Ideal population (Denver, Pueblo, Boulder: real estate, construction, schools)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by bproven

Exactly - the limiter here is WATER. No matter what people want. I say no more than 6-7mil - ever. Doesn't matter how many reservoirs you build there is only so much water to go around before we hit the limit. I really hope we cap out at a sustainable level that makes for a nice standard of living. Personally, I think we are pretty close to that right now.

Jossepphie :: 1 million people in Pueblo? Give me a break. Your city (and Fort Collins as you mention) would be better off with no more than 250K or so and at the MAX CO Springs size pop. Anything more than that it will be hell and smart growth ain't going to save it. Why would you wish that on your city if you love it? I'd rather the pops stay like they are and I live in Fort Collins myself. I think that if you want a city that size you might want to consider moving to Denver or to another large city. You can enjoy that life today without bloating up Pueblo or FC or any other CO city.

This is all moot anyway as I believe resource constraints will kick in to limit population. My only hope is that they kick in early before CO becomes a crappy place to live...

I can understand what you are saying about Fort Collins in fact I read where they are not planing on being much larger then 250,000 people.

Pueblo is different though as early on we were developed to be one of the large industrial centers in the west, I know I keep saying that but its true. Pueblo's downtown is geographically as large as Denver's, that means that we could have the same kind of population they do with highrises and they would not be out of place or cause our standard of living to go down. We have heavy industrial parks, tech parks, business parks, energy parks a combination that is not found in many cities in the west. In fact, if you look at Pueblo's infrastructure it closely resembles Denver's more then any other city in the state. The new bridges CDOT is building resemble the ones going into downtown Denver. One example is the new 4th street bridge that is 6 lanes and will have the largest span between piers in the state. That is why I believe its not a matter or "if" but "when" Pueblo grows.

[CosmicWizard]

I'd like the population to hold steady at todays levels. However, if population expands beyond that, I'll adjust to it. To me, it's not worth wasting valuable moments of my life being riled up about something I have little or no control over. Life is too short. If the population grows beyond my comfort level I'll move to a less populated place if I have the financial resources to do so. I'll leave the warrior mentality silliness to those who like to practice that kind of crap. ( I'm thinking of Coach on the current episode of Survivor. He's the most unhappy person out of the entire group! )

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

I'd like the population to hold steady at todays levels. However, if population expands beyond that, I'll adjust to it. To me, it's not worth wasting valuable moments of my life being riled up about something I have little or no control over. Life is too short. If the population grows beyond my comfort level I'll move to a less populated place if I have the financial resources to do so. I'll leave the warrior mentality silliness to those who like that kind of crap.

Second that. However, I did intentionally buy a home in an area that is more or less surrounded by National Forest, Preserved Open Space and working Ranch Land, so that when more growth inevitable occurs it won't immediately be in my face.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I had the same thought process as you do but I said 12 million because I want Pueblo area to grow to 1 million people. Before you know it if cities along the front range grow that adds up and Colorado will hit 12 million people before you know it.

This ranks right up there as the most asinine, selfish post that I have ever read on City Data. It only proves a total lack of understanding of Colorado's natural environment, what can be sustained with its available resources, and an absolutely callous disregard toward preserving anything resembling the existing quality of life in this state. I know of no person whose field of expertise includes the study of natural resources or ecology who believes that Colorado could sustain that level of population at anything remotely resembling today's material living standard without massive and catastrophic environmental degradation. That any person who purports to have an advanced education can continually make such blatantly illogical and silly posts makes a sad commentary on the quality of the US education system. Such blatant and widespread ignorance is a very dangerous thing--a condition that usually does not bode well for the survival of a society.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

I'll leave the warrior mentality silliness to those who like to practice that kind of crap. ( I'm thinking of Coach on the current episode of Survivor. He's the most unhappy person out of the entire group! )

Here's the funny thing, Cosmic. Americans watch what is happening in the world around them with the same "detached reality" view that they have when they are watching some survival show silliness. They have had that luxury because the US, until recently, had abundant enough resources and a small enough population that true down-in-the-dirt Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest life-or-death competition was not something of concern to them. Those days are OVER. We are about to be locked into a deadly game of "last-man-standing" survival among countries, regions, communities, and maybe even individuals. All this genteel "Kum-bay-ya" crap is going to go out the window then. It'll be interesting to see how people feel about growth and all kinds of stuff being discussed on this board when one more person showing up means that someone else is going to starve and/or die. Then it won't be some little abstraction anymore--and I think that day is at hand, probably within a generation or less. I learned something long ago from my father--a very gentle and kind person--but who was a veteran of the some of the worst of World War II. It was, simply, that even the most kind human is capable of incredible violence and cruelty where survival is at stake. We are setting ourselves up (and much of the world is already there) where basic survival WILL be at stake at a personal level. It does not take a genius to figure out what kind of world that will be--right down to the local level in this state.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

This ranks right up there as the most asinine, selfish post that I have ever read on City Data. It only proves a total lack of understanding of Colorado's natural environment, what can be sustained with its available resources, and an absolutely callous disregard toward preserving anything resembling the existing quality of life in this state. I know of no person whose field of expertise includes the study of natural resources or ecology who believes that Colorado could sustain that level of population at anything remotely resembling today's material living standard without massive and catastrophic environmental degradation. That any person who purports to have an advanced education can continually make such blatantly illogical and silly posts makes a sad commentary on the quality of the US education system. Such blatant and widespread ignorance is a very dangerous thing--a condition that usually does not bode well for the survival of a society.

Other then the NIMBY's I have not heard anyone say that Pueblo is unable to sustain a population of 500,00 to 1 million people. We have the water, infrastructure and land. Even most people who think Colorado has to watch their water reserves admit that Pueblo has enough water that we should just conserve because the rest of the state is.

Now I am not saying this should happen overnight but there is no reason Pueblo cant grow to be a leading city in the west in this century.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

I'd like the population to hold steady at todays levels. However, if population expands beyond that, I'll adjust to it. To me, it's not worth wasting valuable moments of my life being riled up about something I have little or no control over. Life is too short. If the population grows beyond my comfort level I'll move to a less populated place if I have the financial resources to do so. I'll leave the warrior mentality silliness to those who like to practice that kind of crap. ( I'm thinking of Coach on the current episode of Survivor. He's the most unhappy person out of the entire group! )

What makes you think we don't have control over how our cities grow? I, for one, volunteer for different organizations in Pueblo including PEDCo, Southern Colorado Equality Alliance, Pueblo urban renewal authority, the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, among others. I would even like to run for city council some day. I want to do my part to make Pueblo a great and leading city not only in Colorado but the United States!

[CosmicWizard]

jazzlover wrote:

...the US, until recently, had abundant enough resources and a small enough population that true down-in-the-dirt Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest life-or-death competition was not something of concern to them. Those days are OVER. We are about to be locked into a deadly game of "last-man-standing" survival among countries, regions, communities, and maybe even individuals.

You could be right, but I'm not expecting that to happen.

[jkanderson521]

The premise of this post is quite funny. The arrogance in assuming what the world would look like with X more people is totally absurd. There was another doom and gloom book published by zero growth fanatic Paul Ehrlich who wrote in the late 1960's

From Wikipedia ---
Ehrlich wrote an article that appeared in New Scientist in December 1967. In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Ehrlich wrote that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980," and "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." These specific predictions did not actually come to pass, and his later book The Population Explosion is much more cautious in its predictions.
--------

He also advocated forced sterilizations and other grotesque Nazi like "solutions". Unfortunately the mentality here is both myopic and dangerous.

It is myopic because it is an example of the danger of static analysis. "we can only do this today, so by tomorrow it will be X times worse". That type of thinking totally ignores leaps in technology, innovation, and creativity. By 1960's technology the "carrying capacity of the planet (LOL)" was far less than today because of growth in technology - medical, food production, energy, etc. The world of 2030, provided we aren't driven to a halt by backwards looking leadership, will be far beyond what is even comprehended today. Those that argue we're running out "X", take water for example, ignore the fact that we have an ocean of water that is converted and distributed around the globe through meteorological mechanisms, the problem as it is now defined by the leading astrophysicists of our time is really an energy, conversion, and distribution problem. They believe that too over time will be overcome. We live in a limitless universe with resources beyond imagination, bounded only by the frontiers of knowledge, pushing ever forward. Those who are bounded by the limit of their own knowledge and understanding, who are closed to imagination and do not have the creative capacity to make quantum leaps forward, will not serve humanity, but will only limit frontiers of knowledge and induce suffering on themselves and others.

The fringe view of some is dangerous because while moderation and conservation is well and good, it is not a solution unto itself. Quantum leaps in technology can open up possibilities never before conceived of, opening the minds of many to options never before thought possible. The closed minded view of radical conservationism will never move the world forward, but only seeks to hold back in a box that is bounded by the limit of its own current understanding.

No, unchecked growth without thought or plan is reckless and destructive, always move forward in moderation and wisdom, but do not think that simply putting limits will ever be a solution without inflicting incredible amounts of needless suffering. There is no one more dangerous or cruel than one who inflicts suffering on others emboldened by their own sense of self righteousness and belief in the infallibility of their position.

[iknowftbll]

Very good points, Anderson.