Ideal population (bankrupt, to live, assessments)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE H

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.

I am trying to be realistic. I do not see Colorado being 51 million people any more then I see Colorado being 3 million or less. So I was just wondering what people thought the state should do to plan for the growth that will come here and using the 6.4 million figure seemed there most logical given the poling data.

[DOUBLE H]

The 51 million million people stat was meant for the people who actually voted for it. At first thought, I would have dismissed it as people who just wanted to be funny, but lately I believe those who voted that way are dead serious.

[Josseppie]

Maybe they are serious as I have no reason to think they are not but honestly I don't see how Colorado could have 51 million people in it, especially in the short run. California only has a population of 36 million people and look how big that state is. For Colorado to be that big Denver would be like LA, Pueblo like San Francisco and Colorado Springs like San Diego and that still leaves 15 million people to get Colorado at 51 million. In my opinion, that is a joke at best. So I was just trying to move the conversation forward using a more realistic number that won out on the number of votes.

[Idunn]

The most rational argument I can think of to ignore population growth and its consequences is because it is impossible to control it. Why bother putting out the fire in your house if it's going to burn to the ground anyway? Not sure about your house, but human population is possible to control. It is simply a matter of will. THAT could prove problematic, as humans have the tendency to ignore problems until they can't. But since the consequences in this instance so dire and unpleasant, perhaps a way can be found.

The best way possibly by example. Because of its present predominance in the world, and disproportionate use of resources, the United States could have a dramatic impact if it resolved to limit its population and consumption to a sustainable level, and did so. Given the veniality of most politicians in Washington DC, not to mention their constituents, this seems a nice idea likely ignored. You will witness carbon trading schemes and other posturing, but little of any substance, and not nearly soon enough. If something effective is to happen it will probably have to be from the grass roots up.

"In 2007 alone, state legislatures across the United States considered over 1,000 pieces of immigration-related legislation." [1]

The reasons for this are varied, sometimes possibly counterproductive in ascribing the many ills of society on illegal immigrants, without acknowledging the basic imbalances of their own society. But this still illustrates well a common perception, if flawed, of imbalance and that population (of some type) is the cause. This is a growing trend in the US, which is increasingly testing in courts the limits that states, cities, and local communities have to limit or otherwise define how they operate. It is an acknowledgement that a certain balance must be adhered to if the society to function well.

Boulder, CO was touched upon in this discussion, and it might well illustrate what is possible. In part because it has long since defined certain permanent borders for itself. In this sense it is like Colorado, the US, and other nations, which have largely and long since defined the boundaries of what they geographically control. Boulder also shares similarities with these other entities in not existing within itself; in commerce and trade, in resources (raw or manufactured), and indeed in flow of people, it is an open system dependent on the larger world. Moreover, while it may have static geographic borders, its influence and very nature of being is not designed to exist solely within them. Nor should it entirely, as communication and trade an essential ingredient of civilization. But this also witness in a civilization which consumes more than it gives back, thus out of balance, and unsustainable. Boulder, in other words, like much of the rest of the world, is living beyond its means.

So this dilemma perhaps best addressed at a local level. Start perhaps with a town such as Boulder. It could be any other town in Colorado, the State, any other town or state, this nation, and in extension the world. But to begin somewhere.

Boulder could begin in fomenting a collective understanding and agreement within the town to take concrete, positive steps towards a solution. That could easily be considered the most difficult task. But it will also mean a complete realignment in use of land, water, and all other resources, in understanding to what extent Boulder uses these (locally and internationally) and thus its actual carrying capacity. This implies its citizens will resolve not to use more than their fair share of the Earth's resources, this divided by a more proper 2 billion rather than 10 billion or more. It also means through zoning, business licenses, and a host of yet to be explored options, that it must seek to decrease its internal population as quickly as possible. It must determine an ideal population size and then find methods to keep it in equilibrium.

As of 2005 Boulder had a population of 91,685. [2] Given my rough estimate for the US and Colorado, this number should probably be about 6 times less, or roughly 16,000. Actually, given its prosperity and thus high per capita consumption of resources, this figure might even need to be less. The Boulder metro area was 280,440, so this likely reduced commensurately as well. A lot of people in Boulder might choke on their morning granola on learning this. But the understanding that however holistically each of them lives, at present they are literally taking the food out of someone else's mouth elsewhere to live as they do at present. So is the US for that matter, even if the greater increase in population in the current third world.

There obviously remains a lot of discussion on methods, not to mention the will to find it. But the understanding that such collective, community action is possible. Not necessarily easy, but in knowing it is either through such systematic, rational action, or continuing on and waiting until Mother Nature forces our hand. At that point She will likely be more cruel than kind.

***

I happened upon an article from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University [3], which sums up our predicament rather well. The following excerpts are from it, although the entire article bares reading. Any highlights are mine:

"The current world population is about 6 billion. Based on the present growth rate of 1.5% per year, the population is projected to double in approximately 46 years (PRB, 1996). Because population growth can not continue indefinitely, society can either voluntarily control its numbers or let natural forces such as disease, malnutrition, and other disasters limit human numbers (Pimentel et al., 1994a; Bartlett, 1997-98)."

"Currently, food shortages are critical, with more than 3 billion humans malnourished worldwide -- the largest number and proportion ever (FAO, 1992a, b; Neisheim, 1993; McMichael, 1993; Maberly, 1994; Bouis, 1995; WHO, 1995; WHO 1996)."

"An estimated 40,000 children die each day due to malnutrition and other diseases (WHO, 1992)."

"Accelerated declines in the U.S. standard of living are likely if the U.S. population increases as projected during the next 70 years, from 270 million in 1998 to 540 million (Grant, 1996; Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996)."

"In 1960, when the world population numbered about 3 billion, approximately 0.5 ha of cropland was available per capita worldwide. This half a hectare of cropland per capita is needed to provide a diverse, healthy, nutritious diet of plant and animal products -- similar to the typical diet in the United States and Europe (Lal, 1989; Giampietro and Pimentel, 1994). The average per capita world cropland now is only 0.27 ha, or about half the amount needed according to industrial nation standards (Table 1)."

"Worldwide, more than 10 million hectares of productive arable land are severely degraded and abandoned each year (Houghton, 1994; Pimentel et al., 1995)."

"The urgent need for more agricultural land accounts for more than 60% of the deforestation now occurring worldwide (Myers, 1990)."

"Water demands already far exceed supplies in nearly 80 nations of the world (Gleick, 1993)."

"The greatest threat to maintaining fresh water supplies is depletion of the surface and groundwater resources that are used to supply the needs of the rapidly growing human population. "

"In the United States, aquifer overdraft averages 25% higher than replacement rates (USWRC, 1979). In an extreme case like the Ogallala aquifer under Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, the annual depletion rate is 130% to 160% above replacement (Beaumont, 1985). If these rates continue, this aquifer, so vital to irrigation and countless communities, is expected to become non-productive by 2030 (Soule and Piper, 1992)."

"Overall, approximately 95% of the water in developing countries is polluted (WHO, 1992). There are, however, serious problems in the United States as well. EPA (1994) reports indicate that 37% of U.S. lakes are unfit for swimming due to runoff pollutants and septic discharge."

"Per capita use of fossil energy in the United States is 8,740 liters of oil equivalents per year, more than 12-times the per capita use in China (Table 1)."

"The world supply of oil is projected to last approximately 50 years at current production rates (BP, 1994; Ivanhoe, 1995; Campbell, 1997; Duncan, 1997; Youngquist, 1997)." (My note: Globally, we are at Peak Oil. Meaning from here on oil and other fossil fuels will become increasingly scarcer and more expensive. So that means a gradual, or precipitous if used unwisely, decline in reserves until at 50 years, or use your own projection, virtually nothing.)

"If all people in the world enjoyed a standard of living and energy consumption rate similar to that of the average American, and the world population continued to grow at a rate of 1.5%, the world's fossil fuel reserves would last about 15 years (Campbell, 1997; Youngquist, 1997)."

"Humans have no technologies which can substitute for the food -- and some medicines -- that plant species in wild biota provide."

"Ecosystem and species diversity serves as a vital reservoir of genetic material for the future development of agriculture, forestry, pharmaceutical products, and biosphere services. Yet, with each passing day an estimated 150 species are being eliminated because of increasing human numbers and certain human activities, including deforestation, soil and water pollution, pesticide use, urbanization, and industrialization (Reid and Miller, 1989). The rate of extinction of some groups of organisms is 1,000- to 10,000-times faster than that in natural systems (Kellert and Wilson, 1993)."

"Environmental pressure from the human population is the prime destructive force on Earth and is the primary cause of reduced biodiversity."

"Increases in diseases associated with diminishing quality of water, air, and soil resources provide evidence of a declining standard of living."

"The human population has enormous momentum for rapid growth because of the young age distribution both in the U.S population and in the world population (PRB, 1996). If the whole world agreed on and adopted a policy so that only 2.1 children were born per couple, more than 60 years would pass before the world population finally stabilized at approximately 12 billion (Weeks, 1986)."

"With the exhaustion of fossil fuels and associated increases in costs and pressure from global climate change, significant changes will also have to take place in energy use and practices."

"The adjustment of the world population from 6 billion to 2 billion could be made over approximately a century if the majority of the people of the world agree that protecting human health and welfare is vital, and all are willing to work to provide a stable quality of life for ourselves and our children."

"Fifty-eight academies of science, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, point out that "Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues" of population, natural resources, and sustainability (NAS, 1994, p. 13). The report points out that science and technology have a limited ability to meet the basic needs of a rapidly growing human population with rapidly increasing per capita demands."

"Historically, decisions to protect the environment have been based on isolated crises and are usually made only when catastrophes strike. Instead of examining the problem in a holistic manner, such ad hoc decisions have been designed to protect and/or promote a particular resource or aspect of human well-being in the short-term. Our concern, based on past experience, is that these urgent issues concerning human carrying capacity of the world may not be addressed until the situation becomes intolerable or, possibly, irreversible."

REFERENCES

1) Publication: States Take the Immigration Initiative
2) Boulder, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) 'Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers?'
David Pimentel, O. Bailey, P. Kim, E. Mullaney, J. Calabrese, L. Walman, F. Nelson, and X. Yao
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University
WILL LIMITS OF THE EARTH'S RESOURCES CONTROL HUMAN NUMBERS?

[jazzlover]

Those who do not subscribe to the concept of finite natural resources scoff at the idea of a Colorado population back at 1.6 million, but even that population may prove to be unsustainable here as numerous non-renewable resources--not just oil--deplete. They also scoff at the idea that without substantial population decline, the current material standard of living in this country and this state will not be sustainable.

These people are guilty of what a friend of mine calls "familiarity assumption." We tend to assume that the trends that we are familiar with over time will continue indefinitely. That, of course, assumes that all of the conditions necessary to allow the trend to continue do not change. That's the rub--they are changing, and at a rapid rate. Still, we ignore that, and hang on to the familiar--even when it becomes obvious that the rules have changed.

I think the other part that is very hard for us to accept is the fact the we, someone we love, our best friend, etc. may be among the group that does not survive what lies ahead. So, it is easy to sit in denial and say that what could be a deadly sea change for us simply is not going to happen. That may be mentally comforting, but it does nothing to help us be one of the survivors, and--in fact--may help to insure that we are not.

Sadly, I think we have moved beyond that point that a massive die-back of the human population worldwide can be prevented. The only question is what people and places will have the better odds for survival. Frankly, I don't see Colorado as it currently sits as being especially viable in either regard. So, that 1.6 million figure is not only likely, but maybe pretty optimistic. One thing is pretty certain, once the decline begins, it is likely to be rapid, dramatic, bloody, unfair, and unpredictable.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The growth in population since the 1500s has largely been a result of a golden age. Golden ages always have population growth. They do not last, they never do.

Conversely, dark ages feature population decline.

[Idunn]

"Human-induced climate change appears to be well underway in the Southwest. Recent warming is among the most rapid in the nation, significantly more than the global average in some areas. This is driving declines in spring snowpack and Colorado River flow. Projections suggest continued strong warming, with much larger increases under higher emissions scenarios compared to lower emissions scenarios. Projected summertime temperature increases are greater than the annual average increases in some parts of the region, and are likely to be exacerbated locally by expanding urban heat island effects. Further water cycle changes are projected, which, combined with increasing temperatures, signal a serious water supply challenge in the decades and centuries ahead." [1] (italics and highlight mine)


This report, 'Climate Change Impacts in the United States,' was just issued, an excellent resource for anyone concerned with the topic. The quote mentioned from the section concerning the Southwest US, although effects over the entire US covered in detail.

I'll admit this doesn't specifically concern human population, but feel free to mention it, as in a broader context our environment has everything to do with human affairs. Those specifically concerned with Colorado will learn such things as, "Today, even in normal decades, the Colorado River does not have enough water to meet the agreed-upon allocations. During droughts and under projected future conditions, the situation looks even bleaker." [2]

One might surmise some of the implications . . . or even read them.


REFERENCES

1) (Page #133) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - Home
2) (Page #134) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - Home
(Please note: reference is to main report page, with link to full PDF report right side of page.)

[john gunn]

What the doomsayers forget is that birth rates around the world are declining pretty much everywhere (although most developing countries have rates that are greater than 2.1) as people become more educated and richer (indeed one economist has suggested that prosperity means that "children have moved from a piece of capital investment to a luxury good"). In the developed world later marriage and changes in social mores have meant that rates in many countries are below replacement levels prompting some countries in Europe are worried that their populations are set to start falling (this is a major worry in Japan).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that the US is relatively underpopulated with a pop density of 31 people per square kilometre (37 people per sq km taking only the lower 48 into account).
this compares to:

114 people/sq km - France
197 people sq km - Italy
230 people sq km - Germany
246 people/sq km - United Kingdom
337 people/sq km - Japan

So even assuming that Alaska can't be developed any more and assuming a population growth rate of 2% it would take 56 years before the US is as densly populated as France is now. Using current growth rates of 0.9% and allowing the population of Alaska to increase in line with the US population would increase the time needed to 145 years.

Even though Colorado has a population density of 16 people per square km any "population apocalypse" will take even longer.

The only point I will concede is that the fastest growth is going to be in small, medium and large urban areas rather than the largest cities so Fort Collins, Pueblo etc are likely to grow faster than Denver or CS.

[Josseppie]

One thing I am finding out is a lot of major cities in Colorado have a build out population. I am not exactly sure what they are but it would be interesting to know as that could influence how the state grows. For example I hear the city of Denver will max out at about 700,000 people and Fort Collins will be maxed out at 350,000.

[jkanderson521]

Originally Posted by john gunn

What the doomsayers forget is that birth rates around the world are declining pretty much everywhere (although most developing countries have rates that are greater than 2.1) as people become more educated and richer (indeed one economist has suggested that prosperity means that "children have moved from a piece of capital investment to a luxury good"). In the developed world later marriage and changes in social mores have meant that rates in many countries are below replacement levels prompting some countries in Europe are worried that their populations are set to start falling (this is a major worry in Japan).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that the US is relatively underpopulated with a pop density of 31 people per square kilometre (37 people per sq km taking only the lower 48 into account).
this compares to:

114 people/sq km - France
197 people sq km - Italy
230 people sq km - Germany
246 people/sq km - United Kingdom
337 people/sq km - Japan

So even assuming that Alaska can't be developed any more and assuming a population growth rate of 2% it would take 56 years before the US is as densly populated as France is now. Using current growth rates of 0.9% and allowing the population of Alaska to increase in line with the US population would increase the time needed to 145 years.

Even though Colorado has a population density of 16 people per square km any "population apocalypse" will take even longer.

The only point I will concede is that the fastest growth is going to be in small, medium and large urban areas rather than the largest cities so Fort Collins, Pueblo etc are likely to grow faster than Denver or CS.

Excellent post, the only population apocalypse is the influx of us California Economic Refugee's bring our high paying jobs and corporate tax revenue increasing the robustness of the Colorado economy

This is another major problem and all the doom and gloom about "carrying capacity of the planet" , and other intellectually vacuous predicitions ignore the true threats that are immediate and present. For example, in the US, Gen X and Gen Y collectivly represent a cohort of about 44 million people, while the Baby Boomers represent a cohort of about 77 million. The entitlement programs that they have structured their lives around and expect to receive were initially built on <i>their</i> parents generation which assumed an ever greater and expanding population. There are now far fewer workers to pay taxes (and that share is declining as well) and support these systems that will have more dependands than ever. However, unlike child dependents who will one day grow up and produce, elderly dependents have no option but to consume more and more until death.

The Baby Boomers inherited more wealth than any other generation in history, they had little to no wants, in the US, were the beneficiaries of a nation that was the most powerful and most wealthy. They spent and cared not about the future because they assumed as every generation before them, that their children would take care of them (except they had fewer children). However, unlike many generations before them, they cared more about themselves, than their children, they spent their children's inheritance with smugness and pride, then moved onto their grandchildrens and their great grandchildren. Yet, there won't be as many children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren as they expected and that outside of great war or famine has never been experienced on a global scale in human history.

**Obviously "BabyBoomers" is a broad brush and many are not like that, but for discussions of cohorts it rings true** Check out the front page article in USA Today last Wednesday about how GenX and Gen Y fully expect to have a much lower standard of living than their parents, again, not ever expected in this county.

How long will the younger generation slave to support outmoded entitlement models that keep them in bondage for a lifetime? Will GenX and GenY and so forth really work all that hard just to have it sucked away? Will there be a major generational war? What will become of the BabyBoomers as they become more and more enfeebled and have no real power to enforce their demands yet are fully dependent on the younger generation to toil to keep them in luxury?

There is a fascinating book by Ben Wattenberg called Fewer: How the New Demogrpahy of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future.

No prediction is perfect, but we are closer to what he is outlining than some Population Bomb distortion by the likes of Ehrlich