Ideal population (Evans, Delta, Center: disposing, organic, living)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

That goes with my post earlier where I said we have issues we need to work on but how does Pueblo being 100,000 people or 500,000 people make a difference? In fact at 500,000 Pueblo will have more resources to help solve the beatle problem....

You still don't get it. People are not going to "solve" the beetle problem--nature will. The human problem is that the changes in water quality, streamflows, and siltation that will be unleashed by nature's "solution" are going to be around for a long time. Having another 400,000 people trying to use a resource that nature will likely have compromised for up to decades won't help anything--it will only make a bad situation worse. This is one of many of the challenges we now face where growth solves nothing, rather it aggravates or creates even larger problems.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

You still don't get it. People are not going to "solve" the beetle problem--nature will. The human problem is that the changes in water quality, streamflows, and siltation that will be unleashed by nature's "solution" are going to be around for a long time. Having another 400,000 people trying to use a resource that nature will likely have compromised for up to decades won't help anything--it will only make a bad situation worse. This is one of many of the challenges we now face where growth solves nothing, rather it aggravates or creates even larger problems.

I am just a optimist and think that given enough time science can anewer any question so I am not worried about Pueblo growing in fact I am doing my part to make that happen!

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

Unfortunately Bob confuses those who say limits won't suffice as encouraging unlimited consumption. I am aware that as we understand it today we have many resource areas that are approaching depletion. My point is rather than stomp your feet and wail about the well going dry, think about how you would bring more water, create more water, change the way you use water. Again, dream the impossible, but to just use less doesn't stop the well eventually running dry, as you said, many resources are non-renewable, so discover new resources, conserve if you must in the mean time, but by no means does that solve the problem.

I confuse nothing of the sort. Once again, I am not advocating that we stop innovating. I am advocating that we not assume into existence that which might justify our current rates of consumption of resources. In large part, the so-called technological "progress" on the last century has enabled us to ramp up to unsustainable rates of population growth and an even worse per-capita level of consumption of everything from water, to energy, to minerals. Thinking about how to bring more water does not solve the problem, and until we engineer that solution, permitting unbridled development and further stressing the water supply is ignorant in the extreme. It is the result of systemic corruption, not sound management.

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

Take a man made "resource" for example, the internet. Years ago, when networking technology was "discovered" we had a very limited amount of bandwidth available. You could only send limited amounts of data slowly and had to "conserve" bandwidth to the greatest extent possible. However, most knew that the more bandwidth you had, the more you could accomplish, so while the short term limitation of bandwidth held back progress, many labored to find ways to create more bandwidth, new technologies, innovations and approaches. Along the way, there were many who made predictions, like we'll never cross X threshold, you don't need X, etc. Yet many ignored the spirit of radical conservationism and understood that conservation is fine for the immediate moment, but is never a long term solution.

I view our present situation much like that. A brilliant Russian astronomer crafted a theoretical scale to track the advancement of a civilization based on its capacity to generate and use energy: Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Using various theoretical concepts beyond the knowledge and understanding of his time, he put forth some incredible concepts that demonstate that any limit we find, is mearly a limit of our own understanding. Read about him, Freeman Dyson, Kurzweil, and others who dwell in worlds that most will never comprehend. That isn't a boast, as much of what they discuss is beyond my technical knowledge, but they and others in many fields, medicine, music, art, etc are needed to break us free of the boxes that we create, that hold back the light of discovery.

The internet is a horribly atypical example of a limited critical resource. Shut it down for a week and life will go on. Try shutting off the water supply to a city for a week. Close the gas pipeline into Minnesota in January. The consumption of fuel stocks and raw materials is a far different sort of imperative.

I am well familiar with Kardashev, but again, that sort of grand thinking does not address getting through the present and near term future. And I doubt that someone who can't understand the implications of simple exponential math truly understands Kardashev.

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

I conserve energy and resources (have solar, use all CFL and LED lighting, xeriscape my yard, drive fuel efficient vehicles) I do much more than the average to limit my consumption. Yet to me, that is still not a solution, not for the long term as ultimately we will be in exactly the same situation, we just put off the inevitable.

It is not a complete solution, but it is a necessary part of any solution until and unless some completely revolutionary breakthrough materializes. And you restate my point well..."we just put off the inevitable."

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

I try to think about human nature, people like to live better lives, they try to improve the lives of the next generation.

Oh, really? I think American society is willing to consume anything they can get their hands on now, and to hell with our future generations. Our weak, inept political leaders are robbing those future generations blind with $trillion dollar deficit spending for as far as the budget horizon goes. Current levels of government, corporate, and individual debt are staggering. We are sacrificing the quality of life of future generations for wanton and conspicuous consumption right now, today. Human nature, in this case, is abject, unrestrained greed.

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

If we can find ways to increase standards of living without destroying the world, that should be the goal. Unfortunately, the arguments are always couched in less, less, less, more suffering, more sacrifice, lower standards of living etc. That to me is ultimately a futile exercise (especially since the sacrifice is mostly on the part of the average person, the elites preach hypocritically, yet give up nothing.).

You wish to have your cake and eat it too. When has that ever worked?

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

I think of solutions along the line of how can we make the standards of living much better, not lower them. I think that if the environmental movement embraced the fact that people want to live lives that are moving towards something better, with less pain, suffering, and death, they would find that the resources of the world could be focused on truly grand innovations that would make life so much better. Instead, it is more about political power, deceptions, and tyranny, rather than truly elevating the standard of living. But then again, hasn't that always been the narrative of human history.

Sure, think of all the great things we could do if we didn't have a military budget. We could do wonderful things...right up until the day that the guys with a military budget decide to take everything away from us. The environmental movement is up against the basic fact of life that Americans view a "better" life as one with more stuff...bigger house, more cars, bigger cars, more food, more everything. Until we find a definition of a "better" standard of living that does not entail consuming more of everything--to the tune of more than an order of magnitude more per-capita than the rest of the world--then American environmentalism necessarily has to include "less, less, less" as part of its mantra to move towards a sustainable equilibrium.

[treedonkey]

Whoa... this one sure got heated up over the weekend. I could not keep up with all the posts, but it sounds like there are some strong feelings about the future of our civilization, which is understandable. It sure is an interesting topic. I believe that a worldwide tribulation, or, if you will, Armageddon, is inevitable, but that that is not necessarily a bad thing (depending on whose side you're on). That may sound wacky to you. If so, you're probably in the majority, but... If not...

Perhaps you would like to attend a 3-day convention in Pueblo in June exploring the question, 'How can you survive the end of this world?'. If, so please Direct Message me and I'll send you the details. If not, then, as you were...

[Ticky909]

Not much with how fast ag. land is getting eaten up.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Ticky909

Not much with how fast ag. land is getting eaten up.

Can you explain what you mean?

[CosmicWizard]

Ticky909 wrote:

Not much with how fast ag. land is getting eaten up.

My simple mind is unable to make any sense out of your post. Hopefully you will be kind enough to clarify what you mean.

[Idunn]

In doing further research towards determining an ideal, sustainable, population for Colorado I happened upon a rather interesting article by Lindsey Grant entitled, 'The Edge of The Abyss.' Now that might sound kind of dire but it happens to be a rather sober analysis of where we and this world stand in regard to resources and population. Some of the points mentioned are those I've touched upon before, but where appropriate bare repeating. So to that end this entire piece will feature highlights from this article, interspersed with explanation and commentary by myself. There is but this one reference, and it may be found at the close of this piece.

As far as Colorado's population per se, I've yet to come to an exact conclusion, but from that learned to date fairly certain the recommended level lower than Colorado's population of 1950. Let us continue.


"The name of the abyss is energy. People tend to worry about one crisis at a time. We do so at our peril. Right now, the crisis of the moment is climate warming, but the decline of fossil energy will affect more people more seriously than climate change for most of this century. Both will generate a coming crisis in food production, though declining fossil energy will eventually stop forcing the climate warming. ...and the source of the crisis is the growth of human population and consumption. Rising population and consumption led to our profligate use of fossil energy, which in turn has been the principal cause of anthropogenic climate change. Further increase in U.S. and world population will make the crisis worse, as will rising consumption levels in developing countries."

A couple things here. Despite the specter of climate change, even as we increasingly notice and suffer the effects, what will first and most significantly upset our apple cart will be the increasing scarcity and cost of energy. The other subtle, the implication and fact that all this is entwined and interdependent.

"...recent senior officers of Aramco, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total, Chevron, Iranian Petroleum, Occidental, the European Union and the IEA have warned that the conventional petroleum reserve estimates are too high and that an oil crunch is upon us or imminent."

Do a little research and you will see that all rational projections show the world at Peak Oil, at the top of a curve of oil reserves which will decrease faster with time. This in light of exponentially increasing world population and rising demand for oil.

“...in the best case scenario, world coal production will peak around 2025 at 30 percent above present production.”

I'm only touching on various highlights here, more information on specifics available within this article. This to emphasize that it isn't just oil that will prove a declining energy source. Projections of 250 years of coal are entirely false, in large part because they do not account for exponential growth in demand. The same can be said for uranium, this vital for nuclear power.

"He (Prof. Dave Rutledge) believes that half of all the world’s exploitable fossil energy (oil, coal, etc.) will have been consumed by 2021, which effectively defines peak energy production."

What this effectively says is that ALL types of conventional energy we know of and have exploited will be declining in supply soon.

"We have reached the end of globalization. As Big Oil learned recently in Venezuela and Kazakhstan, the companies do not control the supplies; the host governments do."

This has a lot of implications. You may recall the oil crisis of the 1970s instituted by OPEC for political aims and thus artificial. Or perhaps a more recent memory of various embargoes. The point being that when push comes to shove each society and nation will take care of its own first. The relatively free trade in commodities and energy we have grown accustomed to is not a given. Whether oil or corn or anything else, each may effectively no longer be available on the global market, or quite expensive, if the nation's of origin decide they must retain same for internal use.

"Taken together, and recognizing the many uncertainties, this all suggests that oil has peaked or will peak within several years, that coal will follow within two decades, that gas will peak soon thereafter and that fossil fuels will decline to economic irrelevance, probably within this century."

In other words whatever society we have by the close of this century will be living with a different means of energy. Either at a very reduced level largely dependent on traditional sources, or possibly having developed viable alternatives, such as solar.

"In sum: the new evidence about climate change suggests that climate is more sensitive to emissions than the models projected, and that its impact will be at least as severe as expected, but these new energy studies point to the possibility that anthropogenic climate change may be less long-lasting than the IPCC expects."

We are learning how complex and interrelated this world is. That we are influencing this climate to our detriment. The long lasting part has to do with nature's innate resiliency, and that if our societies collapse to virtually nothing that this will markably improve climate change.

"Water tables are falling and rivers running dry in many or most countries, including the United States, China, India, and Pakistan. Most water goes to irrigation, and irrigation has expanded to feed growing populations."

More population = more irrigation = less water. Less water = less irrigation = less population. More details in this than I'll mention here. Suffice it to say that globally mankind will increasingly be facing serious constraints when it comes to clean, abundant water. This is already a significant problem in many parts of the world. In one way or another it will have to be far better balanced.

"The most widely quoted world figure is a 1997 study done for the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. It may be dated, but even then it estimated that one-third of the world’s population suffered “water stress” and that the figure would rise to two-thirds by 2025. One-fifth of the world’s population did not have access to clean fresh water, and half the population of less developed countries suffered from water- and food-borne diseases. It described population growth as first among the causes of the problems."

When you drink from your freely flowing tap water remember that many Americans are poisoned every year by impure tap water. The less fortunate of this world carry what they can find, polluted or not, long distances in containers. One can add to their discomfort a growing trend of corporations specifically designed to extract maximum profit from what was formerly a public resource of water.

"Agriculture will not be able to support the present human populations. The basic meaning of “over-shoot” in The Age of Overshoot is that modern commercial agriculture has enabled human populations to grow, at least momentarily, far beyond the populations that can be supported in the absence of fossil energy."

Think of grasshoppers or other plagues. They multiply into vast swarms at times but then reach an equilibrium when having exhausted all food supplies and having largely died off. Fossil fuels have allowed mankind to expand in population far beyond that sustainable by any other type of energy we presently know how to utilize well. As a simple matter of physics it cannot exist without such necessary energy, entirely aside from resultant environmental degradation as result. Thus projections of future human population entirely hypothetical because they will at some point, in some manner, decline (more likely collapse) due nature.

"Fertilizer is the most obvious component of that equation. In the pre-modern order of things, nitrogen was created to support plant growth only through microbial nitrogen fixation (usually associated with legumes), or by the occasional lightning bolt. Modern nitrogenous commercial fertilizer is made by using natural gas, or coal, and petroleum to pull molecular nitrogen from the air and add hydrogen. It will become more and more expensive as fossil fuels decline. An electric arc can be used to create nitrogen compounds – this is analogous to a lightning flash – but it takes a lot of electricity. After fossil energy, perhaps we will use renewable energy to run that process, but otherwise our descendants must rely on green manuring or animal manure to replace the nitrogen harvested from the fields. That means that some arable land must be devoted to those uses rather than to crops for direct human use."

Just as I said. I included this also due mention of an alternative source of nitrogen, which can be derived from electricity, as from lightening. IF we developed a viable source of sustainable electricity something such as this an option. Also note that mention of arable land implies that if reverting to former farming practices that not only will less crops be produced per acre, but more acres necessarily devoted to farm animals, etc.

"On the plus side, in the temperate zone, there will be some benefit from higher CO2 levels, which plants use."

Entirely true. Plants prefer elevated levels of CO2, within limit. Thus we come again to the complex, interrelated nature of this equation. If objectively viewing the facts, and not dwelling on subjective notions of good and bad, we might see nothing operates in a vacuum. In some regions plants will even thrive from increases in global climate, thus absorbing more CO2. Although this likely more than offset by the many more lost to less water in other regions, and increasingly lost in mankind's desperate attempt to stave off a near inevitable end (he) only accelerates in doing so. But yes, pluses and minuses.

U.S. corn (maize) is a useful surrogate for grain crops, which are some 70 percent of the total. It is the major single crop in the United States, the source of most livestock feed, and our biggest agricultural export. Early in the last century, before commercial fertilizers were generally available, U.S. corn yields were about 25 percent of present yields. By the 1950s, when commercial fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization and modern plant breeding had just gotten under way, they had risen to 40 percent. The overall change for all crops may have been somewhat less dramatic, since corn has been particularly responsive to fertilizers and plant breeding. That suggests that yields in the industrial world may be 25 to 40 percent of current yields after the fossil fuel era, assuming that productive systems do not collapse in social disorder. Yields will be higher because we will know more about plant breeding than we did then, but they will be lowered by climate change and the weather patterns described above."

Read this carefully. In part this will inform what a sustainable population for Colorado may be. At a glance it might suggest that the population of Colorado should be 25 to 40% of its present size. Yes, other factors would have to be considered. But corn is a far more important crop than you may imagine, being an integral ingredient in a vast number of food stuffs and other items. This one crop is worthy of a lengthy article on its own. But in brief, know that our present manner of corn production is in no way sustainable.

"That rough calculation suggests a global figure somewhat lower than 25-40 percent of current population, to allow for loss of arable land and its diversion away from food crops, but there will be dramatic differences among countries and regions, depending on their present conditions."

This is putting mildly. Do the terms war, pestilence and famine ring a bell? Consider the unstable nature or our world currently, then magnify it.

"Another approach – and equally simplistic – would be to ask: how many people were there in 1950? The fact they were alive testifies to their having food, but not necessarily enough. (Hunger was a problem then, and it is a problem now, though the location of acute hunger has tended to move from China and south Asia to Africa.) In 1950, the LDC (less developed countries’, i.e. poorer countries’) population was 1.1 billion (excluding China), or 27 percent of the present population. China’s 1950 population was probably over 500 million, or some 40 percent of the present population. (Any more precise estimate is dubious.) The industrial world had 814 million people then, or 67 percent of the 1.2 billion it has now. (Europe was the principal food importer then, which helps to explain that high percentage.) World population in 1950 was 2.5 billion, 38 percent of the present population. That percentage, interestingly, is within the range of future food production I gave above. I tried my hand at making more detailed estimates and concluded that they did not give me much more confidence about the number. There are simply too many unknowns and variables involved."

1950 could be considered a baseline of sorts. In part artificial because a long historical legacy has led us to this point. If looking at population charts you will notice that exponential human population growth began with the advent of the industrial revolution, beginning to seriously ramp up around 1900. However in 1950 mankind was still in a position to make some wise choices and adjustments which probably would have allowed us, today, a more or less sustainable and happy future. This obviously was not done, rather the opposite.

"In practical terms, those percentages are probably too high. They don’t take climate change into account. Moreover, much food now is shipped from several exporting nations to many food-deficit ones. Producers will tend to hoard when supplies are short, and it will become harder and harder to move large volumes by ship, so food will probably be less evenly distributed by the end of the century than it is now. And the 2.5 billion assumes that food production will not be hampered in the future by increasing political turbulence and wars, which is an optimistic assumption."

Any number of things might be said here. I'll confine myself to transportation, merely noting that what we expect from our grocery store is now routinely delivered from distant points, often from far removed nations. This practice will become increasingly expensive and unlikely. I remember one recent winter when due winter storm transportation nearly shut down for several days, and then a marvel to witness how quickly the grocery shelfs emptied out.

"The demographics are not very hopeful. The large traditional grain exporters – the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina – are the best off. Right now, for example, the United States’ food consumption is so high that we might be able to feed the present population when the commercial fertilizers are gone – if we halve our grain use per capita by slashing our consumption of meat and dairy products, stop exporting grains and give up imported luxury foods. That calculation leaves out the impact on the poor abroad who depend on U.S. grains, it ignores the question of how to transport the food, and it provides no margin of safety. A safer goal – which would allow loss from climate change – would be the 150 million people (less than half the present population) we had in 1950. The problem is that we won’t have the present population. We are growing fast because of high immigration and the new immigrants’ high average fertility."

We still have it better than the majority of this world. For all its many ills this country is far richer in resources than many other nations. And with, in something many Americans fail to grasp, increasingly the commensurate responsibility to set a good example. Not strictly from a humanitarian standpoint, although that nice, but from a purely selfish standpoint we depend on a certain level of stability and trade within this world for our high standard of living. Then also note that the recommended population for the US, at 150,000,000, less than half the exponentially increasing population of this country, and that generous.

"Sub-Saharan Africa has 12 percent of the world’s population but uses less than one percent of the world’s commercial fertilizer. Its population has risen from 177 million in 1950 to 742 million now. By 2050, the UN projects an increase to 3.2 billion if fertility stays stuck where it is, or 2.03 billion in the medium projection (which assumes a dramatic decline in fertility.) I don’t think that either figure is possible. Hunger, disease and more turmoil will stop the growth, because no conscious policy could stop it in time simply by reducing fertility."

These guys are in big trouble. Much more about this within this article. Suffice it to say that areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa have little room to maneuver and dire prospects. In the near term they can expect increasing populations combined with less food from aid and due the climate. Less water as well. Perhaps you recall all the unwelcome immigrants Italy and the EU have been receiving in boats from such places as Tunisia? How about the southern US border? We can expect such problems to escalate.

"How long does it take to turn population growth around? For the United States, I have run projections of “the two child family,” which would represent a decline in the total fertility rate to 1.5. That in turn would lead to a gradual population decline to half the present level in 2100, with annual net immigration of 200,000.18 But it has to start happening, and right now immigration is about five times that figure, and fertility is rising."

More on this within the article. The point being that theoretically in population and mankind's approach to this world we could turn this equation around. Late in the day, but possible. Whether the collective will exists or not another question. Strictly in terms of the US, if it is not willing to strictly control immigration then all bets off. Or rather, bet on the worse case scenario.

"For those countries heavily dependent on food imports, and for the poorest nations, I cannot envisage a scenario that does not involve major famines and intensified emigration of those who can migrate. And that in turn makes a solution harder in the United States and Europe. In sum: The present trends will raise mortality and thus accomplish, brutally, the reversal of population growth that we could not achieve humanely and voluntarily. The crisis has come too close. Turning population growth around once seemed a way of escaping the abyss before us, but the time frame is now too short for escape. We must concentrate on mitigating the damage."

We might, if very wise and judicious, do much to rectify this situation. This in acknowledgement that our present system has been arranged like a pyramid, designed to enhance the welfare of a few at the expense of the many. How this country and the world operates. We might continue business as usual for a while yet, the longer we do the more precipitous the plunge down. Even those at the very top cannot escape such a trend. It is societal, global, and whole. The bright note of course being that within measure, and truly sustainable population, no reason this world not a cornucopia for all. As in everyone.

"It will show itself first in rising prices and diminished spending power for most people. That seems to be happening now. Witness the recent crude oil and gasoline price rises. Energy and food prices have outstripped other consumer prices in the United States. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) international price index for 60 foods rose 14 percent in 2006 and 37 percent in 2007. There have been food riots in nine countries, driven in part by the U.S. corn-to-ethanol program (see below). The price rises will stop temporarily if there is aworldwide depression, but the general deterioration in standards of living will intensify."

Haven't you noticed? Have you witnessed or heard stories of elders of how, not that long ago, it was fairly common in the US for a fellow with a good job to support a family well? We do enjoy certain benefits in technology which our predecessors would envy. But have you considered in leisure, a certain time, freedom and the space to enjoy it how more richly those before us may have lived? Well, academic, as one can expect most everything to become increasingly expensive.

"For millennia, even with tiny populations, humans have cut down forests for fuel and timber and to open up arable land. The fossil fuel era briefly reversed that trend, but it has resumed in the poor countries. We will log the forests again, savagely, to fill the gap left when that era ended. After timber, we will start harvesting bushes and grasses, as happens even now in poor countries. Future climate warming will be driven both by the carbon releases and the loss of the forests, and our descendants will live in a stripped world."

The US has a less than stellar record when it comes to logging. But when it comes to some third world countries we are paragons of virtue. There they cut down forests or burn any scrap of wood to survive. Much of the Amazon is cleared for ill-conceived ranching and farming ventures which leave the vast majority in poverty. In places such as Nepal forests have been denuded because firewood is about their only viable source of fuel. I won't go into the overall or specific numbers, suffice it to say quite troubling.

"Huge urban complexes are inefficient and will be unsupportable. There will be pressure to move to more efficient small cities and towns and the countryside, but what happens to all those people? I’d better leave that unsaid."

This presents a conundrum. Mexico City, with a population of 8,836,045 in 2008, is only one of many large cities about the globe. I do know one of the issues they face is the declining level of the aquifer below the city, which has resulted in land sinking and the question of continuing water supply. Simply put, too many people as structured. Perhaps there is a way for large urban areas to survive, or maybe a far more rural existence in the cards for mankind. One thing is probably certain, if a sudden and societal collapse any city likely the last place you want to be.

"The key qualification for that success, aside from an energetic and dedicated labor force, is a favorable ratio of land to people."

This may not make sense, as I left the better part of it out. It deals with the environment, balance, and people. Also mentions examples such as the Amish of Pennsylvania. The implication being we may all have to become much more like them.

"To hear our potentates, politicians and pundits, there is no problem. Growth is a very pleasant experience for those who profit from it. Those orators promisegrowth, not restraint. What do the communiques from every international economic meeting call for? Faster growth. To admit that the Earth is finite and that we have exceeded its carrying capacity is to admit that we must give up that pleasant trip. Their solution is denial. Deny there is a problem, or offer easy fixes, and perhaps one can continue to believe in perpetual growth. And that is what they are doing."

In the course of this debate you will encounter a lot of denial. Perhaps from yourself, as well. But when it comes to the powers that be, you can just about count on it. Their vested interest, they most usually being at or near the top of the pyramid, is to see that things continue as is. Far better they keep that they have then go to the trouble of reordering with world in a more equable manner. But please bare in mind this has little to nothing to do with socialism or communism. Everything to do with nature. If you want to b*tch at someone, b*tch at her. Much good it will do. Denial is one of the first steps, but only delays forthright and positive steps we can take, and will have to take. It bares repeating and understanding: this merry-go-round we are on is just about over.

"We must address demand. We must bring population levels into balance with our natural support systems. The biosphere that supports us is a remarkably complex, interacting system. We have behaved since the start of the Industrial Revolution as though it were irrelevant to our well-being. We didn’t learn to adjust to it the humane way, with lower fertility (and, in the United States, lower immigration). Nature will do it the hard way, through famine and pestilence."

Nature can be a b*tch or your sweetest mistress. She will have her way. Our grave mistake if believing we anything but a manifestation, intimately entwined. One word above all others: Balance.

"This is hardly a new thing on Earth. Periods of turmoil and even starvation have lasted longer than the brief golden ages of general prosperity – in part because populations have regularly procreated fast enough to wipe out the benefits, per capita, of new techniques and new resources. They have done it before. It is likely that we will do it again. The difference this time is the scale, the difficulty of getting off fossil energy and the damage we have inflicted on the Earth before the consequences caught up with us."

A pity so few have a valid grasp of history. A noble practice, and so illustrative. If we do repeat past patterns we will suffer or gain much the same. Human nature may not have changed that much over the ages, but mankind's ability to heighten so much has. If perhaps fractionally wiser than before, we now have more at stake and much farther to fall. What we have achieved, and that we face, is unprecedented.

In these mountains the snow is melting. It still lays widely and heavy in many places across the land. But in the last several days the change is noticeable. Where once but a few small patches of bare soil, wet, and still waiting for sleeping seeds to come forth, such islands appear in that formerly a uniform white. A day later all is changed, the imagined slow eclipse of one season to another revealing more than thought. Each day there is more, of a passing spring and coming summer, and the reminder of winter still melting faster with each passing day.

In such things we speak only of nature. She has the same habits. Come fall the brief snows which heighten the colors of foliage and soon gone, come again sooner and last longer. Then at a moment we realize fall has nearly passed and the full measure of winter present. As a storm or a seed, in life all often begins small but soon has an increasing, an exponential force of its own. Nature's way. We but her children. Only folly if we believe ourselves outside such forces or immune. We can beckon such, and are no less, but swim with all other in such waters.

What have we learned?



REFERENCES

1) http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Foru...%203-10-08.pdf

[Steve97415]

There is something morbidly perverse about trying to gauge the absolute ceiling of biological capacity (with the implication that it would be perfectly fine to come as close to that ceiling figure as we can). If I said that a particular person was overweight at 200 lbs., you could challenge me on that by citing records of persons who have weighed well over 500 lbs., and even over 1,000 lbs. in a few extraordinary cases. But who would want the pathological burden of that much human flesh when there is the option to live at a healthy weight? Colorado might be able to attain a population in excess of 6,000,000, but who would want the loathsome livability conditions that would come with it?

There is steady-state theory of ecology that holds that the total amount of biomass on the planet is limited by a solar energy equation and never really changes. So when a population of one species goes into overshoot, it has to be made up in a population diminution of other species. Is it morally acceptable to let grizzlies and blue whales and white rhinos and orangutans and scarlet macaws and thousands of other species go down the tubes in our quest for ceiling level population? What is the benefit to anybody of going to the brink?

[Josseppie]

This was a large post and I will have to read it a few times so you might see me comment on it more then once.

First I want to talk about the energy part of it. It says that fossil fuels are nearing the end and we will not have enough energy to promote a larger population. I am not sure on fossil fuels but we are developing new technologies that will not only give us more ways to produce energy but increase our economy at the same time that will help Colorado grow. Here are 3 examples.

1. Wind power - Currently Vesta's is building plants all over Colorado making us the renewable energy leader and creating thousands of jobs. More announcements are coming as well.

2. Solar power - Currently the largest solar plant is being developed near Pueblo that will be able to power 90,000 homes and cost $900 million dollars.

3. The Colorado Energy park - Here is the description:


BOISE, ID--(Marketwire - September 15, 2008) - Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: AEHI) signed an agreement with a representative of the proposed Colorado Energy Park (CEP) southeast of Pueblo, CO to negotiate contracts on land and water rights for multiple large advanced nuclear reactors. The current CEP site is over 21,000 acres and is valued at $83 million, including substantial water use rights. CEP can host a mixed portfolio of renewable energy including solar PV and CSP, wind, biomass, small-hydro and nuclear. AEHI will seek a complement of multiple clean energy providers to fully utilize the large site and share the nuclear plant's transmission, water, road and rail infrastructure. When fully developed, CEP will help meet the state's and region's growing demand for electricity. At CEP, AEHI will help the US achieve energy independence, and meet the goal of increasing sources of green energy to reduce CO2 and toxic emissions from the global environment. The CEP as a merchant site should be able to wield power east of the Rockies as needed to meet demand.
About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (www.alternateenergyholdings.com)

When complete it will provide about 20,000 primary jobs for the Pueblo metro area!