6 ms·

The whole premise for the purpose always bothers me; the argument that with population projections what we have to do is accommodate unsustainable growth with "

by wahsd 12y ago

The whole premise for the purpose always bothers me; the argument that with population projections what we have to do is accommodate unsustainable growth with "sustainable" buildings. There is something really weird about humanity's inability to even bring up the fact that we are reproducing at rates that are inherently unsustainable and could even lead to become a catalyst for extinction. There is no sustainable building method or process that will do anything more than prolong the inevitable. It's a rather odd perspective in, at least the USA, that "green", environmentally friendly, and "sustainable" are nothing of the sort. "Green" means using images of leaves on high gloss unnecessary packaging; "environmentally friendly" means using some wood with abandon as to where it's from; and "sustainable" means simply continuation of anything, whether good or bad. The sustainable design issue has actually already been solved in many ways; it's just that the solutions don't fit in with people's unwillingness to give up anything.

nodata 12y ago
Can you name a modern state that is reproducing at above levels that sustain the population numbers? (Immigration doesn't count)
- jpollock 12y ago
  New Zealand http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/births/BirthsAndDeaths_HOTPYeDec13.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/births/...
  - wisty 12y ago
    NZ's fertility rate is below replacement (it needs to be a little more than 2.0). If you look at raw deaths / birth, Japan only crossed into negative growth in 2008. But it's had lower fertility (below 2.0) since the mid 1970s. If natural increase is driven by people living longer, it's only going to happen for a while.
    - jpollock 12y ago
      Still New Zealand, which was running at 2.12 in 2009, with a long term (30 year) average of 2.01. http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/people/fertility.html http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/people/fertility.html The USA is running at 2.09 in 2009.
7952 12y ago
Fertility rates are actually dropping and have for a few decades [1]. It takes time for that to actually translate into stabilising population. Its like throttling down the engine on a spacecraft, your total altitude (population) will continue to rise even though the acceleration (fertility rate) has dropped. So we have to equip the world to provide for the great grand children of the fertile people from forty years ago. That growth is unavoidable, even with lower levels of fertility. Sustainable design is just the optimal most efficient way of dealing with that growth. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
- wahsd 12y ago
  We are already at unsustainable population levels and the majority of populations are still growing and countries with negative population growth are constantly urged to promote population growth. I realize that fertility rates are dropping and I realize there is inertia, but decreasing acceleration is still not negative acceleration.
  - 7952 12y ago
    But my point is that there is very little you can do to alter a growth that is already baked into the system. A country with a large youth population will continue to increase in size even if they only have two children per family. I agree that humanity has a very negative ecological impact. But that is a basic facet of human society, not population growth. All industrial economies devastate the native ecosystem in which they exist. Forcing people to abandon the chance of children does not change that. Your argument is trite and does not offer any real insight.
akgerber 12y ago
Even at zero population growth, old buildings wear out and need to be replaced. Especially when we build them like most postwar US construction. Likewise, especially in harsher climates, replacing worn-out older buildings with passivhaus-grade buildings will reduce energy consumption in the long run, and it's impractical to upgrade many older buildings to such a level of insulation.

by wahsd 12y ago

nodata 12y ago

Can you name a modern state that is reproducing at above levels that sustain the population numbers? (Immigration doesn't count)

jpollock 12y ago
New Zealand http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/births/BirthsAndDeaths_HOTPYeDec13.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/births/...
- wisty 12y ago
  NZ's fertility rate is below replacement (it needs to be a little more than 2.0). If you look at raw deaths / birth, Japan only crossed into negative growth in 2008. But it's had lower fertility (below 2.0) since the mid 1970s. If natural increase is driven by people living longer, it's only going to happen for a while.
  - jpollock 12y ago
    Still New Zealand, which was running at 2.12 in 2009, with a long term (30 year) average of 2.01. http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/people/fertility.html http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/people/fertility.html The USA is running at 2.09 in 2009.

7952 12y ago

Fertility rates are actually dropping and have for a few decades [1]. It takes time for that to actually translate into stabilising population. Its like throttling down the engine on a spacecraft, your total altitude (population) will continue to rise even though the acceleration (fertility rate) has dropped. So we have to equip the world to provide for the great grand children of the fertile people from forty years ago. That growth is unavoidable, even with lower levels of fertility. Sustainable design is just the optimal most efficient way of dealing with that growth. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

wahsd 12y ago
We are already at unsustainable population levels and the majority of populations are still growing and countries with negative population growth are constantly urged to promote population growth. I realize that fertility rates are dropping and I realize there is inertia, but decreasing acceleration is still not negative acceleration.
- 7952 12y ago
  But my point is that there is very little you can do to alter a growth that is already baked into the system. A country with a large youth population will continue to increase in size even if they only have two children per family. I agree that humanity has a very negative ecological impact. But that is a basic facet of human society, not population growth. All industrial economies devastate the native ecosystem in which they exist. Forcing people to abandon the chance of children does not change that. Your argument is trite and does not offer any real insight.

akgerber 12y ago

Even at zero population growth, old buildings wear out and need to be replaced. Especially when we build them like most postwar US construction. Likewise, especially in harsher climates, replacing worn-out older buildings with passivhaus-grade buildings will reduce energy consumption in the long run, and it's impractical to upgrade many older buildings to such a level of insulation.