Limits to Growth

[cloud713]

If you want to live in a teeming metropolis with people squeezed into tiny hovels all around you, great... go for it!

A large portion of American society DOESN'T want that.

It's one of the great things about being American, we can all find somewhere we like and can afford. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear at all if "downtown" disappeared tomorrow, since it holds zero interest for me, but I know others love it and I have no issue with that.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

[gmac]

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Tell you what then, big shooter. You sell all your stuff, stop eating anything that you haven't grown yourself, stop using ANY resources that you haven't created... then I'll listen to you. Until then, kindly follow your own instructions and take some reality classes. No offense intended.

 

[august948]

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Calm down a bit.  First of all, it's doubtful that everyone in the world will be able or may even want to live the "American lifestyle".  Even in America not everyone lives that way.  As resources become scarcer, prices go up and innovation and adaptation occurrs.  Been that way for all of human history.  Fair or not, wealthier nations are going to have more resource intensive lifestyles and less wealthy nations are going to have to make do.  Thats true now, that's been true in the past, and that will continue to be true in the future.  In a few hundred years, a pittance of time in both historical and geological senses, human population growth will hit it's zenith and then start to decline.  I'm quite sure that our resources and ingenuity will suffice until that happens.  Some people may not get to live the "American lifestyle" in the meantime, but that's just how it goes.

 

[Ross]

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but people with that type of thinking need to go **** themselves.. This world cannot sustain the "American lifestyle".. If everyone lived that way we would be deprived of our resources, be living in a wasteland, the world would be a terrible place for our future generations.. Environmental science should be a mandatory class for all students.

 

Are you saying we should all live in hovels, cheek to jowl, like some nightmare from 17th century London? Back to the days where life was short and brutish? Or, perhaps you would like the Stalinist model better, where the bathroom and kitchen are down the hall, but no one uses much in the way of resources, because there aren't any allocated to the masses.

 

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

 

[august948]

 

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

 

 

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources.  Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

 

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

 

[Ross]

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources.  Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

 

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

 

 

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

 

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

 

[Slick Vik]

Are you saying we should all live in hovels, cheek to jowl, like some nightmare from 17th century London? Back to the days where life was short and brutish? Or, perhaps you would like the Stalinist model better, where the bathroom and kitchen are down the hall, but no one uses much in the way of resources, because there aren't any allocated to the masses.

Lots of us have actually taken environmental science courses. Sadly, many of them are taught by agenda toting professors whose goal is to force their way of thinking on everyone else, even when it's not reality based.

Sprawl and suburbia are simply not sustainable. The america dream of owning a house with a big yard and garage is BS, propaganda from those who had in interest in seeing that reality go forward. Most people would be better off in apartments financially but we tempt them into living in houses with American dream mantras and easy access to loans. Similar to engagement rings needing to be diamonds, all marketing.

Well, the article was from a 1994 issue of A&M Magazine, by which time The Woodlands had acquired places to work (no longer a bedroom community), had a few high-profile crimes, and so forth. George Mitchell even stated in said article that he wanted to The Woodlands to have a similar diversity makeup as Houston (and interestingly, in the mid-1990s, The Woodlands was slightly whiter than it is today). Now, do I know exactly where the affordable housing is? No, because I'm not too familiar with The Woodlands, but I'm guessing you aren't either.

As for "knowing a lot of people", you missed the point of well, your point. If you surround yourself with well-off (not exactly "rich", but enough with an income and a decent apartment) people who live in the city, vote liberal, etc. you're going to get a different viewpoint than the population as a whole.

As for "zoning is a master planned community", I never said that zoning was like a master planned community (who's twisting words here, again?), but you seem to have a viewpoint on the way things ought to be...all walkable, affordable housing in the area, high density, no surface lots, etc. You have a criteria built out in your mind, perhaps inspired by what you've seen in Europe or other places, and everything is doing it "wrong", from "Midtown shouldn't have surface lots at all" to "The suburbs ought to burn in hell" (I know you didn't say that last part, I'm just dramatizing things here). What you really WANT is an urban, master-planned community (New Urbanism, in fact) but would never admit to that fact as it would sound too commercialized.

I worked in the woodlands for a couple of years, don't recall ever seeing affordable housing.

[august948]

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

 

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

 

 

And it's pretty cool to have another option from the west side of town to Austin.  More choices in transit.  Gotta love that.  Going to try it out tomorrow.

 

[Slick Vik]

Those affordable areas generally have smaller lots and old houses in various states of repair. Schools are an issue as well. And, the risk of ebing a property crime victim is much higher when you have the best stuff in the neighborhood.

We seriously considered buying 4 houses on the Near North Side (think Collingsworth and Hardy), tearing them down and building a single house in the middle. we gave up on that when we found a house we like on a large lot near the Heights.

How about New York where there is rent stabilization?

[cloud713]

LOL, sorry.. ive been dealing with too many ignorant people today and finally had to let it out. 
agreed some environmental science classes are flawed and the teachers can be biased, though ive taken multiple environmental science classes from grade schools to prestigious universities..
there was a simulation program that showed that if everyone lived like us, it would require about 6 earths to sustain that life style...
and of course im using up resources, we are all slaves to the corporate/modern world.. but that doesnt mean you have to go out and live your life style to the point its so extravagant that your diminishing other peoples lives. i guess im just considerate of others and want the world to be a decent place to live for my descendants.

[Slick Vik]

Personally, I'd like to see downtown be mostly residential with the employment centers on the outskirts. Then inside the loop would be a place to live and play and the commuting could be distributed out

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

Calm down a bit. First of all, it's doubtful that everyone in the world will be able or may even want to live the "American lifestyle". Even in America not everyone lives that way. As resources become scarcer, prices go up and innovation and adaptation occurrs. Been that way for all of human history. Fair or not, wealthier nations are going to have more resource intensive lifestyles and less wealthy nations are going to have to make do. Thats true now, that's been true in the past, and that will continue to be true in the future. In a few hundred years, a pittance of time in both historical and geological senses, human population growth will hit it's zenith and then start to decline. I'm quite sure that our resources and ingenuity will suffice until that happens. Some people may not get to live the "American lifestyle" in the meantime, but that's just how it goes.

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

Indeed, during my time at Baylor in the mid-eighties an environmental science major friend of mine told me that in 20 or 30 years life as we knew it would come to a screeching halt due to overpopulation, pollution and lack of resources. Here we are, almost 30 years later and life is much the same.

"Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past Age, full of its own comings and goings" - Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Rings"

Overpopulation is the biggest global problem at the moment

[Slick Vik]

I would argue that life is far better, if slightly less predictable. Our vehicles are better built, pollute less, use less fuel, and are safer, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, we produce food surpluses on a regular basis, etc. I commented to a friend recently that I used to spend an inordinate amount of time maintaining my car. These days, I spens almost no time on vehicle maintenance.

And, on the topic, our roads are far better engineered and built.

There are more vehicles worldwide = more pollution

Food surpluses? Tell that to east Africa

Water supplies are becoming contaminated domestically due to fracking

[august948]

How about New York where there is rent stabilization?

 

"Rent Control Is the Real New York Scandal"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122126309241530485

 

 

[august948]

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

Overpopulation is the biggest global problem at the moment

 

Overpopulation is a non-problem, or at best a localized, temporary problem.  Long term, as economies mature the birthrate dips to below replacement.  That's been documented back as far as the Roman Empire.

 

[august948]

Why should employment centers be on the outskirts?

So basically screw the rest of the world we will continue to drain the world's resources for our enjoyment because we can

 

 

Employment centers should be moved to where the people are choosing to live.  Less cross town traffic and fewer commute miles that way.

 

I could say this is really the way the world has always worked, but perhaps you should also do your part by jet-setting less.

 

[Slick Vik]

"Rent Control Is the Real New York Scandal"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122126309241530485

So it's not good to help the middle class stay in dynamic areas? You can't have it both ways

Overpopulation is a non-problem, or at best a localized, temporary problem. Long term, as economies mature the birthrate dips to below replacement. That's been documented back as far as the Roman Empire.

You're absolutely delusional. The population is seven billion and growing.

[august948]

So it's not good to help the middle class stay in dynamic areas? You can't have it both ways

 

Read the article.  It's not benefiting the middle class in NYC.  That's why they are fleeing (or being pushed out) to places like Houston.

 

[Slick Vik]

Employment centers should be moved to where the people are choosing to live. Less cross town traffic and fewer commute miles that way.

I could say this is really the way the world has always worked, but perhaps you should also do your part by jet-setting less.

Major companies tend to be in city centers. They aren't going to all move to suburbs. Some will but most won't.

[Slick Vik]

Read the article. It's not benefiting the middle class in NYC. That's why they are fleeing (or being pushed out) to places like Houston.

I don't interpret it that way, sorry

[Ross]

There are more vehicles worldwide = more pollution

Food surpluses? Tell that to east Africa

Water supplies are becoming contaminated domestically due to fracking

 

Lack of food in East Africa is a transportation issue, not a food issue.. Besides, most of the famines in that part of the world are due to political upheaval, and the subsequent flight of refugees to safer locations

 

You are utterly clueless about fracking and its impact on water supplies. Are you still getting all of your information on the topic from the fictional Gasland movies?

 

How do you expect people in developing countries to get around? Walk? They do that now. That's why there's little mobility , except for a very motivated few. When I worked in Africa, the goal of every one of our employees was to save enough money to buy a car, increasing their independence, and making it possible to live a better life.

 

[august948]

You're absolutely delusional. The population is seven billion and growing.

 

Hardly...

 

Whether it peaks in 2050 or some later point doesn't matter.  The growth rate for the world population has been declining since 1970.

 

 

We're already nearing the peak of the curve.  The long term problem for the human race isn't overpopulation, it's depopulation.

[august948]

Major companies tend to be in city centers. They aren't going to all move to suburbs. Some will but most won't.

 

Historically they have, but there's ample evidence around town that that's changing.

 

[cloud713]

Just found this...

 

 

 

http://katytimes.com/news/article_79249148-6804-11e3-8456-0019bb2963f4.html

 

"Grocers leading the way", "employers are moving out to where the people want to live"...where they have better school districts and backyards...go figure.

 

of course grocers are going to move where the people live, they are tying to make money off them... 

employers wouldnt have to move out to the boonies if we didnt have so much damn sprawl..

schools are improving as the inner city gentrifies.. 

i have an awesome design for a residential highrise where each unit would have a "back yard"/grassy area out on whats basically a big balcony, and the tower would be a tiered/step design where each floor gets some sun/rain for their back yard, (i always wanted to be an architect or engineer) with longer skinnier units on the bottom (so that multiple "back yards" are on the same floor at the wider part of the high rise), that get wider and not as long as the floors go up, to where the top floor has just one really wide unit with sweeping views and a single back yard. i dont know if you follow..

[cloud713]

Hardly...

 

Whether it peaks in 2050 or some later point doesn't matter.  The growth rate for the world population has been declining since 1970.

 

 

We're already nearing the peak of the curve.  The long term problem for the human race isn't overpopulation, it's depopulation.

thats debatable, though you were absolutely right about mature civilizations birth rates dropping below replacement rate. there are just so many people living in third world countries, and i dont think its likely every country will eventually become a first world country. there will always be rich and poor.

[august948]

thats debatable, though you were absolutely right about mature civilizations birth rates dropping below replacement rate. there are just so many people living in third world countries, and i dont think its likely every country will eventually become a first world country. there will always be rich and poor.

 

You are correct in that there will always be rich and poor, nations and people.  But these terms are relative to each other.  In historical terms, third world countries are industrializing and will continue to do so.  As such, the birth rates in those countries will decline along predictable patterns.  I'm sure we could scare up some figures from various third world nations to back that up.  7 billion or 10 billion may seem a lot, but you could fit 7 billion people in the area of the state of Texas with an average density of 40 people per acre.  A crowd, no doubt, but not packed like sardines.  That would leave the rest of the Earth's surface devoid of human life.  From what I've seen the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth, from a resource viewpoint, is estimated at around 40 billion.  Long before we hit that number, if the population growth even gets close, which I don't think it will, natural selection would set in.  It's really just the peak we've got to worry about.  That may well be the biggest story of the next few hundred years when future historians look back in a thousand years time.

 

[Subdude]

Split from Grand Parkway thread.  You guys need to watch it on hijacking topics.

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Hardly...

Whether it peaks in 2050 or some later point doesn't matter. The growth rate for the world population has been declining since 1970.

We're already nearing the peak of the curve. The long term problem for the human race isn't overpopulation, it's depopulation.

Yet you choose to ignore peak oil graphs. I can pull up graphs that have the population exploding to 12 billion as well.

[Slick Vik]

Lack of food in East Africa is a transportation issue, not a food issue.. Besides, most of the famines in that part of the world are due to political upheaval, and the subsequent flight of refugees to safer locations

You are utterly clueless about fracking and its impact on water supplies. Are you still getting all of your information on the topic from the fictional Gasland movies?

How do you expect people in developing countries to get around? Walk? They do that now. That's why there's little mobility , except for a very motivated few. When I worked in Africa, the goal of every one of our employees was to save enough money to buy a car, increasing their independence, and making it possible to live a better life.

Why don't you go to communities all over the country and see what is happening to families that live nearby to fracking sites? Their water is being contaminated and their kids are getting sick and they have no choice but to move out as a result. I personally have seen it for myself in parts of Texas. Go, I dare you. Is money the only thing that matters to you?

[Slick Vik]

You are correct in that there will always be rich and poor, nations and people. But these terms are relative to each other. In historical terms, third world countries are industrializing and will continue to do so. As such, the birth rates in those countries will decline along predictable patterns. I'm sure we could scare up some figures from various third world nations to back that up. 7 billion or 10 billion may seem a lot, but you could fit 7 billion people in the area of the state of Texas with an average density of 40 people per acre. A crowd, no doubt, but not packed like sardines. That would leave the rest of the Earth's surface devoid of human life. From what I've seen the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth, from a resource viewpoint, is estimated at around 40 billion. Long before we hit that number, if the population growth even gets close, which I don't think it will, natural selection would set in. It's really just the peak we've got to worry about. That may well be the biggest story of the next few hundred years when future historians look back in a thousand years time.

40 billion? Hahahahahahaha.

[IronTiger]

I worked in the woodlands for a couple of years, don't recall ever seeing affordable housing.

Just because it's not on your work commute doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Their water is being contaminated and their kids are getting sick and they have no choice but to move out as a result.

Uh-oh, kid's got a bad cough! Something going around in school? Nah, it must be fracking. Time to move out!

Even an Associated Press study showed that fracking didn't pollute water.