|
|
|
|
hugin
Apr 9, 2007, 8:45 PM
Post #26 of 36
(489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 240
|
moose_droppings wrote: Even if your statement is true, our population is indeed still growing. And does it matter who lives in the new homes, (immigrants or not), they're still there. Worry about the other nations growth? We might be less populated than some, but we put out more than our fair share of pollution. If they weren't coming here in droves, I wouldn't be care what other nations do, I'm more concerned about our spot on the rock. Were quite good at telling other nations what to do, and most of the world is getting fed up with our self righteous spray anyway, especially when we demonstrate differently.
"Even if ... " huh? You can look it up yourself. Based on the last census (and from the census department), current growth estimates are about .9 % per year. I lied a little bit .. they got down to .87% in the early-mid 70's, .6% in the early 30's, and they've modulated up to as much as about 2% in between. For perspective, we're gaining .25 immigrants for every birth. US fertility rates are about 2.1/woman, and the death rate is about 50% less than the birth rate right now.
It does, in fact, matter who lives in the new homes. There are these things called markets - if the market isn't there, then the homes won't sell. All indications right now are that the market for new resort homes is drying up due to a number of economic matters - not least of which is the recent run-up of home prices by people buying multiple homes hoping to flip them for a profit (this means more than the usual number of homes per eligible buyer - or an artificial growth in the perceived market size ... a lot of those homes are sitting vacant and unsold right now). If that does in fact happen, then future development will slow considerably as developers scramble to recover costs from their past projects before they're able to launch into new ones. While I agree that these things are disgusting, environmentally irresponsible, and generally a blight on the lands that we love to frequent, I don't agree that it's a growing future problem that will destroy everything we love about our public lands. In fact, I'm trying to point out just the opposite. No need for the doom and gloom, especially given that people are moving to the cities right now ... generally away from the national parks and open spaces.
Just for clarification ... by "influence others" I mean your neighbors and friends ... not China.
(This post was edited by hugin on Apr 9, 2007, 8:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 9, 2007, 9:31 PM
Post #27 of 36
(472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
muslmutt wrote: Arkansas just lost Mt. Magazine to a new state lodge. Funny that they built that thing when they already have two mountain top state lodges failing. Oh, we are currently allowed to climb there, but not many want to.
Arkansas didn't lose anything. And those other lodges are not failing. The lodge at Mag was built on the site of a previously-existing lodge that burned in the 70s. There have been hotels, camps, and lodges up there since the 1870s. And it hasn't stopped anyone from climbing. Peaceful coexistence, as someone else said. I still climb there. Do I wish the lodge wasn't there? I don't know. It's a beautiful place-- the lodge AND the mountain top. I've stayed at the lodge and it's sweet. You just have to deal with the occasional curious look from a touron. No biggie, really.
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Apr 9, 2007, 10:38 PM
Post #28 of 36
(464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
The US ppopulation in 1930 was approximately 122 million people, today it is 300 million.
Compared to 77 years ago, the US has had explosive growth in infrastucture and sprawl. Freeways did not exist then.
Most of the rapid population growth today is from immigration, legal and illegal. This is coming at a very heavy price and will detroy wild places in the US and must be slowed dramatically.
People who come to live in the US are big footprint people - big resource and space consumers.
The only reason the suburbs aren't in sight of Eldo is because of strict zoning.
What does eveyone think of the housing developments and mini malls marching up the hill toward Red Rocks?
|
|
|
|
|
hugin
Apr 9, 2007, 10:54 PM
Post #29 of 36
(458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 240
|
eastvillage wrote: The US ppopulation in 1930 was approximately 122 million people, today it is 300 million. Compared to 77 years ago, the US has had explosive growth in infrastucture and sprawl. Freeways did not exist then. Most of the rapid population growth today is from immigration, legal and illegal. This is coming at a very heavy price and will detroy wild places in the US and must be slowed dramatically.
I'm going to rephrase my above post. US population growth has been consistently at or below 2%/year for the last 77 years. Today, it is less than half that peak at about .9%.
Immigration, legal and illegal, accounts for 1/5 of the added people, not counting deaths. It's closer to 1/3 with deaths counted. That's not "most". Mormons probably do more to bring the average up. It's clear that you have a political agenda in this discussion. It would be more honest if you went to the soap box and started a new thread on immigration. This is not an immigration problem.
eastvillage wrote: People who come to live in the US are big footprint people - big resource and space consumers. The only reason the suburbs aren't in sight of Eldo is because of strict zoning. What does eveyone think of the housing developments and mini malls marching up the hill toward Red Rocks?
People *in* the US have a large footprint. I would wager that folks raised in the US have a larger footprint than most immigrants. I said it before, but it was buried ... the problem is social and economic, not one of breeding and immigration. Economic problems have a habit of correcting themselves when the people causing the problem no longer have money to do so. Social ones (big footprint, and social desires for large suburban houses) are harder to address, especially in this format.
(This post was edited by hugin on Apr 9, 2007, 10:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 9, 2007, 11:35 PM
Post #30 of 36
(439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
hugin wrote: eastvillage wrote: The US ppopulation in 1930 was approximately 122 million people, today it is 300 million. Compared to 77 years ago, the US has had explosive growth in infrastucture and sprawl. Freeways did not exist then. Most of the rapid population growth today is from immigration, legal and illegal. This is coming at a very heavy price and will detroy wild places in the US and must be slowed dramatically. I'm going to rephrase my above post. US population growth has been consistently at or below 2%/year for the last 77 years. Today, it is less than half that peak at about .9%.
Just like to point out that if these figures are correct, than .9% of 300mil is more people each year than 2% of 122mil. So while your percentages have decreased, the amount of people each year has increased.
Anyway you look at it, population is increasing every year, irregardless of at what percent comes from those that are born here or not.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 9, 2007, 11:52 PM
Post #31 of 36
(432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
hugin wrote: ... the problem is social and economic, not one of breeding and immigration. Economic problems have a habit of correcting themselves when the people causing the problem no longer have money to do so. Social ones (big footprint, and social desires for large suburban houses) are harder to address, especially in this format.
Generally this seems on target. There is an exception in my state of Arizona, however, where immigration (illegal) really is destroying our wild places. It's unrelated to the OP's focus on golf resorts et al, but immigration has taken a heavy toll on Arizona's (specifically southern Arizona's) remaining natural lands. It is a direct impact caused by crossing immigrants on foot who destroy fragile desert environments (they obviously stay away from established trails and such) and leave garbage as they go. Organ Pipe National Monument is one of the most harmed preserved areas in the state (probably in the nation).
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 10, 2007, 1:34 AM
Post #32 of 36
(416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
azrockclimber wrote: ...I am actually suprised there are not stronger comments regarding this project.
I'm not. If the thought of looking down on a golf course from your crag is the biggest climbing related problem you have, you have it pretty good.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hugin
Apr 10, 2007, 3:03 PM
Post #33 of 36
(394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 240
|
moose_droppings wrote: Just like to point out that if these figures are correct, than .9% of 300mil is more people each year than 2% of 122mil. So while your percentages have decreased, the amount of people each year has increased. Anyway you look at it, population is increasing every year, irregardless of at what percent comes from those that are born here or not.
It's not arguable that, by raw numbers, population is increasing more now than before. That's how these things work. But, that's a meaningless way to discuss these things if you want to have a practical discussion, especially with doom-and-gloom comments like "ongoing, massive, population increase". I'm just trying to bring a little perspective to the issue - population, by percentage, is increasing less now than at most points in the last century. If Europe is any indication, the upward trend will turn over in the future and we'll actually start seeing even or negative population movement - as societies urbanize and liberalize, they start breeding less. We also have HUGE expanses of untouched land. Ever driven from LA to Denver? It's pretty barren for most of those 1000 miles ... 1000 miles that are FULL of a lifetime's worth of world-class climbing.
I agree that continued development is upsetting, especially when it encroaches on places that we find bring us peace, but if you want to do anything more than bitch about it, you need to have a *little* bit of perspective. It's not doom-and-gloom, and despite the shit flinging of some in this thread, trends are going in a good direction for those of us that want to see less population and less development.
(This post was edited by hugin on Apr 10, 2007, 3:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Apr 10, 2007, 3:19 PM
Post #34 of 36
(388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
Anybody want to discuss what we can do, now, to minimize the negative effects of the golf course? The debate on population growth is great and all, but does not help keep Cochise wild.
I mentioned a few suggestions in my earlier post. Any other thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 10, 2007, 5:14 PM
Post #35 of 36
(374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In reply to: It's not arguable that, by raw numbers, population is increasing more now than before.
Yes it is, by percentage no, but yes it is increasing more now than ever.
In reply to: But, that's a meaningless way to discuss these things if you want to have a practical discussion, especially with doom-and-gloom comments like "ongoing, massive, population increase".
I think your reading more doom and gloom into it than most that have posted. I believe it to be a curse, but one that will (one way or another) cure itself, while most others have only pointed out the dislike of it.
In reply to: We also have HUGE expanses of untouched land. Ever driven from LA to Denver? It's pretty barren for most of those 1000 miles ... 1000 miles that are FULL of a lifetime's worth of world-class climbing.
These vast expanses that you speak of are disappearing at an alarming rate. I think that is what most of the posting is relating to, and its a viable concern. Luckily a lot of land is owned and protected by our government, but is still susceptible to sells and development. Much of the land you speak of isn't conducive to making a living off of, thus remaining somewhat open. But I would venture to guess that had you crossed that same area 50 years ago, the difference between then and now would be quite noticeable.
In reply to: , and despite the shit flinging of some in this thread,
Again, your reading way to much into this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
