[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

Fri Jan 26 22:10:00 PST 2007

Sounds quite rosy. If it is going to be so great, why bother with metro 
trying to make the Portland area the most densely populated on the 
planet? This could be a good pro-prop 37 discussion point.

Carol Morgan wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Not to suggest that your numbers are wrong, but many growth 
> projections are used by taking the current growth rate and multiplying 
> it by number of years, and this ends up being incorrect.  The rate of 
> growth is itself slowing, and that rate of growth is accellerating at 
> a rate that won't always be predictable, and many believe by 2030 the 
> growth rate will actually be 0 and start declining.  That is because 
> we are only a few decades behind the trajectory of Europe's 
> demographic trends, which have resulted in negative population growth 
> (declines) in several of Europe's biggest countries: Russia (and 
> Soviet block countries), Italy, Spain, and Germany among others are 
> already shrinking.  World population will start to shrink by 2050 at 
> the latest.
>
> The US will slow because our indigenous birthrate is already 
> negative--we only grow now because of immigration.  And the countries 
> that we get people from are themselves slowing down.  Mexico's 
> birthrate is about replacement  and shrinking and so in a few decades 
> they will need their own labor and not send it so us so readilly.
>
> As to the water prediction, who is to say that in 43 years, whatever 
> the population, the scenario for obtaining drinking water will be 
> significantly different?  There are many technologies looming on the 
> horizon, only waiting for economic feasibility created by a lack of 
> cheap ground water that we now have.  And one would bet that if Middle 
> Eastern populations still have water by then, (they are growing faster 
> and are in worse situations with respect to water supply), they would 
> have made some contributions to that technology by the time we get to 
> that situation.
>
> Hate to spoil the doomsday predictions, for some reason many find them 
> fun, but the points I have made are consistent with what usually 
> happens to these types of predictions.  Many have predicted that we 
> would run out of food, using the assumptions of many more people and 
> less food.  But technology has resulted in a situation where right 
> now, nearly every country in the globe is a net food exporter.  This 
> country could feed the entire world if its crop capacity were 
> reached.  Obesity is becoming a much more common food problem than 
> starvation, even in poor countries, and especially in poor populations 
> within rich countries.
>
> I imagine that since the assumptions underpinning the lack of energy 
> and water are themselves so  Malthusian, they won't materialize, just 
> like mass starvation didn't.
>
>
> On an alternate path. The USA is projected to be over 400 million by
> 2050. We don't have enough water for that many.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> > Neither the anti Prop-37 activists or those who are trying to make a
> > windfall from Prop-37 are in charge. They're both noisy, but it's only
> > noise. The legislative and legal systems are now in charge. Claims 
> are being
> > filed, and the legislative branch of the government will make a
> > determination on each one.
> >
> > We have a system that works. Don't get distracted by the people on the
> > street corners (of Grovenet or the streets) waving signs. The best 
> they can
> > hope for is to change the rules some day in the future, if enough 
> people
> > agree with them.
> >
> > Where did you get this figure?
> >
> > "To answer your question, Ron. We will need 20% less than what we now
> > consume to be competitive in the future. What will the future be 
> like to
> > achieve that? Who decides the best path?"
> >
> > I think you're saying we need 20% more energy, not less. If it were 
> less
> > we'd already have a surplus. So we need 20% more? If so, then we 
> know what
> > we need to do.
> >
> > Who will decide how to achieve that number? In the USA it will be the
> > scariest body of them all. It will be the same group who elected James
> > Carter, Bill Clinton and both Bushes to the Presidency: the American 
> voter.
> >
> > And that's why I campaign for a better informed, better educated voter!
> >
> > But, please, before we rush to the polls, where did you find that 
> number?
> >
> > Ron D'Eau Claire
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> > Behalf Of Steven
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:13 PM
> > To: Forest Grove local interests list
> > Subject: Re: [Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby
> >
> >
> > I was thinking of the prop 37 landowners vs county and FG's Morelli vs
> > Metro stuff. We can't seem to get the 'who is in charge' thing 
> straight. I
> > notice that we seem to be focused on commuting to work. Live close to
> > work. Stuff us all closer to work.
> > Is that the largest consumption of energy? Is the goal to have a
> > bazillion employees making widgets? Who would be the consumer ins 
> such a
> > world?
> > Is the goal to stuff us in close to a job?
> > We could easily live in 300sqft per person units. A building 320' x 
> 320'
> > would have about 100,000sqft of living space. Enough for over 340
> > people. Multiply that by 30 floors and you have enough room for 10,000
> > people. If it costs too much to have this in the cold north of 
> Oregon or
> > North Dakota, we could decided to move all living to temperate 
> climates.
> > The entire population of Oregon and Washington could live in less than
> > 1000 of these buildings in eureka, CA. We could move all manufacturing
> > from the northwest to there, too.
> > Food transportation? Convert all organic mater to hydrocarbons. We can
> > recreate the perfect food, EcoFu. It would have all the nourishment the
> > body needs.This could be manufactured local to the residences so that
> > transport would be minimal.
> > Manufacturing needs would be minimal, there isn't a lot that will 
> fit in
> > my studio apartment.
> >
> > Now, on the other hand. I remember a book about how to be self
> > sustaining on 40 acres of land. Maybe it is more or maybe it is less.
> > What if the answer is for each person/family unit to have a certain
> > amount of land that they are in charge of. Oxygen production from 
> plants
> > might be a bonus. Or maybe we could each have a garden, like a Victory
> > Garden. Maybe we don't commute to work, but use technology to work from
> > home.
> >
> > Metro has set us in motion for one of these viable options. Which one?
> >
> > To answer your question, Ron. We will need 20% less than what we now
> > consume to be competitive in the future. What will the future be 
> like to
> > achieve that? Who decides the best path?
> >
> > Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> >
> >> Man, Steven, you become absolutely paralyzed at the idea that anyone
> >> might tell you what to do!
> >>
> >> How do you survive a day knowing there are laws that you must obey or
> >> you'll be arrested, or work you must do or you'll lose our job, or
> >> that the choices of where you live, what you wear and where you go on
> >> your 'own time' are in large measure limited by the choices of other
> >> people?
> >>
> >> And what do such phobias have to do with wanting to know how much
> >> energy the USA will need to regain a competitive position in the world
> >> for our children while protecting the qualities that make life here
> >>
> > attractive for us?
> >
> >> Ron D'Eau Claire
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>   