In defense of some ideas that are anti the status quo
#1: Property values – from my point of view, the sane person wants their property values to stay the same, or to go down. If you want your property values to go up, A: you hate your neighborhood and are planning on leaving B: you don’t want other people to be able to afford to live there C: possibly you’re doing two things which are a bad idea – 1) gauging your value as a person on your net worth and 2) including the value of your home in your assessment of your net worth – not only might you lose it at any time to the capricious whims of earth, but this encourages all kinds of unhealthy thinking surrounding the family unit – healthy families have more than a few people and the home may be owned amongst everyone or titled in one person’s name for convenience sake.
In any case, lowering property values is a good thing. Which is good, because I want to live in a neighborhood that looks lived in, with science projects and houses of all different colors and sports equipment and dogs and kids and general mayhem.
#2: The cheapest option is often *not* *the best. For example in southern california the argument against desal plants is often the cost of water. However, what SoCal is doing now will sooner or later lead to a catastrophe – indeed one could argue it already has (more on this in another post). SoCal should be self sufficient, water wise, and that is better than having the cheapest water.
#3: Ideally we would be getting rid of money in favor of a better system. Money, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, encourages bad decisions, some so bad that they may lead to the destruction of our species.
#4: We have undoubtedly made Earth too difficult. In general we should be thinking in every system how can we make this easier – how can we make less things illegal, how can we accept more people for who they are, how can we deprioritize GDP and prioritize health, happiness, and sanity.