plunging birthrate

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, it’s late and I will call it a DAY (for me, anyway). 4S is NOT part of RB…[/quote]
Hmm… SDLookup is not agreeing with you: Here’s the link: http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Rancho_Bernardo-Houses_For_Sale-92127. Please tell me what you see that the title of the area covered by 92127?

[quote=bearishgurl]An “exurb” is a far-flung area (established or not established) which is situated far from job centers, whose residents are largely freeway dependent. It often does not have all the retail and other services locally within it which its residents need. In addition, it is served very minimally, if at all, by public transportation.

Hope this clears your confusion.[/quote]
By this definition, 4S must not be an exurb, since it’s quite close (5-15 minute drive) to several large corporations. What retail and services do you think one need that 4S does not have? So, no, it hasn’t cleared up much confusion. Unless what you’re say is, you’re wrong with this statement:
[quote=bearishgurl]In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
So, Bonsall, Fallbrook, Ramona, Alpine, etc. are true exurb. With this list of exurb, do you think the above statement is true?

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

[/quote]

Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?[/quote]

Well it does not matter if you accept what is happening. It’s not contingent on your acceptance. Actually, it’s fertility rate that is dropping. Which is why we are seeing population declines in many regions(thankfully). We’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet, so extinction is unlikely. Though some very ugly scenarios are possible with our resource mismanagement and general blindness to planetary limitations. Extinction can come in other ways besides not breeding. Current behavioral trajectories suggest we could have a population reduction from structural failures, in a short time period. Though, looking at it more and more, I’d say our economic system would give out before we did too much damage to our physical systems, but it would be just a different set of problems – that could also precipitate a lot of bad behavior, if we let it.

Currently we are running renewable resources at about 30% over of replacement rates and going through non-renewables like drunken sailors. These are not trends that can persist too much longer into the future. There are limits to “growth” in a finite world, much to the dismay of economists.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

[/quote]

Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?[/quote]

Well it does not matter if you accept what is happening. It’s not contingent on your acceptance. Actually, it’s fertility rate that is dropping. Which is why we are seeing population declines in many regions(thankfully). We’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet, so extinction is unlikely. Though some very ugly scenarios are possible with our resource mismanagement and general blindness to planetary limitations. Extinction can come in other ways besides not breeding. Current behavioral trajectories suggest we could have a population reduction from structural failures, in a short time period. Though, looking at it more and more, I’d say our economic system would give out before we did too much damage to our physical systems, but it would be just a different set of problems – that could also precipitate a lot of bad behavior, if we let it.

Currently we are running renewable resources at about 30% over of replacement rates and going through non-renewables like drunken sailors. These are not trends that can persist too much longer into the future. There are limits to “growth” in a finite world, much to the dismay of economists.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

[/quote]

Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?[/quote]

Well it does not matter if you accept what is happening. It’s not contingent on your acceptance. Actually, it’s fertility rate that is dropping. Which is why we are seeing population declines in many regions(thankfully). We’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet, so extinction is unlikely. Though some very ugly scenarios are possible with our resource mismanagement and general blindness to planetary limitations. Extinction can come in other ways besides not breeding. Current behavioral trajectories suggest we could have a population reduction from structural failures, in a short time period. Though, looking at it more and more, I’d say our economic system would give out before we did too much damage to our physical systems, but it would be just a different set of problems – that could also precipitate a lot of bad behavior, if we let it.

Currently we are running renewable resources at about 30% over of replacement rates and going through non-renewables like drunken sailors. These are not trends that can persist too much longer into the future. There are limits to “growth” in a finite world, much to the dismay of economists.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

[/quote]

Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?[/quote]

Well it does not matter if you accept what is happening. It’s not contingent on your acceptance. Actually, it’s fertility rate that is dropping. Which is why we are seeing population declines in many regions(thankfully). We’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet, so extinction is unlikely. Though some very ugly scenarios are possible with our resource mismanagement and general blindness to planetary limitations. Extinction can come in other ways besides not breeding. Current behavioral trajectories suggest we could have a population reduction from structural failures, in a short time period. Though, looking at it more and more, I’d say our economic system would give out before we did too much damage to our physical systems, but it would be just a different set of problems – that could also precipitate a lot of bad behavior, if we let it.

Currently we are running renewable resources at about 30% over of replacement rates and going through non-renewables like drunken sailors. These are not trends that can persist too much longer into the future. There are limits to “growth” in a finite world, much to the dismay of economists.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

[/quote]

Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?[/quote]

Well it does not matter if you accept what is happening. It’s not contingent on your acceptance. Actually, it’s fertility rate that is dropping. Which is why we are seeing population declines in many regions(thankfully). We’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet, so extinction is unlikely. Though some very ugly scenarios are possible with our resource mismanagement and general blindness to planetary limitations. Extinction can come in other ways besides not breeding. Current behavioral trajectories suggest we could have a population reduction from structural failures, in a short time period. Though, looking at it more and more, I’d say our economic system would give out before we did too much damage to our physical systems, but it would be just a different set of problems – that could also precipitate a lot of bad behavior, if we let it.

Currently we are running renewable resources at about 30% over of replacement rates and going through non-renewables like drunken sailors. These are not trends that can persist too much longer into the future. There are limits to “growth” in a finite world, much to the dismay of economists.

[scaredyclassic]

if everyone int he world gets a car, we’re screwed. if everyone gets a nice bicycle, we can continue a bit longer. I think the plan is for everyone in the world to try to get a car.

[scaredyclassic]

if everyone int he world gets a car, we’re screwed. if everyone gets a nice bicycle, we can continue a bit longer. I think the plan is for everyone in the world to try to get a car.

[scaredyclassic]

if everyone int he world gets a car, we’re screwed. if everyone gets a nice bicycle, we can continue a bit longer. I think the plan is for everyone in the world to try to get a car.

[scaredyclassic]

if everyone int he world gets a car, we’re screwed. if everyone gets a nice bicycle, we can continue a bit longer. I think the plan is for everyone in the world to try to get a car.

[scaredyclassic]

if everyone int he world gets a car, we’re screwed. if everyone gets a nice bicycle, we can continue a bit longer. I think the plan is for everyone in the world to try to get a car.

[Arraya]

Yeah, though, that won’t happen. Actually, you should get people in the west losing cars while other gain them in China and India. We will kind of have a balancing out of resource/energy per capita. As the west falls deeper into debt collapse it will push more people to lower resource consumption ratios while people increase theirs in the east – which really they can’t without the west dropping their consumption ratios given physical limitations in extraction rates.

Interestingly, it was the multiple decade debt orgy propelled the emerging economies to where they are. The question is will the east continue it’s development in the face of a general contraction in the west or will it stall as the whole world goes into a depression and just general state of disfunction.

Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.

[Arraya]

Yeah, though, that won’t happen. Actually, you should get people in the west losing cars while other gain them in China and India. We will kind of have a balancing out of resource/energy per capita. As the west falls deeper into debt collapse it will push more people to lower resource consumption ratios while people increase theirs in the east – which really they can’t without the west dropping their consumption ratios given physical limitations in extraction rates.

Interestingly, it was the multiple decade debt orgy propelled the emerging economies to where they are. The question is will the east continue it’s development in the face of a general contraction in the west or will it stall as the whole world goes into a depression and just general state of disfunction.

Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.

[Arraya]

Yeah, though, that won’t happen. Actually, you should get people in the west losing cars while other gain them in China and India. We will kind of have a balancing out of resource/energy per capita. As the west falls deeper into debt collapse it will push more people to lower resource consumption ratios while people increase theirs in the east – which really they can’t without the west dropping their consumption ratios given physical limitations in extraction rates.

Interestingly, it was the multiple decade debt orgy propelled the emerging economies to where they are. The question is will the east continue it’s development in the face of a general contraction in the west or will it stall as the whole world goes into a depression and just general state of disfunction.

Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.

[Arraya]

Yeah, though, that won’t happen. Actually, you should get people in the west losing cars while other gain them in China and India. We will kind of have a balancing out of resource/energy per capita. As the west falls deeper into debt collapse it will push more people to lower resource consumption ratios while people increase theirs in the east – which really they can’t without the west dropping their consumption ratios given physical limitations in extraction rates.

Interestingly, it was the multiple decade debt orgy propelled the emerging economies to where they are. The question is will the east continue it’s development in the face of a general contraction in the west or will it stall as the whole world goes into a depression and just general state of disfunction.

Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.

[Author]

Posts