Highrises Y/N?

[Explorer Dave]

Regardless of specific dates we are talking about the difference of a decade or two (at the most) in which time suburbia has been around vs. thousands of years in which villages, towns, and cities, developed on a different model. One that was more dense and used less resources. For those thousands of years most people lived closer together because we didn't have the technology to live further apart, now we do.

But we are also using natural resources at an alarming and unsustainable rate now as well and we cannot keep using them at such a rate. I have seen it posted that we have used more resources in the last 50 years than in all the rest of human history, don't know if that is true or an exaggeration. But even if exaggerated I think it likely more truth in it than not. I did find this article: United Nations News Centre - Humanity’s voracious consumption of natural resources unsustainable – UN report

Right now I live in Florida a state that increased by millions since 1950 when it's population was about 2.8 million now it is over 19.5 million with most of that growth in suburban sprawl. And this population is projected to double in the next 20 years with the retirement of the baby boomers. Many resources such as water are already stretched thin here, what would doubling the population do?

We must find different ways to live that don't consume our natural resources faster than they can be replenished.

Of course there is also an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about or deal with because it makes us face ethical issues that none of us want to face, and that is the question of population in general. Which was about 2.5 billion on earth around 1950 and is over 7 billion now.

I am very concerned about our future (sad to say it, but I am very glad I have no children) and I wan't to live in a place where I can live a lower carbon lifestyle than I can here in FL.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Explorer Dave

I have seen it posted that we have used more resources in the last 50 years than in all the rest of human history, don't know if that is true or an exaggeration.

Right now I live in Florida a state that increased by millions since 1950 when it's population was about 2.8 million now it is over 19.5 million with most of that growth in suburban sprawl. And this population is projected to double in the next 20 years with the retirement of the baby boomers. Many resources such as water are already stretched thin here, what would doubling the population do?

Of course there is also an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about or deal with because it makes us face ethical issues that none of us want to face, and that is the question of population in general. Which was about 2.5 billion on earth around 1950 and is over 7 billion now.

The comment about resources is certainly believable given the great increase in population over the last 50 years. The cumulative population before the industrial revolution did not use that much in the way of resources.

Doubling in 20 years must be an exaggeration. That would imply growth at over 3.5% per year which is nearly triple Florida's 1.2% annual growth rate today. University of Florida estimates Low/Medium/High projections for Florida by 2035 of 22,527,400 | 24,730,700 | 27,825,800.

Discussions of worldwide population growth are frequent, but much of the world is running at sub-replacement fertility rates already.

The total fertility rate (TFR) of USA is 2.06 (close to zero population growth without immigration) but 40.8% of the world's population lives in countries with TFR below that of the USA. Europe and East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) are the dominate this below replacement countries.

India has a TFR of 2.55 where India alone has 17.2% of the world's population. But 21.8% of the world lives in countries with TFR greater than that of India (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa).

So 50 years ago when life expectancy took it's dramatic increases there was worldwide concern about over population. Now much of the world will not replace it's previous generations and must deal with an incredibly aging population. China in particular will have a massive issue as much of the population is still rural. So in addition to getting older it is planning to undergo the largest and fastest urbanization in human history.

[Explorer Dave]

I do think that Florida's population growth will have a lot (of course) to do with the economy. I got my estimate from an article that was read at a real estate investors club meeting I went to recently. Most people in the room where salivating at the opportunity, I was shouting in my head (I want out!) especially because of the way I have been seeing FL grow, of course I've been saying that for some time.

Of course I'm attracted to the Lehigh Valley area for many more than the reasons put forth here. One is I want mountains and waterfalls, etc. (Well with being from Oregon I consider anything east of the Rockies in the USA to be hills, LOL, but I realize they are much older mountains and that's fine - it's NOT FLAT!) I have looked at other areas in the NE such as Providence, Rhode Island and Hartford, Connecticut as places I might like that aren't too big or too small, and close to big cities, but no mountains nearby that I can see. Also more expensive.

I love Vermont and New Hampshire, but they are too far north and too far from the big Mid Atlantic/NE cities.

No place else in the USA has history like the Mid Atlantic and NE does, and culture seems to be best in that area too. I really like what I see of how Bethlehem is turning a former industrial site into a culture and tourist destination. (Although I am not a big fan of Sheldon Adelson the owner of Sands casino, to say the least.)

Lehigh Valley is close to NYC and Philly with Baltimore and DC being not too far away. I've also thought of MD I spent four years their when I was in the Air Force, at Ft. Meade between DC and Baltimore. But as much as I liked those cities I also spent as much time as I could in the Summers going up to PA to get into the mountains. (I had found a nice camping club I joined near Harrisburg, no longer there)

As far as population, yes there are even estimates of it flattening out at around 9 billion. But that is most likely because resources simply won't be able to sustain anymore, and it likely means a big change in lifestyle for a great many because of resource limits.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Explorer Dave

As far as population, yes there are even estimates of it flattening out at around 9 billion. But that is most likely because resources simply won't be able to sustain anymore, and it likely means a big change in lifestyle for a great many because of resource limits.

The normal guess is another 12 years to reach 8 billion, and then it slows down to 17-18 years to reach 9 billion. After that it may be 25-30 years to reach 10 billion.

For the Western Hemisphere (Northern and Latin America) maybe 5 or 6 years to reach 1 billion.
Right now, for all the Americas it is 15m births and 6.5m deaths plus a little over half a million immigrants from Eastern hemisphere. Now there is a lot of immigration from Latin America to Northern America.

When I read predictions of the world leveling off at 9 billion, then I have to take it with a grain of salt. That would involve such a radical change in procreation behavior as to be unprecedented. Or it implies a level of human death unseen in all of human history. It would make a combination of WWI, WWII, Chinese famine, Spanish Flu, and Black Death look like nothing.

I personally don't think it will level off at 10 or 11 billion, but I have to admit that is more speculative. Before that happens I will be dead.

[toobusytoday]

Originally Posted by Explorer Dave

Regardless of specific dates we are talking about the difference of a decade or two (at the most) in which time suburbia has been around vs. thousands of years in which villages, towns, and cities, developed on a different model. One that was more dense and used less resources. For those thousands of years most people lived closer together because we didn't have the technology to live further apart, now we do.

The difference is that you now have generations like mine that have never lived in a town or city. We've always had to drive places to get anywhere but we didn't live in the country, we just lived in developments outside of town. It's a whole mindset of what's normal. My husband and I have moved a whole bunch (ten moves in 20 years) but when we were looking for places to live with our young kids we specifically looked for neighborhoods with other young families, newer homes with large yards and very good schools. That rules out Pennsylvania cities and even limits towns because you won't streets predominantly filled with young families. Also, we've lived in old character filled homes that come with mice, HVAC problems, roofs that need fixing, etc, etc. That's why developments are successful.

However, I feel we do our part to take care of our planet. We've always recycled. We have solar panels that minimizes our electricity bill to less then $20/month, we compost, garden and hang laundry.