Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meh. It requires balancing (approximately) the production and consumption needs...
with the capacity to produce. It won't happen by waving a magic wand... but is doable.
It took the US sixty years (including the depression and WW2) for more than a 100%
increase in our population: 123 Million to 226 Million (1920 - 1980).
But it took the US only forty years (another 40%) to increase to 309 Million (1970- 2010).
That's too many too fast... especially at a time when our industrial capacity...
and particularly our need for low/no skilled labor was dropping precipitously.
Adding insult to injury... the greatest population increases came from the least able.
The US at up to 200 or 225 Million will work fine.
The sooner we can get back to that the better.
Included in your US population numbers are immigrants, both legal and illegal. It is this immigration which is creating the illusion that our population is growing steadily. Without immigration, our birthrate would fall below replacement level. The fact that immigrant birthrates are falling is strong indication of the shape of things to come.
As for the economic consequences, fewer people mean fewer consumers, which in turn means reduced economic growth because businesses sell less. Worldwide GDP declines year after year and?
I appreciate that the myth of overpopulation still lives front and center in the minds of many. Those people are wrong. Nor have they thought through the longer term consequences of declining populations.
Included in (those US census) population numbers are immigrants, both legal and illegal.
It is this immigration which is creating the illusion that our population is growing steadily.
Aside from using the term "illusion"... are you saying it has NOT been growing steadily?
Quote:
...fewer people mean fewer consumers, which in turn means reduced economic growth because
businesses sell less. Worldwide GDP declines year after year and?
...and finds a new equilibrium. One not based in that assumption of constant growth.
Quote:
Without immigration, our birthrate would fall below replacement level.
The fact that immigrant birthrates are falling is strong indication of the shape of things to come.
I wonder how many miles that back up was? Assuming the driver was driving 70 mph that's over a 5 mile back up and I'm betting he didn't start videotaping right at the start.
Included in your US population numbers are immigrants, both legal and illegal. It is this immigration which is creating the illusion that our population is growing steadily. Without immigration, our birthrate would fall below replacement level. The fact that immigrant birthrates are falling is strong indication of the shape of things to come.
As for the economic consequences, fewer people mean fewer consumers, which in turn means reduced economic growth because businesses sell less. Worldwide GDP declines year after year and?
I appreciate that the myth of overpopulation still lives front and center in the minds of many. Those people are wrong. Nor have they thought through the longer term consequences of declining populations.
When I first got into immigration, I researched population numbers through history. I seem to remember that it is a problem for nations, at least in the pre-techological age. I remember that population numbers were previously "controlled" by disease and war.
Today, most countries are not so welcoming as the USA and these nations both control immigration (but allow temporary foreign workers) and put social programs in place to boost birth rates among all of their citizens.
Yes, there is a lot of empty land in the US that is arable and has water resources (climate change?). But we live in cities not the country.
There still exists the myth of upward mobility in the US, but not for most people. Its just an election "saw." Trying to think ahead, lots of Americans are going to be on a government dole with politics controlled more and more by seniors (who live a lot longer) who are happy with things the way they are.
An average kid costs something like $200,000 to raise (conservatively speaking). Can a minimum wage earning family afford a single kid? Hell no. Even if we find the ways to cut lower 40% income births to 0% and make career minded middle class to sire and produce more. I don't see the point. A middle class family doesn't "invest", so to speak, $500,000 into raising a child so he could haul garbage (no matter how dumb that particular kid might be). They would use all their means and connections for a kid to get a well paying paper pushing job. Upper middle class kid is virtually guaranteed stable income and no sweat high income job regardless of his/her merits. I think right wingers lamenting welfare class fertility don't quite understand what they wish for.
Last edited by RememberMee; 01-26-2013 at 07:45 PM..
In my opinion, it all boils down to energy. Using fossil fuels the way we do right now, the world is awfully overcrowded, because we created more pollution than the planet can eliminate. but were the world to switch to some kind of renewable, clean energy source, other problems with overcrowding would evaporate. Water could be desalinated in huge amounts and transportation wouldn't be handled by huge numbers of personal automobiles, but rather public transit and fewer cars. Crops could be grown throughout the world in huge amounts and synthetic materials could replace the minerals that exist in finite supplies. The planet would be able to support something like 100 billion people. There's no reason to think that a traffic jam in New Jersey would be indicative of a more populous future. Hopefully most people in that world wouldn't live in massive, sprawling suburbs, but rather tall and dense metropoleis like New York, Buenos Aires, and Hong Kong.
In my opinion, it all boils down to energy. Using fossil fuels the way we do right now, the world is awfully overcrowded, because we created more pollution than the planet can eliminate. but were the world to switch to some kind of renewable, clean energy source, other problems with overcrowding would evaporate. Water could be desalinated in huge amounts and transportation wouldn't be handled by huge numbers of personal automobiles, but rather public transit and fewer cars. Crops could be grown throughout the world in huge amounts and synthetic materials could replace the minerals that exist in finite supplies. The planet would be able to support something like 100 billion people. There's no reason to think that a traffic jam in New Jersey would be indicative of a more populous future. Hopefully most people in that world wouldn't live in massive, sprawling suburbs, but rather tall and dense metropoleis like New York, Buenos Aires, and Hong Kong.
Old Response re-posted Here
I always thought that energy makes the world go around. One thing that distinguishes us is we know how to manipulate energy sources which are the sun, food, wood, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and today simultaneously, solar, geothermal, wind power, biomass. I think that's all the important ones. I did not include electricity since its a derived power supply that needs one of the above energy sources to produce it.
In this technological age, and when it started is debatable, new sources of energy have come along in their implementation in fairly even time intervals. But have you noticed? It has stopped. No new sources.
So the next age of man may coincide with a new source of energy.
We've already found ways to be more productive.
What's the result? A need for *fewer* people.
Bingo! It’s really that simple!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
As for the economic consequences, fewer people mean fewer consumers, which in turn means reduced economic growth because businesses sell less. Worldwide GDP declines year after year and?
Using people to churn/feed the Economy has run its course; & has become borderline barbaric IMHO.
there is plenty of room on earth for a lot more people. we are nowhere near any kind of overpopulation problem. the hatred of humanity that school have baked into people is disgusting.
This has got to be one of the outright stupidest statements I have ever read.
The world is grossly overpopulated and that overpopulation is the sole reason the majority of the world lives in desperate poverty.
Overpopulation is of benefit to the elite and the wealthy of the world who profit from the low wages and high demand overpopulation fosters.
I have traveled to many countries, and from what I have seen firsthand, the effects of overpopulation in most of these countries have been devastating.
It is the ignorant and deceitful who deny the realities of overpopulation, which hate humanity.
They are also very often the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the misery of others for their own benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chuckmann Nailed It
