Ideal population (Denver, Pueblo, Lake City: unemployment, to live in, cost of living)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Idunn

The very point is a lot of people don't want to play 'last man standing,' but in effect will unless the nations of the world sort out an equable, fair and sustainable manner of living.

Colorado had a population of 799,024 in 1910, so a return to that level, preferably with a good measure of the comforts and technology we have adopted since then.

Such things as professional sports teams are an extension and outgrowth of population. There is no way around it, if the population significantly reduced that remaining could not support such teams as they are today. But also consider that the total population of the US should decrease by a factor of 6, so not only Colorado affected. Sports teams such as the Broncos might still continue, but more as they were formerly, without the lavish pay and perks. Such a realty would apply to anyone and anything else that enjoys a position near the top of such a pyramid, when that below lessoned to that degree they are.

With an estimated population of 598,707 in 2008, Denver, CO had a population of 213,381 in 1910. The more accurate present day data for Denver would be that of the greater metro area that has since built up, being 2,464,866 in 2006. If such towns as Boulder, CO included, the figure 2,927,911.
Denver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pueblo, CO had a population of 103,495 in 2007. It had a population of 41,747 in 1910.
Pueblo, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if having grown disproportionately compared to other towns in Colorado, there also a certain rational for Denver being larger, if not as large. One might assume that all towns in Colorado would generally lose a significant proportion of their population for the state as a whole to reach 800,000. That while the largest overall share necessarily from large urban areas, that such decreases felt perhaps most keenly in relatively unpopulated rural counties. The reason for this being that with rising costs in transport, etc., the trend toward dispersed development in residences would reverse and total county populations reach those more common in the early 20th century.

I didn't say it would be easy, or altogether pleasant, only necessary.

For much of its early history, Colorado's population was actually more distributed between urban areas and small towns than it is now. While Denver was always the trade center, the "hinterlands" had a relatively sizable population working in agriculture, mining, and lumbering. It should also be noted that most of that population lived in small towns centered around those industries, with only the agricultural population dispersed about the countryside. Colorado's transportation system was railroad-centered, which also tended to concentrate population in communities. This all seems completely foreign to modern Coloradans, but it is actually how the state was populated for much of its history. It should be instructive as a model for the future because energy scarcity, and our structural and financial inability to support our current sprawled lifestyle is going to dictate a return to that living arrangement. One might also note that the living arrangement of a century ago in Colorado (and the rest of the US) managed to produce some of the most productive, hard-working, talented, and honest generations of any time in history. Today's living arrangement, by comparison, seems most able to produce overpaid drug-popping athletes, unethical business people, worthless neglectful parents, mall-rat children, incompetent and corrupt leaders, amoral violent criminals, and hedonistic spoiled "it's all about me" ignoramuses who really don't care if the country goes to hell, so long as it doesn't impair their ability to have a good time.

Incidentally, while Colorado was not home to major league sports a century ago, it supported numerous professional and semi-professional baseball teams--especially in the mining camps. Places like Telluride, Ouray, Cripple Creek, etc. sported such teams for years.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Idunn

The very point is a lot of people don't want to play 'last man standing,' but in effect will unless the nations of the world sort out an equable, fair and sustainable manner of living.

Colorado had a population of 799,024 in 1910, so a return to that level, preferably with a good measure of the comforts and technology we have adopted since then.

Such things as professional sports teams are an extension and outgrowth of population. There is no way around it, if the population significantly reduced that remaining could not support such teams as they are today. But also consider that the total population of the US should decrease by a factor of 6, so not only Colorado affected. Sports teams such as the Broncos might still continue, but more as they were formerly, without the lavish pay and perks. Such a realty would apply to anyone and anything else that enjoys a position near the top of such a pyramid, when that below lessoned to that degree they are.

With an estimated population of 598,707 in 2008, Denver, CO had a population of 213,381 in 1910. The more accurate present day data for Denver would be that of the greater metro area that has since built up, being 2,464,866 in 2006. If such towns as Boulder, CO included, the figure 2,927,911.
Denver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pueblo, CO had a population of 103,495 in 2007. It had a population of 41,747 in 1910.
Pueblo, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if having grown disproportionately compared to other towns in Colorado, there also a certain rational for Denver being larger, if not as large. One might assume that all towns in Colorado would generally lose a significant proportion of their population for the state as a whole to reach 800,000. That while the largest overall share necessarily from large urban areas, that such decreases felt perhaps most keenly in relatively unpopulated rural counties. The reason for this being that with rising costs in transport, etc., the trend towards dispersed development in residences would reverse and total county populations reach those more common in the early 20th century.

I didn't say it would be easy, or altogether pleasant, only necessary.

Interesting. So you think we should go back to the population of Colorado in 1910. For Pueblo that is 1/3 of the size but for Denver you are talking millions less and Colorado Springs would have a even larger drop by percentage as they were smaller then Pueblo in 1910. Not to mention Fort Collins and Grand Junction. What do you propose we do with the infrastructure, high rises, airports, houses, etc?

[Idunn]

Infrastructure? I'll touch upon this briefly, but anyone else welcome to interject, as I do not wish to monopolize this discussion.

Briefly, much of this infrastructure should not have been built in the first place. Since commodities and resources such as this will increasingly become scarcer and more expensive, no matter what we do, the best option to recycle that no longer needed. By far the bigger problem will lie in decreasing human population as, even if reversed now, natural death rates will not decrease the total fast enough. Wars, famines and plagues will, but obviously that not desirable. With what seems likely an only slowly decreasing human population at best, in the interim, until a truly sustainable number reached, we will increasingly, until then, have to learn how to make do with less.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

To be fair, world wide, depopulation will commence en masse later this century. In the major developed countries the baby bust has set in. Without our loose immigration policies the US would be just like the ones in Europe, or like Japan. Less developed countries are getting into the same trend. Although growth seems to be continuing in a number of states in the US West, much of it is due to people who are depopulating places like the Rust Belt and California. The coming wars of mass destruction, the coming massive pandemics, and, a possible severe cold (and dry) period, will further exacerbate this. I foresee a period not entirely unlike the period 500 - 800AD, in our future - "The Age of Migrations" - AKA the "Dark Age. "

[Idunn]

There is a new online tool, a map of the US and countries around the world, that shows historical change and projections for future change in temperature and precipitation. It is called ClimateWizard, and can be found here:
Climate Wizard

It is simple and fairly self-explanatory, apparently without much in the way of instruction. If you wish a fuller overview, this article in the 'Seattle Times' describes it:
Local News | UW scientists say new online tool aims to take world's temperature | Seattle Times Newspaper

Although wishing for shorter increments and fuller data, particularly for foreign locations, this still a useful tool. All the more because it so easily and graphically illustrates changes. If paying attention, one will note that it paints a very troubling picture. Some may question the veracity of the data these projections are based upon, but the organizations responsible supposedly strove to get this right. Objections I have seen thus far are based upon nothing but ignorance and hot air. While not being able to comment on all the specifics, data I have read from other sources indicate beyond refute that in the last century this earth has warmed exponentially at historically unprecedented rates. It is also just scientific fact the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind pumps into the atmosphere every year, and well known the effect this will have. Otherwise you can draw your own conclusions. My understanding this planet projected to warm by between 3 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100, and probably closer to the later number.

BTW, it is possible to zoom in to more closely observe states, such as Colorado. One might also note there a distinct correlation on this planet between climate and population.

[Josseppie]

My point is I just do not see Colorado dropping in population, especially to 800,000 people. To reach that level the Denver metro would have to go from its current size to just under 400,000 people. That would mean all the suburbs would be gone and the city of Denver would still have to drop over 100,000 people. Then you have the rest of the front range! I think a better way would be to find out how much we should grow to then see what the state has to do to reach and maintain that level. We can all disagree on what number that is but that is more particle then saying the state needs to drop population. Personally, I think its somewhere between 6 and 10 million people and I said 12 million because I think we can be a little bit bigger then 6 million but not over 12 million people.

Another question I have is what do the rural towns see them self doing this century. We know what the front range and even Grand Junction wants to do but I would like to get some input from people in towns like Lamar, La Junta, Limon, Meeker, etc. Do they want to stay the same or grow and if so how much?

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

My point is I just do not see Colorado dropping in population, especially to 800,000 people. To reach that level the Denver metro would have to go from its current size to just under 400,000 people. That would mean all the suburbs would be gone and the city of Denver would still have to drop over 100,000 people. Then you have the rest of the front range! I think a better way would be to find out how much we should grow to then see what the state has to do to reach and maintain that level. We can all disagree on what number that is but that is more particle then saying the state needs to drop population. Personally, I think its somewhere between 6 and 10 million people and I said 12 million because I think we can be a little bit bigger then 6 million but not over 12 million people.

Another question I have is what do the rural towns see them self doing this century. We know what the front range and even Grand Junction wants to do but I would like to get some input from people in towns like Lamar, La Junta, Limon, Meeker, etc. Do they want to stay the same or grow and if so how much?

For Colorado to grow to even 6-10 million population, it would require MASSIVE expropriations of agricultural water for municipal use--if those future Coloradans expected to live in any way remotely like today's metropolitan Colorado populations. Go to the Owens Valley in California and see what near total expropriation of water does to agriculture and small towns. What would the small towns want? It would be a moot point in that scenario--many of Colorado's small towns rely heavily on agriculture--they would be economically decimated. It is also highly likely that northwestern Colorado would have to become a total "energy sacrifice zone" to meet local and regional energy needs, not to mention national ones. Its viability as a tourist and recreation locale would be gone.

I get flat sick of ignorant urban/suburban pinheads who can't think beyond the city limits of their own metropolitan area when it comes to what happens because of growth, sprawl, water expropriation, and the other scourges that those things bring socially, economically, and environmentally to the surrounding landscape and geography. Fact is, Colorado is shuddering under the impacts of its current population already--one can only imagine the destruction if a few million more get added. These growth lovers should go over to the California forum and read about what several decades of essentially uncontrolled and largely non-productive growth has done to that state. All of the problems it currently faces can be traced directly back to that source--fiscal crisis, crime, poor schools, hostile business climate, "nanny-state" regulations, degraded natural environment--all of it is a symptom of growth that does not pay for itself and simply lowers the quality of life for everyone. It's a great example of what a state like Colorado should NOT do, but we seem determined to make all of the same mistakes.

How much should we grow in population? Zip. None. Nada. Maybe someday people will figure out that you don't need population growth to have a healthy, balanced economy. There are countries that do it--quite successfully. In fact, they are dong better than us. Education, productivity, and wise stewardship of resources are the key--not seeing how many more warm bodies we can cram in here.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Idunn

There is a new online tool, a map of the US and countries around the world, that shows historical change and projections for future change in temperature and precipitation. It is called ClimateWizard, and can be found here:
Climate Wizard

It is simple and fairly self-explanatory, apparently without much in the way of instruction. If you wish a fuller overview, this article in the 'Seattle Times' describes it:
Local News | UW scientists say new online tool aims to take world's temperature | Seattle Times Newspaper

Although wishing for shorter increments and fuller data, particularly for foreign locations, this still a useful tool. All the more because it so easily and graphically illustrates changes. If paying attention, one will note that it paints a very troubling picture. Some may question the veracity of the data these projections are based upon, but the organizations responsible supposedly strove to get this right. Objections I have seen thus far are based upon nothing but ignorance and hot air. While not being able to comment on all the specifics, data I have read from other sources indicate beyond refute that in the last century this earth has warmed exponentially at historically unprecedented rates. It is also just scientific fact the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases mankind pumps into the atmosphere every year, and well known the effect this will have. Otherwise you can draw your own conclusions. My understanding this planet projected to warm by between 3 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100, and probably closer to the later number.

BTW, it is possible to zoom in to more closely observe states, such as Colorado. One might also note there a distinct correlation on this planet between climate and population.

Trying to predict any weather or climate condition out beyond about 10 days is a fool's errand. Who would have predicted that 2009 AD would be a relatively chilly year (thus far) and that global temperatures would have peaked in 1998? Ten years ago many thought we'd be much warmer right now than has turned out to be the case. The climate system is stochastic and chaotic. Be prepared. Especially if it continues to cool (something governments from national down to local levels mostly have no contingency for, due to all the overhyped global warming fascination of the past 20 years).

A worst case scenario would be colder and drier, I'll leave it your own logic to figure out why that is the case.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Oh and one more elephant in the room. One key thing which has in fact allowed for the general population increase over the past 10K years is of course the relatively warm and wet conditions Earth has experienced since the Great Melt of the large continental ice masses. Based on geological evidence, this interglacial period we are in is not at all normal (at least not since the current configuration of tectonic plates came into being some 10 - 20 million years ago). This configuration blocks global equatorial oceanic circulation and forces a meridional component of motion. That is thought to be a key factor in the Earth's seeming bias toward Ice Ages since the late Tertiary. As this configuration will be in place (barring a major extraterrestrial smack down by a planetoid or planet colliding with Earth) for several million years to come, we must bank on this interglacial coming to an end. Even our output of GHGs may not be capable of interdicting the inevitable. The worst time will be the transition period from what we have now back to what is actually normal.

[Idunn]

"If Colorado is to remain truly liveable, growth must not simply be “managed,” but must come to an end."
- 'Colorado's Population in 2050'



I got back into this in mentioning a resource which graphically illustrates the effects of climate change, this intimately tied to population density and health. Apparently no has paid any attention, but this again the reference to it:
Climate Wizard

In having now touched upon this topic again, I've run across some interesting sources, for those so interested. One deals with the human population in general, and projections for what might be expected. Another offers possible solutions for the effects of climate change by 2100. Although much of it deals with how to deal with relocation of coastal populations displaced by sea level rise, it also details some of the difficulties the American southwest will face with water supply. The third has specifically to do with Colorado's population, and how it might be managed. While I might write a treatise on this, I'll confine myself to a few chosen excerpts which illustrate that within; anyone so interested can explore the much greater detail of these pieces on their own. Or not, in which case they likely wouldn't bother, know or care anyway.


1) EcoFuture (TM) : Way Too Many for Us, article by Hillel J. Hoffmann

"According to the Cornell team, the primary limiting factors that define the Earth's carrying capacity for humans are fertile land, fresh water, fossil fuel energy and a diversity of helpful natural organisms. All are essential in the production of food, and worldwide stocks of all four are being consumed faster than they can be replaced."

One might note that human population and health is dependent upon an interdependent matrix of resources. The alteration or removal of any one potentially causing very serious consequences. In Colorado's case all those mentioned in this quote are under threat. The two likely to affect you most soon, water and oil.


2) http://www.zoningplus.com/APA/Planningfor2100.pdf

"Scientists are forewarning that at approximately 450 parts per millio (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, will trigger potentially irreversible series of natural events, including glacial melt and sea level rise, which will be, “out of humanity’s control.” The Earth’s atmosphere currently consists of 385 ppm CO2. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing at approximately 2 ppm annually. At the current and projected growth rate o 1.5%, atmospheric concentrations will reach 450 ppm in 2035."

This is ideal for all you skeptics out there, as it is easily quantifiable, the results largely predictable. It also ties in to my earlier mention of global climate. Note also the tipping point mentioned, as in “out of humanity’s control.”

"A climate model developed in 2006 by the Energy Departmentʹs Pacific Northwest National Laboratory projected that many of Earthʹs high mountain ranges could lose much of their seasonal snow cover by the end of the century. It forecasts the Sierra Nevada, Cascades and Southern Rockies losing 43 percent of winter snowpack. (USA Today, 30 May 2006). There has been a potentially catastrophic reduction in the flow of the Colorado River..."

"Water tables throughout the United States have been dropping. It is predicted that some cities around the Denver area that rely solely on groundwater will almost certainly exhaust the accessible supplies by 2050."

"...the Kansas River is already considered a toxic hazard due to fertilizer contamination..."

While obviously much more within the report, what one might draw from this at a glance is that Colorado has finite water resources which are already entirely spoken for, but over extended, and expected (as they have) to decrease due less precipitation. I included the bit about Kansas as it is also applicable to industrial farming in Colorado, also illustrating some of the costs of such practices. One might also note that such intensive agriculture is also dependent on, in fertilizer, fuel, and other aspects, oil.


3) http://www.npg.org/poll0301/colorado.pdf

"Not long ago, Colorado was considered a leader in environmental protection . . . But now the momentum has turned, and Colorado is quickly losing its foothold at the forefront of environmentalism–in large part because good intentions have been overwhelmed by the state’s staggering population growth."

Within this report there is a wealth of information on Colorado's population, trends, consequences, and possible solutions.

"It is ironic that as many of Colorado’s urban areas try to stop sprawl, the purchase of water rights from farmers by urban communities actually encourages sprawl by making the land of little use for farming–thus encouraging its sale to developers.”34"

Uh, yeah. A more detailed discussion within of Colorado water usage and its allocation. Mentioned is the growing tension between urban and agricultural communities. Agriculture uses the lion's share of water in Colorado, although increasingly this is being subverted for urban use. Simply put, this means less farming, and increasingly the demise of agricultural communities. These also in decline due the advent of industrial agriculture. But usurption of water for urban use also affects the general environment and all species that live within and depend on a certain balance. Mankind, ironically, dependent for survival on many of the species (he) knows nothing of, or have little regard of, and often driving to extinction.

"Since most of Colorado’s population growth has occurred since the last major drought (1980-81), the next drought can be expected to affect far more people with far more serious consequences."

You can take this one to the bank. Pay attention and one will discover that water apportionment and schemes for its use are based on a historical anomaly of sorts, the wettest 100 years in the last 1,000. Skip forward to now, and all projections follow that recently observed, that this state will experience significantly less water than accustomed to. That entirely aside from any increase in population or additional demands upon it.

“I believe that the fate of the world depends on our ability to know when to abandon the infinite culture, and shift to the finite culture. Wait too long and we are doomed. Some will say if we shift too soon, we’ll give up a lot of fun and exhilaration. I’d rather we shift too soon. Like the Incas, we won’t get a chance to shift too late.”1

- Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm