Ideal population (Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins: mineral rights, sales, lease)

[Idunn]

This deserves some very thorough analysis. More than I'm in the mood for at the moment. Having pointed out that we cannot rely on fossil fuels for much longer, it only fair to offer some alternative. The quandary being that mankind has yet to develop truly viable alternatives. Other sources we have and are developing have yet to provide near the amount of energy we derive from oil and other fossil fuels.

The primary problem with solar is a truly viable battery, but even in lieu of this there is much that might be done. Wind and ocean tides can also be used. More things than I wish to list here. Nuclear is also possible. In having looked into this briefly, I would like to suggest it belongs in the category of fossil fuels, or in the past and something we should avoid using. Although the plants emit little CO2, the overall carbon footprint rather high due necessary mining and processing. There is also the issue relatively little fuel reserves, also the actual costs of electricity generated. But by far my biggest reservation remains environmental. If these things go wrong the result huge environmental destruction, as witnessed with Chernobyl. Even without this, the necessary mining, processing, and even operation of these plants to some extent, cause severe environmental problems. But above all else the consideration that for electricity we use today, and as soon gone, the creation of highly radioactive nuclear waste we have no really good way of disposing of, this a legacy we give to mankind for millennia.

For a brief overview of carbon footprint considerations, one might review this:
Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
At a glance it seems somewhat balanced, and perhaps a place to start.

I could provide many other references, although as mentioned not in the mood for it at this time. Anyone with more knowledge and interest in nuclear power, not to mention other alternatives, would be most welcome to interject.

What I would like to delve into soon, some possible solutions. If in offering an ideal population for Colorado, also warranted some plan on how this might really be achieved, otherwise, as some have objected, this entire discussion pointless and negative. I feel that mankind is not collectively wise enough to pull back from this brink in time. That much that we have developed and learned will be lost in a rather dire collapse when it comes. But there is always the chance of something other. If not the attempt, even if in the end futile, then we are surely lost. Frankly, I would rather turn my attention to happier matters, and in the moment forget all of this. But in having come to this cannot, and would remind those willfully ignoring the obvious to wake up, as like it or not in such an enterprise we largely sink or swim together.

Colorado may have a unique role to play. Our state, while blessed with any number of natural resources and beauty, is also not overly fecund. In this it resembles well many other regions around the world where people have in one way or another adjusted to natural circumstances. If imperfectly. We might show a way and example, and all the more in having been rather blessed the responsibility to use our place and knowledge to not only make our own society sustainable, but how others may the same. Many people in this world far more concerned with mere survival, and if we do not wish to join them in worse, then merit in doing our very best now.

More on this later.

[jazzlover]

Idunn, some great posts here. You have hit the nail pretty much on the head. I have believed, since the early 1970's, that we have been exceeding what our sustainable population could be--worldwide, in this country, and in Colorado--for a long time. It is just a question of when that "tipping point" is reached that we either become collectively intelligent enough to reduce our birthrates, or nature/violence drastically raises the death rate. Sadly, I believe it will likely be the latter. As far as sustainability, I think a 1950-size population would be the highest sustainable population we could hope for--and I think that would require a substantial decline in material living standards in most developed countries. Toward the worse end of the scale, a 1900-size population might be all that could be truly sustained over an extended time period.

As Idunn noted in the post above, the most limiting factors to population are the two most extensive factors, and the the two least amenable to any technological solution--water supply/quality, and soil health. The fact that the latter, in particular, has been largely maintained over the last half-century (allowing much of the population growth we now confront) through the massive use of non-renewable fossil fuels is profoundly disturbing.

We are basically on the Titanic. We've hit the iceberg--the hull is ripped--the ship is going down. Certain people will be in denial: "We're fine. Ignore the ship listing--it's just an illusion--we're not really sinking. Hey, the captain and crew are geniuses--they can fix anything." Others are fatalists: "We're all dead. Who cares what happens? I'm going to do exactly what I want right now while I still can." In the last group are the people who recognize imminent disaster and plan for it: "Not very many people are going to survive this, but I intend to be one of them. Let's get the lifeboats deployed, and save who we can. Let us prepare for very real and very new dangers that we are about to face--while we still have some time and resources to use to prepare. Let's figure out how the few of us are going to survive in the lifeboats that we have available." We are entering a Darwinian game of survival-of-the-fittest, and it is that last group who will emerge as the survivors.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Idunn, some great posts here. ...snip... We are entering a Darwinian game of survival-of-the-fittest, and it is that last group who will emerge as the survivors.

When it comes to survival of the fittest, it helps to have a military bigger than the next 20 nations combined; helps assure access to oil too (not stealing it, just assuring access to it at world prices).

I'm sure as the Titanic listed, the spinmeisters told folks it was part of the thrill ride. No extra charge!

Re topsoil, for years I've sat and wondered if it were possible to filter the Mississippi River, where millions of tons of topsoil wash downstream each year. To my knowledge no one has ever even proposed any sort of study on the feasibility of removing it from the river and putting it back on fields ... and adding a "topsoil reclamation" surcharge to every bushel of exported grains to help pay for it.

Re battery storage for the grid; that is a problem. I'm modestly aware of what's called "concentrated solar power" where molten salts are the medium used to store the sun's heat energy until it's needed to create steam for power generation. These can store the heat for a couple of days, allowing for rapid response to demands and overcoming the occasional cloudy day. When tied into a national grid, the ability to move power around is greatly enhanced. Our San Luis Valley gets a lot of sun, and could be home to these sorts of installations which are non polluting. There is enough sunlight hitting just one state here in the west to power most of the nation.

I've no doubt that we can get to sustainable energy in a generation. But getting to a stable, sustainable population, for COLO and for the world, will be a long time coming and hopefully not resultant of horrific catastrophes.

[Idunn]

Intriguing. In looking into this briefly, I happened upon three references which provide an idea of how this operates.

This provides a concise idea of how molten salt storage operates. One will note that some issue may exist with potassium nitrate, as it may also be used as an explosive:
Molten Salt As Solar Heat Battery : TreeHugger

This source an explanation of how such technology is beginning to be implemented and used:
Storing Solar Power in Salt - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

This reference from Wikipedia notes some of the principles involved, including the high heat levels involved, with salt kept liquid at 550 °F (290 °C):
Solar thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something like this seems quite possible. Although implementations mentioned all seem industrial, I see no reason in principle that the same type of 'battery' could not be scaled for residential use. Use of mirrors (as depicted) perhaps the most efficient, but perhaps more pedestrian forms of collection used by individuals, but with this type of storage?

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Idunn, some great posts here. You have hit the nail pretty much on the head. I have believed, since the early 1970's, that we have been exceeding what our sustainable population could be--worldwide, in this country, and in Colorado--for a long time. It is just a question of when that "tipping point" is reached that we either become collectively intelligent enough to reduce our birthrates, or nature/violence drastically raises the death rate. Sadly, I believe it will likely be the latter. As far as sustainability, I think a 1950-size population would be the highest sustainable population we could hope for--and I think that would require a substantial decline in material living standards in most developed countries. Toward the worse end of the scale, a 1900-size population might be all that could be truly sustained over an extended time period.

As Idunn noted in the post above, the most limiting factors to population are the two most extensive factors, and the the two least amenable to any technological solution--water supply/quality, and soil health. The fact that the latter, in particular, has been largely maintained over the last half-century (allowing much of the population growth we now confront) through the massive use of non-renewable fossil fuels is profoundly disturbing.

We are basically on the Titanic. We've hit the iceberg--the hull is ripped--the ship is going down. Certain people will be in denial: "We're fine. Ignore the ship listing--it's just an illusion--we're not really sinking. Hey, the captain and crew are geniuses--they can fix anything." Others are fatalists: "We're all dead. Who cares what happens? I'm going to do exactly what I want right now while I still can." In the last group are the people who recognize imminent disaster and plan for it: "Not very many people are going to survive this, but I intend to be one of them. Let's get the lifeboats deployed, and save who we can. Let us prepare for very real and very new dangers that we are about to face--while we still have some time and resources to use to prepare. Let's figure out how the few of us are going to survive in the lifeboats that we have available." We are entering a Darwinian game of survival-of-the-fittest, and it is that last group who will emerge as the survivors.

I have been hearing dooms day scenarios like this since I was a kid the next one is 2012. None have come true and I suspect that 2013 will come with little fanfare as well. There is no reason to believe that science can not answer any question they need to make us stronger then we are today. [mod cut]

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I have been hearing dooms day scenarios like this since I was a kid the next one is 2012. None have come true and I suspect that 2013 will come with little fanfare as well. There is no reason to believe that science can not answer any question they need to make us stronger then we are today. [mod cut]

I don't think you've actually heard a word of what anyone besides yourself has said since this discussion began.

I think Lord Neville Chamberlain had essentially the same things to say about that annoying German guy and his Italian friend Benito in 1938, too.

I'm sure that Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury would agree that the scientists always come through just in the nick of time, right? However my point is admittedly weak here, since one could well argue that science's current answer ("no cure for AIDS") actually is the answer that will make us stronger tomorrow that we are today, given that the disease serves a useful purpose as an elegantly selective natural culling mechanism.

Your supposition that because nothing catastrophically bad has happened to you in your young life means that bad things can't and won't happen is woefully ignorant. The world has seen two genocides in the last 15 years, and we're caught in an epic global financial failure now. At some point in the near future, some of the world's unhappy reality is very likely to affect you personally in some way, at which time I fully expect you'll have that forlorn lost "why me" look of an unwanted stray dog going into a hypobaric chamber on a one-way ride to puppy purgatory. (apologies to dog lovers for the visual)

Wake up. Science has not historically answered all the questions needed to prevent disaster. The 1918 Spanish Flu was not conquered by science, it simply burned itself out, killing 50-100 million people in the process. Today, over 15 million people starve to death every year. Lung cancer still kills nearly 1.4 million people a year. Adding more biomass to the already teeming horde will increase the wreckage ever further.

[Ticky909]

I think that molten salt business already happens, I'm not sure if it would work on a residential scale. Usually theres probably ~100? sq feet of curved mirrors focusing on a barrel with salt in it, that runs through pipes and eventually boils water, then the same way electricity has pretty much always been made takes place. I suppose if it did happen residentially, it wouldn't be very productive and nobody likes polished metal focusing light in their back yards. Easier and cheaper things should be done to save energy in the immediate, passive and active solar heating and whatnot.

[Idunn]

I am writing this from the vantage of a sub alpine vista of not a human in sight, few residences, and a county with a population lower than most small towns. This mentioned because I like and would wish to preserve it, but also recognize that the illusion of remoteness in some respects just that. I know for one that in heat, food and services that my life here largely dependent on an outside world which may not be as serene. That I have to discuss next anything but.

I'm not sure if Colorado must return to its population of 1900, although fairly certain that of 1950 too high to be sustainable. We have to understand this in the broader context of resources, demand and supply, and that our standard of living is dependent in many ways on circumstances beyond our borders. Most Coloradan's would probably prefer to maintain their current standard of living, if not increase it. If discussing survival, or the need in extremes, many may imagine a secure, well-stocked cabin in the woods with hunting rifle, and a good measure of present comforts provided for. Perhaps briefly. But wander into the forest with no more than the clothes on your back, then imagine starting from such a position and how much might be missed. I doubt few would really welcome a Mad Max existence as depicted in the 1981 film the, 'Road Warrior.' Even within this film the inhabitants were using the remnants of their former civilization. The third sequel ('Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome,' 1985) may be closer to the truth, in how humanity adapted to a different world and realty.

A reality nearly as dire presently exists in this world. A good example found in such places as Lagos, Nigeria. It serves as a graphic illustration and warning. As mentioned in this brief video, "In 1950 Lagos had a population of just 300,000. By 2004 well over 13 million lived there. By 2015 it will have grown to 23 million according to one estimate." (Reference #1)

It is not alone. "The region’s (Sub-Saharan Africa) population in fact increased from 100 million in 1900 to 770 million in 2005. The latest United Nations projections, published in March 2007, envisaged a figure of 1.5 to 2 billion inhabitants being reached between the present and 2050." (Reference #2)

In fact, "95% of population growth is happening in the mega-cities of the third world." (Reference #1)

The following video is recommended viewing. Something that will provide context for the following discussion:


YouTube - [Channel 4 News] Population explosion causes poverty crisis


Nigeria is important for a number of reasons. If you watched the video then a graphic illustration of how low mankind can sink in living standards and basic inhumanity. From a disinterested vantage, say a present position such as mine, it of more import immediately as one of the major oil suppliers to the US.

"Nigeria's crude oil export to the United States will leap to 25 per cent by 2015. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chief Ojo Maduekwe, made the revelation while delivering a speech at the Southern Center for International Studies, Atlanta, Georgia, entitled "Old Ties in New Times: Nigeria and the next USA Administration."

"The estimate is a progression from the current 15 per cent Nigeria exports to the country and may be an indication of US government's shift from Middle East oil to African sources."

Nigeria has already surpassed Saudi-Arabia and Venezuela which were two main sources of oil to the US economy." (Reference #3)

Our access to oil is becoming an increasingly tenuous affair, this due declining oil reserves, rising demand, and exponential global population growth. One very real cost to us is in maintaining a large military in order to secure such supplies. Most of Nigeria's oil is extracted from their southern delta region, and for some time now there has been an ongoing conflict there centered over poverty, access to a better life, and oil. If you haven't, in future you are likely to become better acquainted with one the better organized guerilla forces there, Mend:

"Mend's violent campaign for a bigger part of the area's oil wealth has cut Nigeria's oil output by more than 20%."

"Mend militants are the largest of several armed groups operating in the impoverished delta region. They frequently kidnap foreign oil workers and sabotage oil installations and pipelines."

"The operation will continue until the government of Nigeria appreciates that the solution to peace in the Niger Delta is justice, respect and dialogue," the group said." (Reference #4)

Nigeria has a total land area of 923,769 sq km, or slightly larger than twice that of California. Within this it has a present population of 149,229,090, which will increase. Current environmental issues are: "soil degradation; rapid deforestation; urban air and water pollution; desertification; oil pollution - water, air, and soil; has suffered serious damage from oil spills; loss of arable land; rapid urbanization." Average life expectancy at birth is 46.94 years. (Reference #5)

While remembering that large population increases are occurring around the world, even as such regions as western Europe's decline, that of Africa is increasing exponentially:

"The population of Africa has grown exponentially over the past century, and consequently shows a large youth bulge, further reinforced by a low life expectancy of below 50 years in most African countries."

"The total population of Africa is estimated at 922 million (as of 2005). It has doubled over the past 28 years, and has quadrupled over the past 55 years (UN estimates [2]). Population is projected to reach one billion before 2010[2]. The most populous African country is Nigeria with 148 million..." (Reference #6)

This last reference brings us full circle and back to home. You'll even recognize the mountains. This a quote provided from this page:

"[Human] Carrying capacity needs to be understood as the maximum load an environment can permanently support (i.e., without reduction of its ability to support future generations), with load referring not just to the number of users of an environment but to the total demands they make upon it. For human societies, as for populations of other species, the relation of load to carrying capacity is crucial in shaping our future. Public comprehension of the concepts of carrying capacity and load is both vague and inadequate, and the need to correct these deficiencies is urgent.

When load comes to exceed carrying capacity, the overload inexorably causes environmental damage; then the reduced carrying capacity leads to load reduction (i.e., a crash)." – William Catton

Within this page the mention of the concept of 'Peak Debt:'

"In our case, the Liebig trigger could be the peaking of oil production, food or water limitations, or a myriad of environmental ills that continue to further degrade organic carrying capacity. It may even be systemic breakdown in our economy – call it “peak debt”." (Reference #7)

It makes interesting reading, although the author may be considering primarily domestic sources. It could be before we ever fully exhaust these that external forces and threats become predominant. In an increasingly globalized world, this a possibility.

But consider for a moment another mega-city, one tourists flock to today in wonder, that flourished until the 15th century. The Cambodian city of Angkor covered 700 sq miles, similar to that of greater London today. That, "even on a conservative estimate, greater Angkor at its peak was the world's most extensive pre-industrial low-density urban complex" - far larger than the ancient Mayan cities of central America, for instance, which covered 100 square miles at most."

Most people know Angkor only through the magnificent stone temples of Angkor Wat, however, "Until now, Angkor was never looked at as an extended urban area. The city was thought to consist of the central walled precinct, covering about one square mile, where tens of thousands of people lived. "No one really considered the fact that there might be an urban fabric that stretched between and beyond the temples of Angkor..."

The lesson of Angkor for us may lie in its demise. That once lost in jungle and until now not fully appreciated has by extension examples. Thus, "The team may also have found the key to Angkor's collapse - or, at least, confirmed an existing theory: that the city "built itself out of existence"(highlight mine). Mr Evans said: "The water management system, in particular, had the potential to create some very serious environmental problems and radically remodel the landscape. You can see the city pushing into forested areas, stripping vegetation and re-engineering the landscape into something that was completely artificial." (Reference #8)

History is replete with examples of the birth and decline of civilizations. If any lesson, that despite the presumption and hubris of man that nothing set in stone or assured. Except perhaps the supremacy of nature. In countless wars and conflicts throughout history we so often see them centered around resources, and contention over same. And this in ages past when global human population a fraction of that now, with in reality more than enough for all if shared wisely. Mankind still hasn't learned to cooperate or share well. But this age historically unprecedented; never before have we been globally so interdependent, or civilizations perhaps based to such an extent on key resources which must rapidly decline in a relative sense. Mankind has never until now faced the prospect of having to do with less, there was always more somewhere else to be found and exploited. Our long traditions of the past which we abide by today are based upon this historical reality all our predecessors accepted as a given, and now we at last cannot.

We have come to the end of an era that began with the Industrial Revolution, but in a larger sense with the birth of humanity. We are the natural extension and progeny. But in looking to the past we will find only examples of what we can no longer repeat. We must become something other. Perhaps less. With luck and wisdom, ever so much more.

A final passing thought, this from a fellow in Lagos:

"Let me correct an impression. This place is not a refuse dump. What you have seen here is the collective struggle and effort of various individuals members living in this community to get a space for themselves to live." (Reference #1)

REFERENCES

1) YouTube - [Channel 4 News] Population explosion causes poverty crisis
2) FuturePundit: Africa Human Population To At Least Double By 2050
3) allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Country to Supply 25 Percent of U.S. Oil By 2015 (Page 1 of 1)
4) BBC NEWS | Africa | Nigeria militants warn of oil war
5) https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ni.html
6) Demographics of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7) Footprints, Limits, and Human Carrying Capacity « The Sustainable Dwelling Blog
8) Metropolis: Angkor, the world's first mega-city - Asia, World - The Independent

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

We are basically on the Titanic. We've hit the iceberg--the hull is ripped--the ship is going down. Certain people will be in denial: "We're fine. Ignore the ship listing--it's just an illusion--we're not really sinking. Hey, the captain and crew are geniuses--they can fix anything." Others are fatalists: "We're all dead. Who cares what happens? I'm going to do exactly what I want right now while I still can." In the last group are the people who recognize imminent disaster and plan for it: "Not very many people are going to survive this, but I intend to be one of them. Let's get the lifeboats deployed, and save who we can. Let us prepare for very real and very new dangers that we are about to face--while we still have some time and resources to use to prepare. Let's figure out how the few of us are going to survive in the lifeboats that we have available." We are entering a Darwinian game of survival-of-the-fittest, and it is that last group who will emerge as the survivors.

That's a good analogy. I would add one other subcategory of fatalism. There will be many who out of religious eschatologicial convictions will believe that the sinking of the Titanic was preordained, that no human intervention could have prevented it, and ultimately are attracted to the idea of the Titanic going down: its sinking helps them make sense of their world view. They're not going to move in the direction that reason mandates because they think that its all "in God's hand." It's shocking how common this kind of fundamentalist fatalism is...a pro-death dogma among those who proclaim a "pro-life" agenda.

We know from past events like 9/11 and Katrina that this kind of calm resolve collapses when disaster actually strikes. Self-preservation will become the preeminent goal and people will curse the wretched doctrine of end-times fundamentalism.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

That's a good analogy. I would add one other subcategory of fatalism. There will be many who out of religious eschatologicial convictions will believe that the sinking of the Titanic was preordained, that no human intervention could have prevented it, and ultimately are attracted to the idea of the Titanic going down: its sinking helps them make sense of their world view. They're not going to move in the direction that reason mandates because they think that its all "in God's hand." It's shocking how common this kind of fundamentalist fatalism is...a pro-death dogma among those who proclaim a "pro-life" agenda.

We know from past events like 9/11 and Katrina that this kind of calm resolve collapses when disaster actually strikes. Self-preservation will become the preeminent goal and people will curse the wretched doctrine of end-times fundamentalism.

I, myself, am not a "fatalist." I believe that what we do on this Earth DOES matter. I'm fatalistic to the extent that I believe that if we make manifestly bad decisions, then manifestly bad things will happen. If you repeatedly put a partially loaded revolver to your head, spin the cylinder, and repeatedly pull the trigger, the chances of a bad outcome approach 100%. That is exactly what we are doing with overpopulation. A fatalist would say, "There's nothing we can do; we're going to die," and spin the cylinder and pull the trigger again. A realist would say, "Let's quit playing Russian Roulette" and let's change our behavior. Big difference.