Northeast Population Growth is Lagging (Boston, Sudbury: house, new construction, subdivisions)

[Bluefly]

It is a primitive society that celebrates when a city moves up from 10th largest to 8th largest.

- paraphrased from Conversations With God

It's interesting all the cliche arguments for growth - they're all rooted in a very material worldview suggesting we aren't overpopulated "yet".

Well, even if that is true, we will be someday since our global population has grown exponentially. At some point, a constantly expanding society reaches limits.

Only a cancer cell sees growth for the sake of growth as beneficial.

The solution is shifting our focus inward and becoming receptive to the universal energy. From there emerge technologies that require no oil or wind or water, no hospitals or drugs. From there emerge economies that provide all we need if we simply remain receptive to what is provided. No more poverty, war, ecological devastation.

It's like when one's consciousness elevates to a certain point, one can be guided through a forest by the forest's unifying energy manifest in the shake of a leaf or the flitter of a butterfly. Ecology functions on the same principles as economy - so if a forest ultimately is not dependent on competition to thrive, perhaps neither are we.

(I've experienced this, so it's not a "belief". It's simply science we do not yet understand)

[brightdoglover]

The U.S. has some 5 percent of the world's population, and used closer to 30 percent of the resources. This cannot continue without change.
I don't think anyone stuck in Phoenix traffic or Denver pollution or L.A. many things would say that robust growth is a given good thing. Some kind of steady-state sustainability is, and endless growth isn't that. Yes, some people make good money from growth, but that doesn't mean it's overall a good thing for the community, the people, or the planet.
The Northeast, being somewhat densely populated, has already seen some of the limits (although the water issue is much smaller here). Not anti-growth so much as "smart growth," and eventually, some sort of steady state.
If sheer numbers were so valuable, India and China would be the best places to live, right?
The poorest places in the world have the highest birth rates, meaning their already-inadequate infrastructures must increase just to keep up at the inadequate rate, and it's not happening.

[professorsenator]

Originally Posted by Tarheelhombre

Outside of the Northeast, people are excited, eager about robust population growth. New England is particularly unlike anywhere else in its outlook and worldview. It has a very anti-growth mentality that I think has hindered its growth and led to a population drain southward and westward.

Yes, yes, yes. You're absolutely correct. This hidebound way of thinking has rendered New England an anachronistic and increasingly irrelevant place, politically speaking. And the anti-growth policies that stem from this mindset also are also one of the biggest contributors to the very high cost of living in the region. It is the recipe for a long, slow decline.

[MovingForward]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

Yes, yes, yes. You're absolutely correct. This hidebound way of thinking has rendered New England an anachronistic and increasingly irrelevant place, politically speaking. And the anti-growth policies that stem from this mindset also are also one of the biggest contributors to the very high cost of living in the region. It is the recipe for a long, slow decline.

Overpopulation leads to an irrevocable decline. Like Bluefly said, unfettered growth eventually seeks its own demise. Nature doesn't really care about our narratives of "growth." Reach the tipping point and we're gone. Bottom line.

[UrbanQuest]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

Overpopulation leads to an irrevocable decline. Like Bluefly said, unfettered growth eventually seeks its own demise. Nature doesn't really care about our narratives of "growth." Reach the tipping point and we're gone. Bottom line.

I guess you are speaking of population growth in general, which does not explain the specifics of the problem. Should our population growth be slowed due to less births or less immigration. Our birthrate is only at replacement level now and in New England it is below replacement level. Now, immigration is a whole other matter. Over 1 million legal immigrants are allowed in each year and they on average have more babies than Americans. This factor doesn't even include the problem of illegal immigration, which contributes to 10% of all babies born in this country(from illegal immigrants!). Americans need to have more kids, not for reasons of maintaining social security and giving business fresh new workers, but from letting ourselves spiral into a nation with hardly any kids, whom in my mind add vitality and hope to our society. On that note however, the third world is wayyyyyy overdoing it. India with their 1.1 billion population, are still growing strong with a 2.7 fertility rate. Maybe we should focus our attention on growth in these places, but definitely not here. All we have to do is curtail immigration and problem solved in an instant.

[Bluefly]

Wow. 10% of babies are born to illegals? If that's true, that's an astounding statistic.I don't think anyone's saying to stop having babies. I think it is natural that as a society matures the focus shifts from "procreation" to "cocreation". So long as sexual desire exists, babies are still part of that formula. They'd have to be for us to keep existing.One can see the deadend, however, if we function on the mindset of "we need more people to compete!" I guess that's where I've come to - an understanding that there is no need for competition or government control. Perhaps we start moving toward a global civilization like the United States moved beyond the individual states. As such, different countries compete against one another less and share resources more.

[professorsenator]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

Overpopulation leads to an irrevocable decline. Like Bluefly said, unfettered growth eventually seeks its own demise. Nature doesn't really care about our narratives of "growth." Reach the tipping point and we're gone. Bottom line.

If the U.S was overpopulated and nature was taxed too much, then there would be mass starvation in the U.S. We could not grow enough food to feed every mouth. In fact, U.S. population is growing, the U.S remains a net exporter of food, and people are still eating here...and we're eating lot.

Indeed, global food output is generally enough to meet ALL nutritional needs--starvation and malnourishment today is mostly due to bad politics, bad policies, and human conflict (war in Darfur, mismanagement in Zimbabwe, totalitarianism in North Korea; corruption in Bangladesh) There is enough rice in the world to feed starving people in Bangladesh; what is lacking is the political will (both domestically and internationally).

The U.S. is NOT overpopulated. Other states in the U.S. are growing rapidly and heartily. Meanwhile, Mass. is sitting on the sidelines.

[wheelmannn]

I'm not sure if your aware of this but we do import food.

[professorsenator]

Originally Posted by wheelmannn

I'm not sure if your aware of this but we do import food.

Yes, of course we do. A lot of it. But we also export a lot, too. The U.S. is, in fact, a net agricultural exporter. The U.S. produces enough food for all of its population and many millions more around the world.

This baloney that we can't feed all of our population is false, and those who spread it are either seriously uninformed or maliciously disingenuous.

[UrbanQuest]

Originally Posted by professorsenator

If the U.S was overpopulated and nature was taxed too much, then there would be mass starvation in the U.S. We could not grow enough food to feed every mouth. In fact, U.S. population is growing, the U.S remains a net exporter of food, and people are still eating here...and we're eating lot.

Indeed, global food output is generally enough to meet ALL nutritional needs--starvation and malnourishment today is mostly due to bad politics, bad policies, and human conflict (war in Darfur, mismanagement in Zimbabwe, totalitarianism in North Korea; corruption in Bangladesh) There is enough rice in the world to feed starving people in Bangladesh; what is lacking is the political will (both domestically and internationally).

The U.S. is NOT overpopulated. Other states in the U.S. are growing rapidly and heartily. Meanwhile, Mass. is sitting on the sidelines.

So you want us to keep growing until people begin starving? This problem is akin to global warming. Some peoples procrastination and/or ignorance will lead to problems for everyone down the line. Having been in the military and lived pretty much in every region of the country within the last 10 years, I can tell you we are "comfortably full". Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas are sparse, but do we want any remaining areas of open space/nature and such to disappear as well? We can grow a little more. Small amounts of immigration (200,000 per year) and domestic births is fine for that objective.