Ideal population (Pueblo: apartment, how much, school)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by 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.

Horsepuckey! Ehrlich was right in his conclusions, just off on his timing. We have achieved population growth beyond the limit that Ehrlich predicted only because we have borrowed massively from future survivability by grossly accelerating the use (and eventual depletion) of non-renewable resources. All that means is that even fewer people will be able to survive and subsist after the eventual die-down that he predicted. As for dangerous and cruel, I can think of nothing more cruel than living (and procreating) in a way that assures that future generations will face deprivations and premature death in both numbers and severity not ever seen before on this planet. That is the epitome of selfishness. The people who advocate stable or even naturally declining populations do so to prevent needless suffering, starvation, and premature death. They are the real "humanitarians."

[iknowftbll]

But with the advances we've had in technology we've been able to increase life-expectancy significantly. Thus one of the only ways to cause the population to level off or decline is to impose the ultimate term limit on human beings. We'll call it 75 years old for sake of discussion. I know plenty of people who have reached this age and are still highly productive, smart, generous, and lively.

Perhaps you aren't suggesting this course of action, but there are many that agree with you who would take it to that radical level. And THAT'S when we've truely lost all humanity.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

But with the advances we've had in technology we've been able to increase life-expectancy significantly. Thus one of the only ways to cause the population to level off or decline is to impose the ultimate term limit on human beings. We'll call it 75 years old for sake of discussion. I know plenty of people who have reached this age and are still highly productive, smart, generous, and lively.

Perhaps you aren't suggesting this course of action, but there are many that agree with you who would take it to that radical level. And THAT'S when we've truely lost all humanity.

I advocate nothing of the sort. There are only two ways to curtail net population growth--either reduce the number of births or increase the number of deaths. Once a population of any animal--humans included--exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment, if the former does not happen, the latter is inevitable. The added feature in the case of humans is that, even before population decline from non-sustainability sets in--massive declines in living standards and quality of life manifests itself. That is already happening in most of the world--we have just been insulated from it in the US to some extent. That is changing--for the worse--in this country now.

I fail to understand why people can not grasp this concept. In overpopulated countries, things like material comfort, democratic political institutions, personal freedoms, a healthy natural environment, general civility and humanitarian behavior--all things we profess to advocate in this country--all fall by the wayside.

So, we can either choose to procreate less (and curtail immigration) or accept massively higher death rates and shorter life spans in the future, along with the loss of much of our material affluence, personal freedoms, and what remains of civility in this country.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I advocate nothing of the sort. There are only two ways to curtail net population growth--either reduce the number of births or increase the number of deaths. Once a population of any animal--humans included--exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment, if the former does not happen, the latter is inevitable. The added feature in the case of humans is that, even before population decline from non-sustainability sets in--massive declines in living standards and quality of life manifests itself. That is already happening in most of the world--we have just been insulated from it in the US to some extent. That is changing--for the worse--in this country now.

I fail to understand why people can not grasp this concept. In overpopulated countries, things like material comfort, democratic political institutions, personal freedoms, a healthy natural environment, general civility and humanitarian behavior--all things we profess to advocate in this country--all fall by the wayside.

So, we can either choose to procreate less (and curtail immigration) or accept massively higher death rates and shorter life spans in the future, along with the loss of much of our material affluence, personal freedoms, and what remains of civility in this country.

That is so not true. We are on the verge of exploring the solar system and once we do and colonize other planets that will open up so much land that we will never "run out of room"!

[iknowftbll]

Jazz,

I agree with you on curtailing immigration. We finally have some common ground.

But this county does exercise population control, we just don't call it that. Here it's called abortion, and since Roe vs Wade we've aborted approximately 45,000,000 unborn children. Right now we are averaging 1,500,000 a year.

Stats like that should make someone with your views smile. It is repulsive to those who value human life.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

That is so not true. We are on the verge of exploring the solar system and once we do and colonize other planets that will open up so much land that we will never "run out of room"!

More silliness above.

Let's see what the renowned science fiction writer Isaac Asimov had to say about overpopulation:

Right now most of the world is living under appalling conditions. We can't possibly improve the conditions of everyone. We can't raise the entire world to the average standard of living in the United States because we don't have the resources and the ability to distribute well enough for that. So right now as it is, we have condemned most of the world to a miserable, starvation level of existence. And it will just get worse as the population continues to go up... Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.

And:

Well, throughout the history of life on Earth, there have been periods where a given species has, for one reason or another, spurted it's numbers upward temporarily. There's been a surprisingly good supply of food, the weather has been just right, somehow there have been no predators...something has happened, and the numbers went up. They always went down again, and always the same way; by an increase in the death rate. The large numbers of the species starved when the food ran short. They fell victim to some disease, when as a result of being on short rations they were weaker. They made good marks for predators. It always went down. And the same thing will happen to mankind, we don't have to worry. The death rate will go up, and we will die off through violence, through disease, through famine.

The only thing is, must we have our numbers controlled in the same way that all other species have them controlled? We have something others don't; we have brains. We can foresee. We can plan. We can see solutions that are humane. And there is a solution that is humane, and that is to lower the birth rate.

No species in the history of the Earth has ever voluntarily lowered it's birth rate in order to control it's population, because they didn't know what birth rate was, how to control it, that there was a population problem. We're the only species in the history of the Earth.

There is no need to decide whether to stop the population increase or not. There is no need to decide whether the population will be lowered or not. It will, it will!

The only thing mankind has to decide is whether to let it be done in the old inhumane method that nature has always used, or to invent a new humane method of our own. That is the only choice that faces us; whether to lower the population catastrophically by a raised death rate, or to lower it humanely by a lowered birth rate. And we all make the choice. And I have a suspicion that we won't make the right choice, which is the tragedy of humanity right now.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

Jazz,

I agree with you on curtailing immigration. We finally have some common ground.

But this county does exercise population control, we just don't call it that. Here it's called abortion, and since Roe vs Wade we've aborted approximately 45,000,000 unborn children. Right now we are averaging 1,500,000 a year.

Stats like that should make someone with your views smile. It is repulsive to those who value human life.

I personally am not a fan of abortion as a form of birth control--and I'll leave it at that. Quite honestly, I think abortion is an outgrowth of overpopulation--just one facet of the "cheapening" of life that Asimov correctly points out as an effect of overpopulation. I also think that a lot of illegitimate births, child neglect and abuse and the like are also outgrowths of the general cheapening of human life caused by overpopulation. A friend of mine witnessed a first-hand example of this in (overpopulated) Rio de Janeiro a few years back. In that city, there are literally packs of abandoned children roaming the streets stealing and scavenging to survive. My friend witnessed the police casually shoot several of these kids down like they were hunting rabbits. How's that for the sanctity of human life?

[Idunn]

I'll begin with three examples you may consider insignificant, the information from a source that can easily be derided as 'enviro tree huggers.'

Canyon Tree Frogs inhabit the Colorado Plateau's river corridors. They and their habitat are under threat due uranium mine tailings which pollute water, oil and gas drilling, dams and other water projects. They are not alone, "In the western United States, where amphibians depend on ever-dwindling wetland habitat, 100% of the known frog species are declining." Canyon Tree Frogs are also an indicator species. "As canyon tree frog populations begin to decline, a host of other species are likely to follow suit." (Reference #1)

Mountain Plover. This bird misnamed as it lives on level prairie grasslands, arid plains and fields. It is found in conjunction with black-tailed prairie dog colonies and cattle grazing sites. There has been a major decline in their population in the last 30 years due, "conversion of native prairie grasslands for intensive agriculture, loss of prairie dog colonies, predation from expanding swift fox populations, and oil and gas exploration paired with increasing recreation in grassland ecosystems." (Reference #2)

Grizzly Bear. Having once inhabited all of western North America from Alaska to central Mexico, they are extinct from approximately 95% of their original range. Where once between 50,000 to 100,000 grizzly bears in North America, today between 1,000 to 2,000 in the lower 48. "Habitat degradation and fragmentation, from recreational and residential development, road building, and mineral and energy exploration, remain the largest threats to intact grizzly habitat and healthy bear populations."

"Like all large carnivores, grizzlies impose important top-down regulation (italics mine) on entire ecosystems, maintaining healthy populations of game species and preventing overgrazing by deer and other herbivores." (Reference #3)



Suitably unimpressed?

Then consider this, "Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change."

"A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says.

"The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer (italics mine), according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History." (Reference #4)

You may have noticed wherein this, "poses a major threat to humans..." Many people may not give a rat's ass about other animals, beyond the benefit they derive. What they may not understand are the benefits more comprehensive, and entwined, than imagined.

This from a different source, "scientists and others at the international meeting sponsored by the government of France issued a statement at the end of the 5-day-long event. It said in part, "Biodiversity is being irreversibly destroyed by human activities at an unprecedented rate. . . (demanding) urgent and significant action."

"New plant and animal species are emerging, University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman says, but not nearly fast enough to make up for the toll caused by human activity."

"That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says."

"Tilman says human behavior is affecting the environment and that our treatment of the earth amounts to a form of theft.(highlight mine)"

"What that means morally is that future generations will have a lower quality of life because we overexploited the habitat now," he says." (Reference #5)



We already are, and have been for some time, witnessing the effects of our ill-considered actions towards our home, this planet. Some signs are subtle, but the effects of that done, that being done presently, and subsequent effects are all increasing exponentially. We have less and less time to reverse this trend.

While the health or demise of other species may be of little concern to many, they are critically important to mankind as bell weathers of the same fate (he) must eventually suffer. We are at the top of a food chain which is interdependent and if we affected in part as it fragments, we perish when it collapses.

It has been purported that technology and new innovation will answer for what we have done and solve any problem we may create. This is illusion and wrong. Unless one could envision and in fact create a viable life in whole on a planet such as Mars or Venus, then the health of Earth must be of vital concern. All that we are, might derive, or can be is entirely dependent upon this single planet and its health.

Technology has allowed a minority of this planet's human population a level of abundance, prosperity and health never before achieved by mankind. In this it presents a window into what might be. But also an example of what will be if not adjusted. All this has been allowed by using in a very short span of time natural resources which took ages to come into being. Technology cannot exist without the resources upon which it is dependent. It could however be altered to enhance rather than exploit and ruin the very basis of its existence.

We must at last understand that we are integral part of a very complex web of life. Part and parcel. Everything effects everything else, all ripples out. We might push out the envelope well beyond any measure of good sense, and in the short term suffer little consequence, but at last all must be in equilibrium. This is natural law, which in the end will always trump any law or convention, or hubris, of man. True sustainable abundance and prosperity is best achieved through moderation and balance.


"The greatest conservation opportunity isn’t the protection of a species or removal of an ailing dam, although I believe these are important. It is the ability of humanity to rise to a new consciousness that believes in the coexistence of humanity and nature. Ultimately, this depends upon whether we see ourselves as separate and superior to nature or as an integral and powerful force within natural systems." (Reference #6)


REFERENCES

1)Canyon Tree Frog
2) Mountain Plover
3) Grizzly Bear
4) Mass Extinction Underway | Biodiversity Crisis | Global Species Loss
5) MPR: Species extinction rate speeding up
6) Coexistence, by Thomas A. Grant

[jazzlover]

Let's take a look at how Colorado is going to fare in being able to support a larger population, based on how things currently exist in the state. This requires being realistic about the place. I love Colorado, but I am extremely pessimistic about its long-term future--given that we are doing just about every possible thing wrong right now. One need look no farther than three basic areas:

Agriculture. Colorado's environment and geography have never made it very favorable for agriculture, but until fairly recently in its history, Colorado actually was a net agricultural product exporting state. Unfortunately, little of Colorado can grow crops or forage without irrigation--it takes water, and a lot of it. Colorado's recent history has been a killer for agriculture. First, because population growth has outpaced Colorado's agricultural production, but, more importantly, because that same growth has also taken away a lot of Colorado's agricultural irrigation water AND devoured much of its most productive ag land. All of that may seem inconsequential to today's Coloradans--people used to our cheap oil-fueled food distribution system--but Colorado's agricultural insufficiency may make the place very unattractive when cross-country food distribution is no longer affordable or practical.

Land use. Colorado's current land use model is unsustainable--period. To think anything otherwise is stupid and foolish. Its metropolitan areas--where most Coloradans live--is horribly planned, structurally energy-inefficient and automobile-dependent to the extreme, and--in many places--dependent on depleting or uncertain water supplies. Up in the mountains, a hundred years of fire-suppression and recent climate change (whether man-made or not) have left millions of acres of its forests unhealthy, dying, or dead. All that is needed to start fires of size and severity that no living Coloradan has ever seen will be an ignition source--and if man does not provide one, nature eventually will. Meanwhile, numerous climate models predict that Colorado streamflows may be entering a period of long-term decline at the very time that demands on those flows are poised to grow beyond what is currently available.

Economy. Colorado's economy transcended from one based on agriculture and mineral extraction into one most dependent upon services, construction, and real estate speculation. Those latter industries require constant growth and exploitation of resources on a massive scale in order to sustain themselves. They also require a large pool of discretionary income to survive. In the years to come, there is likely to be little of either excess resources or discretionary income to support such an economy. That is doubly true of the state's other major industry--tourism. Simply stated, it is highly unlikely that Colorado's future economy will be able to support even its current population at a material living standard even close to today's. If population growth does continue, it will probably lead to an economic situation similar to Mexico's, where the population features a few wealthy "aristocrats," a large impoverished lower class, and an increasingly struggling (and shrinking) middle class. Some would argue that has already begun in Colorado.

I am not ashamed to say that I am "anti-growth"--at least the way growth is practiced in this state. I also believe population growth is neither inevitable or desirable. Growth is only "inevitable" so long as the underlying conditions necessary to allow it continue in force. I look at our present situation like driving down the road in an automobile. So long as the automobile has gasoline in the tank, it will continue to run down the highway. If one's frame of reference is only from the time the tank was last filled, it would be easy to expect that the car would run forever. But, of course, at some point, the tank runs dry and the car dies. The assumption that the car will continue to do what it has done during the limited frame of reference of the driver suddenly becomes false. As to the desirability of growth, Dr. Bartlett makes some good points here:

POPULATION GROWTH NEVER PAYS FOR ITSELF

There are many encouraging signs from communities around the U.S. that indicate a growing awareness of the local problems of continued unrestrained growth of populations, because population growth in our communities never pays for itself. Taxes and utility costs must escalate in order to pay for the growth. In addition, growth brings increased levels of congestion, frustration, and air pollution.

In recent years, several states have seen taxpayer revolts in the form of ballot questions that were adopted to limit the allowed tax increases. These revolts were not in decaying rust-belt states; the revolts have been in the states that claimed to be the most prosperous because they had the largest rates of population growth. These limits on taxes were felt to be necessary to stop the tax increases that were required to pay for the growth. Unfortunately the growth has managed to continue, while the schools and other public agencies have suffered from the shortage of funds.

How do we work on the local problem? Many years ago I was discussing population growth of Boulder with a prominent member of the Colorado Legislature. At one point he said:

"Al, we could not stop Boulder's growth if we wanted to!"

I responded:

"I agree, therefore let's put a tax on the growth so that, as a minimum, the growth pays for itself, instead of having to be paid for by the existing taxpayers."

His response was quick and emphatic:

"You can't do that, you'd slow down our growth!"

His answer showed the way: communities can slow their population growth by removing the many visible and hidden public subsidies that support and encourage growth.

The Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin 1968) makes it clear that there will always be large opposition to programs of making population growth pay for itself. Those who profit from growth will use their considerable resources to convince the community that the community should pay the costs of growth. In our communities, making growth pay for itself could be a major tool to use in stopping the population growth.

People who, at once, advocate population growth and sustainability should read Dr. Bartlett's 18 Laws of Sustainability (quoted from here REFLECTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY ):

LAWS, HYPOTHESES, OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTIONS RELATING TO SUSTAINABILITY

The Laws, Hypotheses, Observations, and Predictions that follow are offered to define the term "sustainability." In some cases these statements are accompanied by corollaries that are identified by capital letters. They all apply for populations and rates of consumption of goods and resources of the sizes and scales found in the world in 1998, and may not be applicable for small numbers of people or to groups in primitive tribal situations.

These Laws are believed to hold rigorously.

The Hypotheses are less rigorous than the laws. There may be exceptions to some, and some may be proven to be wrong. Experience may show that some of the hypotheses should be elevated to the status of laws.

The Observations may shed light on the problems and on mechanisms for finding solutions to the problems.

The Predictions are those of a retired nuclear physicist who has been watching these problems for several decades.

The lists are but a single compilation, and hence may be incomplete. Readers are invited to communicate with the author in regard to items that should or should not be in these lists.

In many cases, these laws and statements have been recognized, set forth, and elaborated on by others.

LAWS RELATING TO SUSTAINABILITY

First Law: Population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," that does not plan the achievement of zero ( or a period of negative ) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting "sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability. (Advertising your city or state as an ideal site in which to locate new factories, indicates a desire to increase the population of your city or state.)

H) The term "Sustainable Growth" is an oxymoron.

Second Law: In a society with a growing population and / or growing rates of consumption of resources, the larger the population, and / or the larger the rates of consumption of resources, the more difficult it will be to transform the society to the condition of sustainability.

Third Law: The response time of populations to changes in the human fertility rate is the average length of a human life, or approximately 70 years. (Bartlett and Lytwak 1995) [This is called "population momentum."

A) A nation can achieve zero population growth if:

a) the fertility rate is maintained at the replacement level for 70 years, and

b) there is no net migration during the 70 years. During the 70 years the population continues to grow, but at declining rates until the growth finally stops.

B) If we want to make changes in the total fertility rates so as to stabilize the population by the mid - to late 21st century, we must make the necessary changes before the end of the 20th century.

C) The time horizon of political leaders is of the order of two to eight years.

D) It will be difficult to convince political leaders to act now to change course, when the full results of the change may not become apparent in the lifetimes of those leaders.

Fourth Law: The size of population that can be sustained ( the carrying capacity ) and the sustainable average standard of living of the population are inversely related to one another. (This must be true even though Cohen asserts that the numerical size of the carrying capacity of the Earth cannot be determined, ( Cohen 1995 ))

A) The higher the standard of living one wishes to sustain, the more urgent it is to stop population growth.

B) Reductions in the rates of consumption of resources and reductions in the rates of production of pollution can shift the carrying capacity in the direction of sustaining a larger population.

Fifth Law: Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living.

A) Sustainability requires an equilibrium between human society and dynamic but stable ecosystems.

B) Destruction of ecosystems tends to reduce the carrying capacity and / or the sustainable standard of living.

C) The rate of destruction of ecosystems increases as the rate of growth of the population increases.

D) Population growth rates less than or equal to zero are necessary, but are not sufficient, conditions for halting the destruction of the environment. This is true locally and globally.

Sixth Law: (The lesson of "The Tragedy of the Commons") (Hardin 1968): The benefits of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a few; the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society.

A) Individuals who benefit from growth will continue to exert strong pressures supporting and encouraging both population growth and growth in rates of consumption of resources.

B) The individuals who promote growth are motivated by the recognition that growth is good for them. In order to gain public support for their goals, they must convince people that population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, are also good for society. [This is the Charles Wilson argument: if it is good for General Motors, it is good for the United States] (Yates 1983)

Seventh Law: Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource.

A) In a world of growing rates of consumption of resources, it is seriously misleading to state the life-expectancy of a non-renewable resource "at present rates of consumption," i.e., with no growth. More relevant than the life-expectancy of a resource is the expected date of the peak production of the resource, i.e. the peak of the Hubbert curve. ( Hubbert 1974 )

B) It is intellectually dishonest to advocate growth in the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources while, at the same time, reassuring people about how long the resources will last "at present rates of consumption.” (zero growth)

Eighth Law: The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time, by:

i ) technological improvements in the efficiency with which the resources are recovered and used

ii ) using the resources in accord with a program of "Sustained Availability," ( Bartlett 1986 )

iii ) recycling

iv ) the use of substitute resources.

Ninth Law: When large efforts are made to improve the efficiency with which resources are used, the resulting savings are easily and completely wiped out by the added resources consumed as a consequence of modest increases in population.

A) When the efficiency of resource use is increased, the consequence often is that the "saved" resources are not put aside for the use of future generations, but instead are used immediately to encourage and support larger populations.

B) Humans have an enormous compulsion to find an immediate use for all available resources.

Tenth Law: The benefits of large efforts to preserve the environment are easily canceled by the added demands on the environment that result from small increases in human population.

Eleventh Law: ( Second Law of Thermodynamics ) When rates of pollution exceed the natural cleansing capacity of the environment, it is easier to pollute than it is to clean up the environment.

Twelfth Law: ( Eric Sevareid's Law ); The chief cause of problems is solutions. (Sevareid 1970)

A) This law should be a central part of higher education, especially in engineering.

Thirteenth Law: Humans will always be dependent on agriculture. ( This is the first of Malthus’ two postulata.)

A) Supermarkets alone are not sufficient.

B) The central task in sustainable agriculture is to preserve agricultural land. The agricultural land must be protected from losses due to things such as:

i ) Urbanization and development

ii ) Erosion

iii ) Poisioning by chemicals

Fourteenth Law: If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, Nature will stop these growths.

A) By contemporary western standards, Nature's method of stopping growth is cruel and inhumane.

B) Glimpses of Nature's method of dealing with populations that have exceeded the carrying capacity of their lands can be seen each night on the television news reports from places where large populations are experiencing starvation and misery.

Fifteenth Law: In every local situation, creating jobs increases the number of people locally who are out of work.

Sixteenth Law: Starving people don't care about sustainability.

A) If sustainability is to be achieved, the necessary leadership and resources must be supplied by people who are not starving.

Seventeenth Law: The addition of the word "sustainable" to our vocabulary, to our reports, programs, and papers, to the names of our academic institutes and research programs, and to our community initiatives, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable.

Eighteenth Law: Extinction is forever.

[Josseppie]

Lol

Agriculture.

There is the eastern plains where I don't see any major metro areas growing there!

Land use.

Have you see all the open unused land around the Pueblo area! That is just begging to be developed.

Economy.

What about new energy, in fact the NY times said this:

Vestas, a wind turbine manufacturer based in Denmark, is helping Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter get a little closer to realizing his vision of establishing the state as a hub of the “New Energy Economy.”
Last year, Vestas opened a blade-manufacturing plant in Windsor, 50 miles north of Denver. Later this year, the company will open a tower-manufacturing factory in Pueblo, 120 miles south of the state capital.
When completed, the Pueblo factory will be the largest wind tower-manufacturing facility in the world, turning out 900 towers a year, according to a Vestas release.