When I started this poll I wasn't sure what my answer would be, other than feeling Colorado already suffering the effects of over population and having seen many instances of it. I've yet to vote, delaying until I could be fairly certain, but in having looked into this issue further have a preliminary idea. More on that later.
A number of details follow below, but a succinct introduction could be analogous to a homeowner who purchased their residence with no money down, hoping the lender's assurance they could refinance the draconian terms later to be true. All this while having tenuous employment which is sure to end, and many bills even now covered through an assortment of credit cards which are nearly maxed out. Life is comfortable and pleasant in the moment but the future doesn't bare thinking about. In short someone who is living well beyond their means, and that someone is us, as Coloradans, as the United States, and as the better part of this world. The facts speak for themselves.
Please note that the statistics given may not be entirely accurate, they tend to vary from one source to another. But do generally agree and taken in whole present a rather comprehensive picture. References follow at close of this piece.
One might begin by understanding that Colorado is incapable of feeding itself, it necessarily imports food to do so. "To produce the food for each American, a total of 1.3 ha (3 acres) of cropland and pasture land is farmed..." Broken down, this means that, "Each American now requires 0.5 ha (1.2 acres) of cropland and 0.8 ha (1.8 acres) of pasture land for food production." (Reference #1)
Remember that as America operates it requires about 3 acres per person to feed them. Then that, "Colorado acreage made arable by irrigation has dropped to fewer than 2.4 million acres..." (Reference #2)
There would be some farm and ranch land beyond this not requiring irrigation, but likely not much in this state. A state that had an estimated population of 4,665,177 in 2005 and 4,939,456 in 2008. (References #3, #4)
Also that this growth is
exponential, which means that it grows faster with each passing year. The graph on this page illustrates this effect quite well (Reference #5):
Colorado Population and Immigration Data, Projections and Graphs - CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
By this math alone the conclusion that Colorado's population too large to be fed by its arable land, and this discrepancy increasing exponentially.
The argument might be made that the food deficit made up from other sources, and in that offered, such as skiing and tourism, it can be paid for. This is true to an extent but the current model is not sustainable, which we'll get to in a moment, but for now just understand that Colorado must import food to live.
However the source of this food, within and without Colorado, is under great stress and is itself not sustainable. Just within Colorado, "Every hour, ten acres of its farmland and open space are lost to development." (Reference #5)
The vast productivity of American agriculture that was ushered in by the 'green revolution' is reliant on a number of factors which will not last. For instance, "the soil on U.S. cropland is eroding 10 times faster than sustainable soil replacement (NAS, 2003). Pasture land is also losing soil at 6 to 10 times above sustainability rates." Then also that, "Currently, groundwater overdraft is 25% higher than its natural replenishment..."(Both, Reference #1)
Look into it and you will discover that most modern American agriculture is only so productive because it is rapidly using up resources in land and water in a few decades which will require thousands of years to replenish as they were. This in itself is dire enough, but one factor alone will see the end of this, and that is oil. This nation, and agriculture as we know it, cannot exist without oil. What we have is allowed by the vast amount of energy stored within oil, and we are presently at the historical peak of global oil reserves.
Peak Oil is a fact, and it means that globally mankind is at the top of a bell curve and it's all down hill from here, with less oil available every year at higher and higher cost. Remember these are reserves (proven oil in the ground), but in the short term mankind will probably extract even more at a higher rate, which will make the inevitable decline all the steeper, quicker and more precipitous.
American's already use more than their share of oil, but will compete with such countries as China for a dwindling resource. "The world per capita petroleum production in 1999 is less than half a gallon per person per day, while in the U.S. we consume more than four times as much. ...we can expect world petroleum production to peak before the year 2010. ...petroleum production will start its inevitable decline toward zero, but we will be faced with a growing world population and a growing per capita demand for petroleum. This decline can be expected to trigger a major escalation of petroleum prices." (Reference #6)
While these trends are understood and clear, "...even as a nation may attempt to cope with its deteriorating circumstances, a nation can be in chronic, deteriorating, and substantial deficit over a considerable period of time. The reason is due to capacity stored over previous years and imported capacity. Cutting or burning a forest at a rate exceeding its regeneration is an example of consuming stored capacity; food aid is imported capacity." (Reference #7)
Among the implications that the surplus of food American's take for granted will in the future not be available to poorer nation's that live or die by food aid. "Although firmly in the unsustainable camp, the U.S. is a substantial exporter of food —exporting domestic capacity. However, the expected "surplus capacity" (food production) is heavily dependent on the "Green Revolution" and it requirements for substantial energy in the form of oil and natural gas and dependent on substantial volumes of water. With apologies to the original author, "agriculture is a means of converting oil and natural gas into food." However, the timeline of these resources is rapidly drawing to a close. When these commodities become increasingly scarce —sometime in the present decade, the Green Revolution's dream will fade —food and its export will decline in tandem.
"The bottom line is that U.S. agriculture will soon begin —if it hasn't already, a return to an earlier agriculture stage using seed (hopefully saved, archived older versions?) that are adapted to local environments requiring less artificial energy and water for crop production. Thus, India and other deficient nations now dependent on exported American capacity —temporarily increased by technology and energy— will find it increasingly necessary to rely on domestic ecological capacities. In this regard India is merely one example of many profoundly deficient nations." (Reference #7
Not only will there be a marked decrease in surplus food at higher costs, but presently the US and other wealthy countries use resources out of proportion to their nation's carrying capacity. By implication and fact this means there is less than a fair share of same for other nations. "The west European nations collectively have a 1995 population departure from a balanced population of approximately 202 million people. This is nearly twice the imbalance of the 1995 U.S. population." (Reference #7)
Put another way, a country such as Germany has an ecological deficit of -178.9%. With a population of 52,504,340, to be in balance and use only its share its population would need to be 29,340,660. The same applies to most other wealthy countries, with Australia as an exception. (Reference #7)
Countries such as India have nowhere to go. It's living standard is generally so low already that the only way it can improve its prospects is by radically decreasing its population. "Notwithstanding the socioeconomic implications, any attempt to lower its Footprint —further reduce living standards— will do little to ameliorate its dilemmas. Paradoxically, its low Footprint also suggests that it will require liberal reductions in population in order to bring India into balance." (Reference #7)
"Wackernagel and Rees calculate that there are 7.4 billion hectares (3 billion acres) of capacity available for humans in the world. With a world population of six billion at the beginning of 2000, the implication is that today, on average, there is an inadequate and grimly unsustainable 1.23ha (or 1/2 an acre) available per person." (Reference #7)
Remember the American usage of 3 acres per person? One might dismiss this as bad luck for the many while we still have our own, but we don't for a number of reasons.
One is war. Conflicts inevitably arise from hungry, desperate people. As we have repeatedly witnessed. Do you recall Afghanistan? "The DoD reports that in 2008, obligations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities related to the war on terrorism have averaged about $11 billion per month." (Reference #8) My understanding that the cost in Afghanistan alone is presently at least 2b per month. In different terms, what could your community or state do with 2b, or even a fraction of it? This is what you are spending elsewhere because that region out of balance. As we are learning Pakistan is instrumental to what occurs and what success may be achieved in Afghanistan. Pakistan has a population of 176,242,949 within a landmass of 803,940 sq km, being slightly less than twice the size of California. With a population of 36,756,666 many Californians consider their state over populated, and it far more arable. (Reference #9)
Like it or not one has to acknowledge the problems of so many desperately poor halfway around the world are also ours, if for no other reason than to contain them is costing us serious money.
Another associated reason why none of this can be ignored is demographics. "At the current rate of increase of
1.1% per year (
highlight mine) including legal immigration, the U.S. population is projected to double and reach more than 520 million by the year 2050. If this growth rate does not increase further, as it has recently, by the year 2100 the United States will have a population of 1 billion or a population similar to that existing now in China." (Reference #10)
So what you ask? Well, there are certain limits, such as water. "Americans currently use about 1,450 gallons/day/capita (g/d/c) for all their needs, with the largest amount expended in agriculture. If water management is substantially improved, the projected 520 million Americans will have about 700 g/d/c in 2050 (Table l)." (Reference #10)
This means more people sharing an ever small slice of the same pie. A pie, by the way, which will be shrinking because we are rapidly exhausting resources this growth is dependent upon. "Almost a decade ago, 1997, the world exceeded its ecological carrying capacity by 39 percent or more than 2.3 billion people. If the world’s average Footprint at the time were the goal, the result would be that the world could support roughly 3.5 billion inhabitants.
The UN currently projects the world’s population at 2050 to be between nine and ten billion. In order for that population to be sustainable, the highest average possible living standard would be a Footprint of approximately 0.8, about today’s living standard and Footprint of profoundly unfortunate Ethiopia." (
highlight mine) (Reference #11)
Ethiopia has a footprint of 0.8. The United States by comparison, since we use so many resources, has a footprint of 5.0. Aside from not being at all fair, it is not sustainable because we are rapidly exhausting these necessary resources. With resources as they are at present, however, this translates into an Ethiopian standard of living for everyone if the world's population to grow to 9.25b. For everyone to enjoy the present US standard of living would require a global population of 1.48b. (That's b as in Billion). (Reference #7)
So, we have a system which presently provides a suitable standard of living for only a minority of earth's populace, and even this is not sustainable.
Or if you prefer, "...these advocates generally support unimpeded population growth because total GDP frequently increases with increasing populations. ...the data suggests that contrary to the promise of economists, increasing populations actually decrease the national per capita standard of living." (Reference #7)
There is a historical precedent for what we face, in microcosm. A place called
Easter Island. You may recall it as best known as the land inhabited by mysterious enigmatic stone heads dotted about the small island. European explorers arriving there were baffled because it was evident the few poor people inhabiting this largely barren island could never have accomplished this. Only in time have we learned once long before the island and the life it supported far different. Thus a lesson. "A more foreboding situation exists if the global ecological capacity and Footprint, exceeds the world's balance point —the Easter Island lesson; at best the situation becomes a zero-sum game. The inhabitants of Easter Island did not have the ability to import additional capacity. The Easter Islanders were fully aware of the limits of their small isolated island, nevertheless were unable to achieve a governing approach or social consensus to establish a sustainable society." (Reference #7)
This is a fascinating and disturbing story. A brief account can be accessed here:
*Easter Island
(Reference #12)
All this may have seemed to wander a long way from Colorado, but has everything to do with what transpires here. As seen, we do not live on an island, nor self-sufficient, but dependent on our larger nation and world. Many of the resources we depend upon are finite, and these being rapidly depleted. Moreover as one of the wealthy few our impact upon the world is magnified and far more per person than someone from a place such as India or China. Thus the populace of Colorado are not only using someone else's resources to live as they do but in a manner which will fairly soon exhaust many of them for all.
When we speak of population and growth we have to understand the implications and true costs. We might see this reflected in longer and harder commutes, higher housing costs, or crowded hiking trails, but these but symptoms and the tip of the iceberg. We are not only living through an economic and housing bubble but a far larger bubble begun with the advent of the industrial revolution. As illustrated, this bubble is not sustainable and must end, and mankind is on the cusp of this. Anything we do now to further and perpetuate this system will only make the end of it all the harder. The harbingers of this, the signs, are all about us if we will see. In dying forests and so much else we are being reminded that as a species we have chosen a path to ruin.
There is hope, if little time. Even in acting now that we have begun must play itself out. In part this means that the mean temperature of our earth will increase no matter what we do. But we do not have to add further to it, and if so the result catastrophic. This means at last we must learn a new way, of moderation and balance. It need not mean a meagre life that so many already suffer, but it must be within natural limits. Which at a minimum means far fewer humans on this planet.
We have such an opportunity and chance. A world of true abundance for all, or something diametrically different.
REFERENCES
1)
Land, Water and Energy Versus The Ideal U.S. Population
2)
The browning of green Colorado : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News
3)
Colorado: History, Geography, Population, and State Facts — Infoplease.com
4)
Colorado QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
5)
Colorado Population and Immigration Data, Projections and Graphs - CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
6)
Bartlett: Colorado and the Population Problem
7(
Determining Sustainable Population Levels using Footprint Data
8)
What Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror Has Cost | Black and White
9(
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/pk.html
10)
FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY
11)
The Social Contract - A Sustainable U.S. Population: When?
12)
*Easter Island
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Within this island
Linear Mode
