Mathematics of Population

[jdbenner]

I'm having a flashback.... anyone here old enough to remember a song called "Everyone's Gone To The Moon"? I think the singer was Jonathan King- it came out in the mid to late '60's as Apollo was gearing up.... and it was a forlorn song about a guy lookng around a deserted Earth because, well- everybody had gone to the moon! Actually most of us living back then pretty much assumed that by this distant year of 2005- there would be several large cities on the moon- we also figured there would be some sizable cities built on and under the oceans.

While people who have grown up or thrived in a concentrated urban environment might not mind living in one of tomcat's super-cubes... I certainly would not. Of course I don't dispute that population growth and urban sprawl are real problems. When I first moved to this little county in Florida in 1972, its population was around 40,000 and you could count the number of traffic lights on two hands. Now, it is over 200,000 and there is a traffic light on almost every corner. It's not fun anymore.... and on very rare occaisions if I go back to the greater New Jersey / Pennsylvania area where I lived as a kid, it's totally unrecognisable and fields and forests I played in are long, long gone.

'Going vertical' is not necessarily a solution, except in large cities where things are already tending toward the vertical- but even there, you want to be able to preserve historical landmarks and existing unique architecture. Suburban expansion and road congestion are not so much a result of population growth as they are products of American automobile-mania and typical zoning laws. Relief can come from urban planners thinking a little more 'European.' That is, ALLOW shopkeepers and small business owners to live in apartments over their establishments and get rid of the zoning laws that now force them to live in the suburbs and commute... and design a public transit infrastructure that is efficient, unobtrusive as possible, clean and economic so people will actually WANT to use it. Needless to say, excessive commuting is not only aggravating, but a MAJOR waste of energy resources. Excessive transport is another problem- locally I've seen trucking companies put 18-wheelers on the road to deliver a few boxes that could have fit in a small van or station wagon.
Overall, we need to reverse this trend of widely separating our homes and work places except in cases where absolutely necessary. If I worked in a strip mine or oil refinery- obviously I would not want it next door to me- but when gasoline goes over six bucks a gallon I wouldn't mind being able to bicycle to it.

While I Do not advocate anarchy, I dislike zoning laws, due to the limitations it imposes to private property rights.  But as you pointed out zoning laws as they stand now have had undesirable, un anticipated consequences.

As to polluting industries next door, I don’t want them any more than the next guy; but as long as I need or want there products, it would be selfish of me to insist that they be located in someone else’s community.

I have wondered about the logic of certain environmental factions, who drive industries from there own countries with extreme regulation, so the industries must set up in countries without reasonable environmental laws, so ultimately greater global pollution results.  I say better moderate regulation than no regulation
 

[tomcat]

Well, how much is it going to cost?

You may be thinking of very large amounts like a trillion dollars for a good sized cube.  And, you are right!  Let's take a look, however, at the income of such a project.

Assume a Cube such that 10 million people can be comfortably housed.  It will cost a staggering 2.22 trillion dollars.  Where is that money going to come from?  Why, the people that buy into it -- of course.

We pay roughly 600+ on our mortgages.  And, we pay roughly 600+ on our cars, a not necessary item for a Cube.  We purchase another 600+ of groceries, prescriptions, clothes, furniture, appliances, utilities, etc., each month.

Let's assume 1,800 per month per dwelling is returned to the building financing either directly, mortgage payments, or indirectly, purchasing in the Cube stores.

Multiply 10 million by $1,800:   18 billion dollars per month.  Per year that is 216 billion dollars.


216 billion goes into 2.2 trillion:   10 times.  Not counting interest the 2.2 trillion dollars will return to the builders and financiers in 10 years.  Since, most such real estate deals have 30 year mortgages there is plenty of room for interest and various building expenses, such as repairs.

If successful, the Cube idea is not a federal aid project, though the federal government will be required to get it started to have timely impact on population growth.


///tomcat///