STATE OF THE ROCKIES REPORT

Annual Conference Kicks off With Talks of Water Doomsday

The door to a meaningful regional or national discussion about human growth limits will probably first occur in the arena of water limits. To date, politicians will not touch the subject of "eternal human growth" in a finite world as it is Un-American to be viewed as anti-growth or anti-progress. The Chamber of Commerce idea of progress is merely to increase wealth and population as opposed to looking for ways of restoring value to human existance. The Governor of California, in a recent speech at Georgetown University, indicated that this country has reached a "tipping point" in the greening of America in that the anti-environmental folks are now in the minority; they are now the "fringe element". The Governor was wildly optimistic about new green technologies and new attitudes that will save us from global warming & such. However the governor failed--as all other politicans have--to mention the unpopular topic of human limits. Can there ever be a true greening of America until we confront the stark reality of a balance between human numbers & the earth's human carrying capacity? California's current human polulation number is about 36 million, I would love to have an opportunity to ask the governor if he believes that there is an ulitmate downside to allowing California's population to increase to 100 or even 300 million humans? Maybe, just beyond the horizon, we are approaching a tipping point where the majority of American's will agree to have a meaningful discussion about population limits rather than waiting for the train wreak of biological and resource exhaustion controls.

Without addressing endless human growth, nothing, I repeat, nothing will be solved by any conference. It means you're all talking while your train careens over a cliff. It means you mean well, but nothing you do will mean anything if you don't address stabilizing population. How many people can Colorado hold with sufficient water? What is our carrying capacity? How much gridlock do we want? What happens when the next 6 million people lands in Colorado as predicted by 2050? Who will stand up and speak out for a "Colorado Population Policy"? Without it, any conference is like dancing for rain in death valley, like screaming at Katrina to slow down, like marching up a 14er with bare feet, like swimming up the Colorado River in springtime expecting to reach its source. We either come to terms with our population or nature will do it for us.

It is interesting to see the take that we need to control population because of decreasing habitat(I agree, but have no idea how to do it in a free society), perhaps mandate smaller homes no matter how much money one has. On the other hand various environmental groups feel that we need to have more elephnts, grizzlies and wolves due to declining habitat for them. How can both be right?