The "Anything Goes" thread

[mydave]

Meet Dee Williams: She Lives in 84 Square Feet
After owning a 3-bedroom house in Portland, OR, Williams loves having fewer belongings and expenses. She doesn’t have an electricity bill because she uses solar power, and she doesn’t have a mortgage.
However, saving money isn’t why Williams set out to build her tiny home 10 years ago.
“I was diagnosed with heart muscle disease [or cardiomyopathy],” she explained. “I wanted to be able to live close to friends who would end up taking care of me as I got sicker.”
more . . .
Meet Dee Williams: She Lives in 84 Square Feet | Zillow Blog

 

[leelai]

Meet Dee Williams: She Lives in 84 Square Feet After owning a 3-bedroom house in Portland, OR, Williams loves having fewer belongings and expenses. She doesn’t have an electricity bill because she uses solar power, and she doesn’t have a mortgage. However, saving money isn’t why Williams set out to build her tiny home 10 years ago. “I was diagnosed with heart muscle disease [or cardiomyopathy],” she explained. “I wanted to be able to live close to friends who would end up taking care of me as I got sicker.” more . . . Meet Dee Williams: She Lives in 84 Square Feet | Zillow Blog

Oh my.....this is something new, how unusual to live like that and for so long.

I wonder how she showers or bathes and then what about a toilet. She must use her friends house.....

Goodness, it would be great now and then but I couldn't live without showering every day and I like my own loo too!

Interesting story mydave! Thanks!!

 

[mydave]

Glad that you like the story. I agree with you completely that the basic need for bath and toilet must be first. But think about it for a moment. How much room do we really need to live comfortably. Most places in people's houses are just for stuffs. Honey, get more stuffs please
More on this . . .
Micro-Apartments: Living in Less Than 300 Square Feet
Micro-Apartments: Living in Less Than 300 Square Feet | Zillow Blog
Living With Less: Homes Under 600 Square Feet
Living With Less: Homes Under 600 Square Feet | Zillow Blog

P.S. Your tiger is getting smaller, but cute.

 

[leelai]

Glad that you like the story. I agree with you completely that the basic need for bath and toilet must be first. But think about it for a moment. How much room do we really need to live comfortably. Most places in people's houses are just for stuffs. Honey, get more stuffs please More on this . . . Micro-Apartments: Living in Less Than 300 Square Feet Micro-Apartments: Living in Less Than 300 Square Feet | Zillow Blog Living With Less: Homes Under 600 Square Feet Living With Less: Homes Under 600 Square Feet | Zillow Blog P.S. Your tiger is getting smaller, but cute.

You are right, we just need more space for our possessions rather than actual living space...

I love that Amagansett home.....all that glass would make it feel much larger.....that would do me on my own, well any of them really....but with 5 in our family living in one house, we all just need our own space....gosh I'm embarrassed to say the size of my home compared to those.

I guess it is very much a way of the future with greater population density in cites......Australia really isn't anywhere near that type of thing as yet although we do have some very old workers cottages in many areas which are now heritage listed and houses are getting smaller on much smaller land lots already.

Lol....thank you, my cub is so very cute!

 

[mydave]

It is scary thinking about world population, isn't it.
Our generation is fine for now, but how will our next generations will fare ? The world population in 1950 was 2.5 billions. Now, over 7 billions. Not only the earth won't get bigger, our children will need the supply of new resources, foods, energies etc . . .
Worldometers - real time world statistics
Dan Brown brought that grave picture in his latest book, Inferno. Although it is a fiction, but it represents the real danger that human race will be facing in the century to come. A great great book to read.:thumbs:

On a lighter note, here is an excellent cat picture

 

[twerppoet]

It is not quite as grim as it sounds from your figures. Pretty much everywhere in the world had rapidly expanding populations in the 1950s. Large families were the norm. Since then most developed countries have only slightly increased population trends, with many of them being static or slightly in decline.

The most population growth is in developing countries, and that is expected to decrease as those countries become more developed; as it has for almost every country as it develops.

So, while population growth between 1950 to present almost tripled it will probably only increase by about 50% over the next 50 years, or at worst double, with growth slowly tapering off.

It's even possible that population growth will peak by 2050; providing developing countries continue to develop as expected and the average life expectancy doesn't increase dramatically.

The high estimate has us at a population of about 16 billion by 2100, our grand, and great grandchildren's lifetime. While certainly more crowded than now, this is probably sustainable with current and future food producing and distribution technologies (assuming we use them). The median estimate is 3 billion more people, which would probably be almost unnoticeable if it were spread out evenly (which it won't be). The low estimate actually shows us at about current population levels, after a rise and decline.

All in all, it will probably get worse before it gets better, but there is a high probability of it getting better over the next century, or at least not much worse.

Population Trends: Rapid Growth in Less Developed Regions: Population & Development : UNFPA


Of course there is the worst, worst case. If for some reason populations in developing countries continued as now, and developed countries population all exceed, even by a small percentage, the replacement rate; then overpopulation armageddon might happen. After which, as civilization recovered, we'd probably have plenty of room again.

 

[iJamesH]

You are right, we just need more space for our possessions rather than actual living space...

Reminds me of the George Carlin bit here

 

[leelai]

It is scary thinking about world population, isn't it. Our generation is fine for now, but how will our next generations will fare ? The world population in 1950 was 2.5 billions. Now, over 7 billions. Not only the earth won't get bigger, our children will need the supply of new resources, foods, energies etc . . . Worldometers - real time world statistics Dan Brown brought that grave picture in his latest book, Inferno. Although it is a fiction, but it represents the real danger that human race will be facing in the century to come. A great great book to read.:thumbs: On a lighter note, here is an excellent cat picture <img src="http://www.ipadforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=57120"/>

It is a scary thought wondering how our children will fare in the future. Housing is getting so very expensive here and you wonder just how many will ever be able to buy into the market. And then yes all those other necessities for a good life....

Your link was scary also with those numbers just ticking over continually...

I do have that book already, I have all Dan Brown's books, but I just haven't gotten around to reading it as yet....it certainly looks like a great read from what you've said!

And thank you so much for my new cat! He's just gorgeous and I love him already!

It is not quite as grim as it sounds from your figures. Pretty much everywhere in the world had rapidly expanding populations in the 1950s. Large families were the norm. Since then most developed countries have only slightly increased population trends, with many of them being static or slightly in decline. The most population growth is in developing countries, and that is expected to decrease as those countries become more developed; as it has for almost every country as it develops. So, while population growth between 1950 to present almost tripled it will probably only increase by about 50% over the next 50 years, or at worst double, with growth slowly tapering off. It's even possible that population growth will peak by 2050; providing developing countries continue to develop as expected and the average life expectancy doesn't increase dramatically. The high estimate has us at a population of about 16 billion by 2100, our grand, and great grandchildren's lifetime. While certainly more crowded than now, this is probably sustainable with current and future food producing and distribution technologies (assuming we use them). The median estimate is 3 billion more people, which would probably be almost unnoticeable if it were spread out evenly (which it won't be). The low estimate actually shows us at about current population levels, after a rise and decline. All in all, it will probably get worse before it gets better, but there is a high probability of it getting better over the next century, or at least not much worse. Population Trends: Rapid Growth in Less Developed Regions: Population & Development : UNFPA Of course there is the worst, worst case. If for some reason populations in developing countries continued as now, and developed countries population all exceed, even by a small percentage, the replacement rate; then overpopulation armageddon might happen. After which, as civilization recovered, we'd probably have plenty of room again.

Interesting reading Twerppoet! We have an aging population here in Australia although our numbers for immigrants are certainly getting higher and we are becoming a lot more cosmopolitan in that regard....it's not without it's problems though with many differing values to our own.

Our state Queensland, is growing so rapidly that it is having a very detrimental effect on all our resources and our standards of living. We are in a huge growth period and it's getting very tough for many. Having said that many expect so much more than they have and aren't willing to put in the work needed to get ahead themselves.

We really are a very young country compared to most and such a big change so quickly is causing a lot of issues and expense.

Reminds me of the George Carlin bit here YouTube Link: http://youtu.be/MvgN5gCuLac

Oh my....how hilarious is this and so so true! I enjoyed it immensely.....gosh, he had me laughing right from the get go.....thank you!!

 

[zstairlessone]

It is not quite as grim as it sounds from your figures. Pretty much everywhere in the world had rapidly expanding populations in the 1950s. Large families were the norm. Since then most developed countries have only slightly increased population trends, with many of them being static or slightly in decline.

The most population growth is in developing countries, and that is expected to decrease as those countries become more developed; as it has for almost every country as it develops.

So, while population growth between 1950 to present almost tripled it will probably only increase by about 50% over the next 50 years, or at worst double, with growth slowly tapering off.

It's even possible that population growth will peak by 2050; providing developing countries continue to develop as expected and the average life expectancy doesn't increase dramatically.

The high estimate has us at a population of about 16 billion by 2100, our grand, and great grandchildren's lifetime. While certainly more crowded than now, this is probably sustainable with current and future food producing and distribution technologies (assuming we use them). The median estimate is 3 billion more people, which would probably be almost unnoticeable if it were spread out evenly (which it won't be). The low estimate actually shows us at about current population levels, after a rise and decline.

All in all, it will probably get worse before it gets better, but there is a high probability of it getting better over the next century, or at least not much worse.

Population Trends: Rapid Growth in Less Developed Regions: Population & Development : UNFPA

Of course there is the worst, worst case. If for some reason populations in developing countries continued as now, and developed countries population all exceed, even by a small percentage, the replacement rate; then overpopulation armageddon might happen. After which, as civilization recovered, we'd probably have plenty of room again.

Makes me think of Solaria, from The Naked Sun, when you mention getting better

 

[mydave]

Glad to see a debate, twerppoet :thumbs:
We both are aware of the increase, just a difference in the seriousness, isn't it so ?
After reading Dan Brown's Inferno, I became a whole lot more conscious about recycling. No joke, I gave a bunch of recycling bins to neighbors and friends.

 

[twerppoet]

Makes me think of Solaria, from The Naked Sun, when you mention getting better

Hmm, I thought I'd read just about every Isaac Asimov story, but I don't remember this one. I'll have to see if I can find it.

 

[twerppoet]

Glad to see a debate, twerppoet :thumbs:
We both are aware of the increase, just a difference in the seriousness, isn't it so ?
After reading Dan Brown's Inferno, I became a whole lot more conscious about recycling. No joke, I gave a bunch of recycling bins to neighbors and friends.

It's not so much a matter of how serious I see things, as it is that I'm not a fan of alarmism, or one sided stories. Whenever someone tells me either "Doom, Doom, Doom", or "Move along, nothing to see here" I immediately assume they are trying to distract me from the real issues in favor of their already decided on conclusion.

So, if I actually care (which is getting less frequent as I grow older) I start keeping my eye out for the 'rest of the story'.

Of course this means I can take a long time to make up my mind, and sometimes never do; especially if it comes down to having to choose a side.

When sides are chosen on a controversial subject it seems inevitable that the loudest voices on both sides are the people who you would prefer to be on the opposite side of. Fortunately there is usually a middle ground.

 

[Pinkpoison]

You are right, we just need more space for our possessions rather than actual living space...

I can certainly agree with that, My Antiques collection grows bigger by the month and I'm fast running out of space.
I have to feed my addiction though

 

[leelai]

I can certainly agree with that, My Antiques collection grows bigger by the month and I'm fast running out of space. I have to feed my addiction though

Lol....well at least it's a good addiction, with so many wonderful things to admire any time you like!!

 

[Ser Aphim]

I really need to tell this to everyone.

I am leaving the forum because I am not contributing, and I have no use for the forum anymore. It was fun being in the forum. Thanks guys.