Ideal population (Pueblo: cost, agriculture, to move)

[Josseppie]

The numbers came out for Pueblo and they look good even during this recession. I would like to see the city top 110,000 by the 2010 census then see larger growth in the next decade. Here is what the Chieftain said:

"DESPITE THE troubling economic times, Pueblo's population has grown this decade by 10.8 percent to 156,737 people countywide - a total that includes 108,747 in the city of Pueblo, according to a 2008 Census Bureau survey."



The link: http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/09/24/editorial/doc4abac1df32e1d905488936.txt

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

The numbers came out for Pueblo and they look good even during this recession. I would like to see the city top 110,000 by the 2010 census then see larger growth in the next decade. Here is what the Chieftain said:

"DESPITE THE troubling economic times, Pueblo's population has grown this decade by 10.8 percent to 156,737 people countywide - a total that includes 108,747 in the city of Pueblo, according to a 2008 Census Bureau survey."



The link: http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/09/24/editorial/doc4abac1df32e1d905488936.txt

Maybe someday (but I doubt it) the clueless hordes will figure out that population growth does not equate to economic growth in a resource-constrained environment like the one we are entering now. In fact, it will cause just the opposite. Because that is all you seem capable of wishing for--more population, more sprawl, more water diversions, etc.--I fervently hope that you will be the one--not those who recognize the damage of such folly--who reap the full bitter harvest of what you are wishing for.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Maybe someday (but I doubt it) you and the bunch of clueless hordes like you will figure out that population growth does not equate to economic growth in a resource-constrained environment like the one we are entering now. In fact, it will cause just the opposite. Because that is all you seem capable of wishing for--more population, more sprawl, more water diversions, etc.--I fervently hope that you will be the one--not those who recognize the damage of such folly--who reap the full bitter harvest of what you are wishing for.

Not sure that resources are all that constrained. I see and hear of no shortages at all in wind, sun, coal, iron ore, natural gas, even oil is abundant at this time and maybe longer term too as more vehicles come on line using natural gas or electric power. Uranium may be constrained if all the new nuclear power plants that are planned actually do get built.

Still, growth for the sake of growth is not all it's cracked up to be. Pueblo's alternative energy sector may in fact grow some decent jobs for people in the Pueblo area, which is fine, but will mostly be at the expense of coal mining, which does not bother me given the dirty nature of that stuff. I prefer to see wind and solar produce our electricity (and recharge our electric cars) and save the coal for metallurgical purposes.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Not sure that resources are all that constrained. I see and hear of no shortages at all in wind, sun, coal, iron ore, natural gas, even oil is abundant at this time and maybe longer term too as more vehicles come on line using natural gas or electric power. Uranium may be constrained if all the new nuclear power plants that are planned actually do get built.

I just posted this link on another thread, but it is apropos here. Very troubling reading:

Simmons

Especially, this part from Simmons:

I believe:
–Oil and gas flows have probably now peaked
–Few new frontiers of sizable new energy supply exist: all are extremely costly and risky to produce
–The need to drill more wells has to rise exponentially and costs to drill will rise even faster
–Most non-conventional oil and gas supplies will not be commercially viable
–Most alternate energy supplies will have difficulty becoming viable

And this:

■USGS now proclaims the Bakken Shale Oil Play has 2.5 -3 times more oil to extract than Saudi Arabia‟s remaining oil.
■Shell Oil/SLB claim that Colorado/Utah‟s Oil Shale can now be tapped & resources are enormous.
FACTS PROVE BOTH CLAIMS ARE DELUSIONAL.

Simmons, by the way, is a Utah native, with long familiarity with Colorado and Utah oil shale.

And, finally:

■Supplies of high quality fossil fuels will soon become scarce.
■Demand will not naturally slow down.
■Price of oil and natural gas has to soon soar.
■The great risk is that demand will outstrip supply and create instant “run on the bank”.

These are but snippets of Simmons' presentations. They should have Coloradans and all Americans alarmed--and motivated to go on a conservation binge like nothing ever seen, but we would rather lie to ourselves that some great alternative fuel salvation lies right around the corner. That is one big-*** delusion that we are going to pay dearly for.

[Josseppie]

Jazz,

What size do you think Pueblo should be?

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Jazz,

What size do you think Pueblo should be?

For its location, Pueblo is probably at its ideal size right now, unlike its neighbors to the north--Denver metro, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs--that, in my opinion, are double their ideal size right now.

[brightdoglover]

I've said it before. If there is, in fact, some technology or solution that is huge and supposedly around the corner, then wait for it to become a reality. Don't act on the premise that it'll show up when "they" get it right. Chickens, hatched, lather, rinse, repeat.

[brightdoglover]

I've read recently that there is some rare earth mineral that is required for hybrid engines and wind turbines, and is mostly found in... China. Our new best friends, next to our beloved Saudis.
If Al Qaeda or some other extreme group could knock off the Saudi monarchy and control the largest oil reserves in the world (by a factor of four), gee, what do you think they'd do with it? I'd bet something more than raising the prices.
I remember during the $4/gallon days that some people seriously suggested opening up the strategic national reserves to cheapen gasoline. I fear that people will do anything or support anything to maintain an unsustainable way of life/driving.
A note on growth. Every time a population doubles, its infrastructure and resources and such must double just to maintain the current level of functioning. (See Under: Third World cities).
One third of the planet currently lives in squirming, complete squalor and poverty. Another third lives a few steps above. Then there's the third that includes us. Is very lopsided resource use and wealth sustainable? True, the starving billions seem too beaten down to raise trouble (although one might consider the complete misery of so many human lives).
I saw Cite Soleil, Port au Prince's major slum, a growing population of 100,000+ built on a garbage dump. Not exactly an argument for the wonders of growth.
I prefer to think of (or wish for) steady-state life, not "sustainable growth." Or, like many, fewer people *everywhere*, less use of resources, likely mostly in developed countries where we still have them to use up.
I also think that having more than two biological children per couple (or actually, per woman) is immoral, when the people involved have access to a choice. Immoral.

[CosmicWizard]

brightdoglover wrote:

I also think that having more than two biological children per couple (or actually, per woman) is immoral, when the people involved have access to a choice. Immoral.

I don't consider it immoral, just plain stupid and inconsiderate of others.

[Josseppie]

Using the growth rate from Pueblo in the 1950's I figured out what Pueblo would be in 2060 if we started growing like that in the next decade. This is the kind of growth I would like to see and if we get such developments like the Pueblo Springs Ranch and the Colorado Energy park that might happen!

2010 110,000 plus 40% or 44,000 to 154,000

2020 154,000 plus 40% or 61,600 to 215,600

2030 215,600 plus 40% or 86,240 to 301,840

2040 301,840 plus 40% or 120,736 to 422,576

2050 422,576 plus 40% or 169,030 to 591,606

Project population of Pueblo in 2060 would be 591,606.