Ideal population (Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins: house, university, taxes)

[CosmicWizard]

jazzlover wrote:

Listen, Cosmic, I was born here--and I haven't contributed AT ALL to population growth because I haven't had any children. So, take that comment and stuff it! One of the reasons I'm childless is because I do care about this place--more than most anyone, I suspect. I also put my money and my effort where my mouth is--I do volunteer work every year to help preserve this place, along with its history and heritage. In fact, while other people are off somewhere else screwing off on their vacations, doing that volunteer work is where I spend most of my vacation time. I'm glad to do it because I think it's important to give back something to this place that I love. So, I DO practice what I preach. What I don't need is somebody telling me that I'm not doing enough to "offset" my presence here.

Jazz....based on what you say, I recocognize that you are indeed doing some good things, carrying your own weight ( and then some ), and practicing what you preach. My post was not intended to diminish your efforts in any way. I've been feeling kind of mean spirited the past few days, and making some rather blunt statements. I apologize for offending you.

I still believe that the ultimate action to counter a perception of an over-populated state would be to move on, rather than attempting to keep people out or expecting anyone else to leave. As Idunn pointed out: however,

it comes at the expense of someone and somewhere else. As we all live on a single planet, this in a sense a zero sum equation, and moving people about without decreasing their number or demand on resources, more likely adding to this, is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

But it sure beats whining, complaining, and blaming other people which does absolutely nothing to change the situation

[Idunn]

THERE IS a cartoon which looks out across the span of the earth and all the people on it, in this instance nothing but as far as the eye can see, each with about 9 square feet to themselves. The point being there is literally no more room left, each person with but 3 by 3 feet. The humor lies in one fellow turning to another and saying (I'm paraphrasing), "I'd like to make you a tempting offer for your space."



Obviously it would be impossible for mankind to literally cover the world in such a fashion, not to mention unpleasant, but it begs the question that if not this, then what? At what level should mankind populate this planet or, perhaps more to the point, would nature allow?

You may be interested to know that in density a lot, or little, is possible. The Denver, CO metro area has a population of 2,927,911 (2006 estimate), although ranking only 17th in the US. The city and county of Denver has a population density of 1,428 per square kilometer. [1] It might be more ambitious. In contrast, the Mumbai metro area of northwest India has a population of 20,870,764, and a population density of 22,000 per square kilometer. [2] Mumbai is India's largest city, and also its financial center. Its citizens enjoy a per capita income three times the national average; the citizens of Mumbai have a per capita income of US $980 per year.

I've noted with some bemusement the majority in polling believe Colorado best off with an additional 1.4 million people. Although closely followed by those believing the ideal 3.4 million less. Strictly by the numbers, thus far, the majority of respondents actually favor a decrease in population of some sort. But whether the figure higher or lower, few thus far have suggested how it might be accomplished.

Proponents of growth may assume all can transpire as it has thus far, with little effort on their part, and the population they like achieved automatically. Such a presumption overlooks at least two key points. One is how they propose to sustain even the population Colorado presently has, and its standard of living. As previously mentioned, even the present population strains available resources, using them more quickly than they can be replenished (if at all). So the question, from whom or where will these come? The other point is ultimate size. Save for those only voting for a population of 51,200,000 because they could not a higher, anyone else has chosen a certain ideal (if high) level. But this then presumes that the population stay there and not exceed it. Growth is relatively easy as long as the resources available, kind of like living on credit cards until the bill arrives. But then what?

And this question all the more pertinent for those believing Colorado's population should decrease. Wishing for it won't make it so; you are witnessing exactly the opposite. If thinking some number an ideal you'd like to have but see no real prospect of, then why not ignore the issue to the same extent everyone else does? It only remains fantasy. But for those believing this question will actually have a profound impact on they and their children's future, what DO you do? Then the question as pertinent and pressing as whether you lock the front door at night, or in how you drive. Or if you care to remain employed. Then one might be faced with the prospect of a larger world that seems not to care at all, with you all the while knowing it does, left wondering how any of this might change for the better before it really changes for the worse. And for those in this camp, where are your solutions?

My suggestion that until human perception shifts nothing significant will change. That the majority of people on this planet will carry on as usual, with their wars, famines, plagues, and rapacious indolence, until Mother Nature really catches up with them. Unless something within them changes. Unless they then decide to act decidedly different.

In remembering that Colorado is not an island, what then the solutions that will allow her and all others to prosper? If not all others, then how will you conquer, or at least keep them at bay? If in inclusion, then how extend true prosperity to all? How will it be done? Suitable solutions are more than welcome . . .

Or, if this an impossible proposition best discussed in theory, the more rational approach to retire to the smoke room to enjoy a fine cigar and glass of chilled champagne, nonchalantly watching all the others scurry about, while we appreciate with an artists eye the many glistening facets of the approaching iceberg?

1) Denver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) Mumbai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Idunn]

"What we risk is the destruction of civilization, everything we fought for, this fragile little craft that navigated the centuries, the millennia, to come to this particular point. It will have been done in a flash of consumption, bad judgement, violence, and injustice."

- David Orr, Chair, Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, from 'The 11th Hour'

If one is the least amenable to suggestion the 2007 film 'The 11th Hour' is sure to have a profound impact. For anyone at all aware of some of these issues, this film puts most of the pieces together in a comprehensive, graphic, and easy to understand way. It highlights very well our present dilemma, and also our possible salvation. Quite well crafted. Recommended for anyone with the least concern for Colorado and this planet.

It is available from such sources as Amazon (with reviews at this site):
Amazon.com: The 11th Hour: Leonardo DiCaprio, Thom Hartmann, Kenny Ausubel, James Woolsey, Wangari Maathai, David Suzuki, Stephen Hawking, Paul Hawken, Michel Gelobter, David Orr (IX), Gloria Flora, Bill McKibben, Wallace J. Nichols (II), Andrew Weil

Also to purchase or rent from Amazon, or iTunes.

"The problem that confronts us is that every living system in the biosphere is in decline, and the rate of decline is accelerating. There isn't one peer reviewed scientific article in the past 20 years that's been published that contradicts that statement. Living systems are coral reefs, there are climatic stability, forest cover, the oceans themselves, aquifers, water, the conditions of the soil, biodiversity, they go on and on as they get more specific but the fact is there isn't one living system that is stable, or is improving. And those living systems provide the basis for all life."
- Paul Hawken, Author, Environmentalist, Entrepreneur, from 'The 11th Hour'


"Well to me the value is the healing power that comes from getting that it's not just global warming, it's not just fossil fuel dependency, it's not just soil erosion, it's not just chemical contamination of our land and water, it's not just the population problem, and it's not just all of those. The deterioration of the environment, of our planet, is an outward mirror of an inner condition. Like inside, like outside. And that is a part of the great work."
- Wes Jackson, President, The Land Institute, from 'The 11th Hour'

[BayAreaHillbilly]

My solution is to prepare for:
- A new little ice age (or worse)
- Nuclear war
- Massive failure of JIT systems
- Complete failure of organized agriculture
- Complete failure of utilities

What is your solution?

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

My solution is to prepare for:
- A new little ice age (or worse)
- Nuclear war
- Massive failure of JIT systems
- Complete failure of organized agriculture
- Complete failure of utilities

What is your solution?

To prevent all of the above

[Josseppie]

Well it looks like 6.4 million is the winner. Sure 1.6 million has a lot of votes but realistically that will never happen as the state would have to lose to much population. Now I would like to move the conversation forward and ask everyone what they think the large cities population will be to make the state 6.4 million people? What kind of infrastructure will we need etc....

[zenkonami]

6.4 million might be sustainable (and I'm sure those with more direct evidence can more solidly confirm or deny this) if all Coloradans modified their behavior and outlook on the state. Less with the grass watering, more commitment from the cities to protect agriculture, alternative energy production, as well as re-engagement with land management (some of those forests really need to burn), and promotion of land use that does not include energy inefficiency (i.e., tighter communities, less sprawl) - while maintaining ethical, business friendly practices.

Maybe that's asking a lot of a frontier state, but it would seem Colorado is less "politicized" when it comes to issues of environment and commerce. After all, people want to make money and support themselves and their families, but they also want to live in a gorgeous place (whether it be in the deserts, mountains or plains) and of course I'm sure everyone would like to have all this with as little interference as possible from government or big (particularly non-Coloradan) business. A somewhat libertarian state with strong social ethics.

I very much doubt there would be any way to cap that population though, and without measures in place, a larger population simply becomes unsustainable...only question being whether the market takes care of that (and if so, would it happen too late for Colorado to recover), or the government (will of the people, here...but would people fear too much "control?")

Infrastructure: High Speed Rail from Cheyenne to Pueblo...and possibly right on to Albuquerque. Improvements in service across the state would also be helpful...certainly Denver to Grand Junction and on to Salt Lake...service across the state to Kansas City would be great as well, though that may be more wishful thinking. Flying or even driving might just be more efficient for that trip (would love to be proven wrong on this, as I'm quite biased to rail.)

More density, less sprawl. Sorry, suburbanites. Not saying it all has to center around one city center here, and having a few strong business cores is likely a good thing, but there are those who live on the opposite side of town from where they work. If that's the best they can afford then I think we need better public transit options at least...but if it's just living the dream of owning one's own castle, sacrifices have to be made. I'd like a lot of things, but some battles you have to pick and choose when deciding what the future is going to look like a few generations down the line (or at least what they'll have to work with.) Again, it's not really something government can mandate, but it can be encouraged by promoting a diverse business base and encouraging a different kind of development pattern. As for what sprawl is already there, I just think there need to be improvements in the business base of those areas...if the housing density isn't going to increase, perhaps we can still increase the business density and make offices, services and industry more accessible to those living in the area...so long as that doesn't just keep pushing housing developments further out.

Infrastructure is expensive. That "other state" (the one that shall not be named ) is struggling hard right now with budget problems for reasons including wanting to have it all...good schools, good infrastructure, good services...but not wanting to pay for any of it. Colorado has to throw in some serious long term resource issues on top of that, and sometimes we have to pay in ways other than dollars...but if everyone pitches in, maybe things can be improved.

Of course, if any of these actions improve the quality of life of Colorado, two other things will likely happen...more people will want to move there and costs will go up. The cats out of the bag on this one, and I think some civic engagement and discussion on the matter is badly needed. Downtown wannabe yuppies, suburban supermoms, resort trust funders and grain farmers (any of those not already participating) need to get more active in what the future of Colorado is going to be...else there may not be much of one.

(Why does it always sound harsher in writing?)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Well it looks like 6.4 million is the winner. Sure 1.6 million has a lot of votes but realistically that will never happen as the state would have to lose to much population. Now I would like to move the conversation forward and ask everyone what they think the large cities population will be to make the state 6.4 million people? What kind of infrastructure will we need etc....

Big enough to be real ****holes to live in, unless things change a whole bunch in how we occupy the landscape. Wait a minute, a number of them ALREADY are ****holes.

[mod cut]

[DOUBLE H]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Well it looks like 6.4 million is the winner. Sure 1.6 million has a lot of votes but realistically that will never happen as the state would have to lose to much population. Now I would like to move the conversation forward and ask everyone what they think the large cities population will be to make the state 6.4 million people? What kind of infrastructure will we need etc....

Another way to look at this, uh, poll is that 27 people are voting for the population to be 3,200,000 or less.

And seven people want the population of this state to be 51 million people. Hmmm.

[treedonkey]

I just finished watching the entire 'Centennial' series on DVD, and this is exactly what that whole movie is about... Takers vs. Caretakers

So regardless of when we arrived here, we should each ask ourselves, which one am I?