Your cooperation is appreciated.
If someone was going to buy a McMansion why would they buy his house instead? Different markets. For being so free marketish you are pretty stupid about about actual marketing.
And if people don’t have kids then there isn’t enough young people to support the nation. Old people generally don’t or can’t work. Therefor it’s selfish not to have kids, expecting other people to have kids to take up the slack.
ITT: The use of fractured logic.
Case in point ignoring of scale. If you’ve thrown a snowball you have no right to complain about some yokel setting off an avalanche.
The snowball in this case being OP’s house, the avalanche being the lost forest.
This is what happens when you ass-ume. I’m not free marketish, I’m antipopulation. If people would quit adding to the population in leaps and bounds, we wouldn’t have to keep building houses. There wouldn’t be a market for new houses if there was noone around to buy them.
How many people do we have laying around, unable to get a job?
Eventually, you all are going to have to quit having kids, either because we’ve flat run out of room, or because a majority have realized how short sighted it is to have “enough young people to support the nation” translate into more, more and still more people. Not likely to be an issue for me since I should be dead of old age by then and will have no decendents to worry about.
More a matter of the OP throwing a snowball and failing to notice it broke a window. I’ve seen people do this over and over when I used to live in the sticks - they would buy some acreage, clear a spot to put a house on and then BITCH about every person that came after them and did the same thing. A case of “it’s OK if I do it, but nobody else better!”.
We all live in places that used to house multiple species of animals, some probably far more special than the place the OP lost, and the reason he is upset at the loss of “his” place is because he did begin to feel it was his, and not because it was all that unique. And it’s going to keep happening as long as people keep reproducing at the rate they are.
Gosh, do you suppose there is a connection? :rolleyes:
That may be true for where you are, but it certainly isn’t true here. Can you not see how continuing to push the population level up to record numbers continually might result in the need to build more places for them to live? Come visit Southern California - the reason the McMansions are built way outside the city centers is because of two things - there isn’t much room left there to build, and because of that it’s far cheaper to build, and buy, a house you have to commute from. Before the housing crash, a new home in Riverside county would be 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars less than an older one in Orange county, and the gap widened after the crash. Most folks can’t afford to buy in Orange county, or even in LA county, so they have to commute at least an hour each way, have smaller lots and generally harsher weather. They aren’t living out there because they are trying to get away from “the undesirable rabble”, they are buying because that is what they can afford and they need a house to raise their kids in.
I have no kids, I will never have any kids and if I did, they definitely wouldn’t grow up with a “rape and pillage everything for a buck” attitude. As I said, I don’t agree that the landowner should have clear cut it, but I also understand the realities of today’s world, and find your lack of understanding of what your children will end up doing to their world kind of pathetic. As I said to Tao, it isn’t going to be a problem for me - I won’t be here when your children or grandchildren run out of room and resources, and I won’t have left any children or grandchildren to worry about. Yet, I am more concerned with the whole ecology than you appear to be. Apparently, the only legit way to be concerned with the condition of our world is “what am I leaving my kids”.
Stratocaster you make me giddy with happiness
The drawback with message boards is often feeling like your little contribution that took you 20 minutes to write gets swamped and ignored, so I’m really glad that what I wrote made an impact.
I’m still curious what others (Rand Rover in particular because I think you’re one of the more hardcore libertarians on this board) think about the point that I raised in post 73, that in cases like this the magic of the marketplace won’t actually work because of an external (my econ APs coming back to me with the help of a little wikipedia :D) “impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction”.
That’s a pretty narrow definition of worth. I think to be more accurate you should say:
“There’s just the market, and the process of the market says how much something is worth to the market.”
It’s a pretty important distinction. Assuming the market is always right is a pretty arrogant stance. It assumes that we have a full understanding of our actions and their repercussions. How many products have lost value in the market because of unforeseen consequences? Lead based pencils certainly don’t have as much market value as they did when they first came arrived. So they’re worth less (to the market) now than they used to be. The point is we had an imperfect understanding of it and the market worth didn’t reflect how much they were actually worth.
The landowner - sounds like this was a purchase that was made in the not too distant past (even 20 years is not too distant). This purchase could have been solely based on investment with the return being the harvested lumber at some point in the future. You didn’t go into much detail regarding the current state of the property, other than “pristine” woods were gone. When they harvested the lumber, did they also do cleanup of trimmed branches? Have they replanted seedlings? How many acres are we talking about? What is the condition of the surrounding property - wooded, farmland, etc?
It’s just hard for us to comprehend forest areas as cropland due to the time it takes to regrow.
I never said any given species was necessary vs being unnecessary. Arguably life itself isn’t “necessary.” I don’t actually view extinctions as this great tragedy, it’s a natural part of existence. Sure, in this case humanity is contributing to it and within reason we should always look in to controlling that when necessary. I’m not convinced at all that we should always act as thought an extinction is the worst thing ever.
I’m fairly confident every species living today (including homo sapiens) will eventually be extinct.
Our civilization is based upon using a huge amount of resources. The moment we became civilized we essentially stopped living in harmony with the natural way of things, to me it is hypocritical for someone who soaks up all the benefits of civilization to bitch about the necessary realities of a civilization.
“Shitty cabinets” may be all that a low income person can afford to put in their home. Trees are a renewable resource, by the way.
