For many renting is not a choice. You are right though, I generalized and did not account forvavwillfuk strategy. Still the move from invidual ownship is collectivism at its fullest - lords and surfs. My 2 bits.

Renting is not throwing money away, it is exchanging value for value. While the downside is that the tenant must conform to the landlord's requirements, upsides include being able to more easily change locations, and not having unexpected maintenance bills. There are numerous instances in which it is more in the renter's self-interest than owning would be. If renting is "never a good thing," then people wouldn't voluntarily do it.

(Full disclosure: I have been both a renter and an owner numerous times. Currently I am an owner, but I may choose to become a renter again someday.)

More renting means more leverage to get individuals to do what others want simply to keep the feed-line (whatever that may be) flowing, its never a good thing....Ownership is the cornerstone of freedom and personal economy. Why rent and throw money away (into someone else's pocket) when you can own, inventing in yourself and building equity and resale value?

Survive-ability and longevity are key points as you mentioned. The physical has a better chance in that vein. Not to mention the appropriate equipment also.

There are elements of the service model I don't like. I still have old tapes from the 80s, but content I buy/license from Amazon may not be available to me 30 years from now. I also don't think I can transfer it to my heirs.

That has been my point all along...choice should remain among the individual but collectively, their non-ownership meme by itself is a redistribution of income consequentially by it's nature. Without choice as part of our culture, we all end up in this rabbit hole.
We are Not going to run out of resources, we will invent or create new resources. Perhaps Printing via vibrational frequencies someday...out of thin air, so to speak...the same way living matter is created quantumly.

The key is whether people can continue to own whatever they wish to. "Collective redistribution of income" involves the use of force, and does not occur just because, for example, most people someday choose Uber or its competitors rather than owning their own car for their transportation needs.

Ok, but it is empowering to be able to make one's holes when ever or where ever one wants without depending upon anyone else, much less a monthly fee for the service of others.
I like your saying though...never heard that one before.

The saying goes People want a hole, not a drill. Owning the drill, car, CD, etc is a burden on the owner because they require space and depreciate in value. It may be worthwhile, but it's not a place to store wealth. It's much better to have wealth in investments that generate value.

Hmm, not convinced guys. I still see this Non ownership as the nemesis of sovereignty, pride of accomplishment and responsibility; not to mention a collective redistribution of income. In fact, I see this whole idea as collectivist in nature and a perpetuation of a much larger city state where one could not survive as a result of their own efforts and solve their own problems.
I don't think "the creation of value that never existed prior" survives within the individual.

I agree with CBJ. All of these narratives "in the future, everyone will..." ignore the salient general fact that old forms do not disappear.

This was cogently explained by Jane Jacobs in The Economy of Cities. The craft industry that made brass fittings for horse tack (harnesses, etc.) shifted to make brass fittings for machineries. I point out that horses are still big business, especially as they are luxury items for the rich. We do not need as many blacksmiths and farriers but those we have earn good wages.

In 600 BCE cows were money; every city was a kingdom; and priests explained the will of the gods. Then coins were invented; democracies were invented; philosophy was invented -- all of them in the same revolution c. 550 BCE. But we still have kings and priests - and you can trade cows for wheat in the commodities exchanges in quantities never dreamed of in 600 BCE.

I agree that in the future ownership of things will change. It is not the end of ownership.

In closing, I point out that in ancient times farmers owned their land. A farmer who did not was not legally free or legally a citizen who could vote. But in the mercantile age, traders rented their homes. They did not actually own the goods they bought and sold, but made their money by transferring the goods to efficient markets. The mercantile revolution continues...

I think this trend will lead to a world of more efficiency, less waste, lower costs, less hassle, more choices and more productive uses of our time. Not everything will be digital, and "nature's wrath" will be overcome with multiple secure systems backups.