U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2013, 06:24 PM
 
Location: IN
20,200 posts, read 34,559,931 times
Reputation: 12544

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
The question is whether or not the US devolves into a country so polarized that we go to war with each other and our government. The religious vs the non religious running of our country. That plus dwindling resources, global climate change and the Kardashians 15 minutes of fame not ending anytime soon.
I look at things from a long-range time horizon. I don't get a very good feeling at all about the next few decades at all on many of these issues but perhaps I will be wrong...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2013, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Tianjin, China
3,063 posts, read 2,564,355 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
Potable water is actually dwindling in supply due to our overpopulation tendencies. It's not just the access to water that will (is already in some places) be a problem.
It costs money to build desalination plants.
And we don't tend to avoid war - case in point - Iraq.
Except Iraq was not a big war. USA is strong and can crush iraq without getting a single person killed on American soil. If thats the wars you are talking about, then they might happen again. But those wars are not about water, in your best defence they might be about oil.

Countries do tend to avoid war if the opponent can show some opposition. Case in point, North Korea.

And no water is not dwindling in supply. There is plenty of water in most places. There is a few places that lack water, but if they are not extremly poor, they will still have more than enough water to have something to drink. In fact the problem in most poor countries is not lack of water, but lack of clean water. That is not a water shortage issue, but due to pollution and lack of water treatment plants. Both are fixable without reducing the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 08:37 PM
 
413 posts, read 553,823 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
Except Iraq was not a big war. USA is strong and can crush iraq without getting a single person killed on American soil. If thats the wars you are talking about, then they might happen again. But those wars are not about water, in your best defence they might be about oil.

Countries do tend to avoid war if the opponent can show some opposition. Case in point, North Korea.

And no water is not dwindling in supply. There is plenty of water in most places. There is a few places that lack water, but if they are not extremly poor, they will still have more than enough water to have something to drink. In fact the problem in most poor countries is not lack of water, but lack of clean water. That is not a water shortage issue, but due to pollution and lack of water treatment plants. Both are fixable without reducing the population.
Potable water is drinkable water. And what if the country is extremely poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2013, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Tianjin, China
3,063 posts, read 2,564,355 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
Potable water is drinkable water. And what if the country is extremely poor.
Then it won't be a big war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 12:41 PM
 
6,365 posts, read 7,358,842 times
Reputation: 10833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
And no water is not dwindling in supply. There is plenty of water in most places. There is a few places that lack water, but if they are not extremly poor, they will still have more than enough water to have something to drink. In fact the problem in most poor countries is not lack of water, but lack of clean water. That is not a water shortage issue, but due to pollution and lack of water treatment plants. Both are fixable without reducing the population.
Ignoring that you completely missed the point about drinking (potable) water, overpopulation--and the devastation to the land caused by overpopulation--is largely responsible for the levels of pollution that make water unfit to drink. On top of that, more people demand more drinking water. It's a vicious cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 02:07 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,924 posts, read 58,092,302 times
Reputation: 29401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan View Post
Ignoring that you completely missed the point about drinking (potable) water...

overpopulation--and the devastation to the land caused by overpopulation--
is largely responsible for the levels of pollution that make water unfit to drink.
On top of that, more people demand more drinking water. It's a vicious cycle.
^^This.

And international water resource war enthusiasts aside...
the people all still need meaningful work that will pay adequately.

Start with stabilizing the total number, work toward balance the demographics...
then move toward trimming the stabilized totals downward.
We might actually be able to thrive... not just survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Tianjin, China
3,063 posts, read 2,564,355 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan View Post
Ignoring that you completely missed the point about drinking (potable) water, overpopulation--and the devastation to the land caused by overpopulation--is largely responsible for the levels of pollution that make water unfit to drink. On top of that, more people demand more drinking water. It's a vicious cycle.
I didn't ignore it. I said lack of potable water is not a problem for countries that are not extremly poor and dysfunctional, cause you can create a water treatment plant to crate more drinkable water like first world countries have done.

Let me think what would be more effective, world war or a water treatment plant. What would be cheaper? What would be easier to do politically?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Outer Space
1,525 posts, read 3,361,421 times
Reputation: 1788
U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

The US birth rate has recently fallen to the lowest it has ever been, 63.0. The average number of children an American woman will have is 1.88.

What is funny about the article is what the demographers are smoking:
Quote:
"We think that this fertility decline is now over. As the economy rebounds and women have the children they postponed immediately after the Great Recession, we are seeing an uptick in U.S fertility," Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, said in a statement.

To be sure, birth rates are a lagging economic indicator, reflecting decisions made at least nine months earlier.

"In the 2012 data, you're seeing what women were thinking about in 2011," Johnson said. "If the economy were to be picking up now, you're not seeing that in the birth patterns yet. It will be another year until you'll see the effect of that."
Well look, the recession supposedly ended in 2009. We would have been seeing results by now if that were true, instead the numbers are continuing to fall.

Just a bunch of anecdotes, but I and my husband are only having one child. My sister and BIL are only having their one child. My brother and SIL are only planning on one child when they are ready. We aren't saying just one because we are waiting for the economy to recover. We don't think it will and even if it did, we are spooked and wouldn't trust it to last. Kids are too expensive and job security is dead. Several of our friends have gone for zero and taken steps to that effect.

Personally, I don't see the big deal about the population dropping. It needs to happen, even if it hurts. People here in the US who have never been to desperately overpopulated areas need a reality check if that's what they want to come to their neck of the woods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,924 posts, read 58,092,302 times
Reputation: 29401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonnenwende View Post
Just a bunch of anecdotes, but I and my husband are only having one child.
My sister and BIL are only having their one child.
My brother and SIL are only planning on one child when they are ready.
And with rather few exceptions the prior generations of those who think about things and who pay their
own way have similarly self limited their birthrates. These folks aren't where the problem is.

Quote:
Personally, I don't see the big deal about the population dropping. It needs to happen,
even if it hurts. People here in the US who have never been to desperately overpopulated areas
need a reality check if that's what they want to come to their neck of the woods.
The concern, the reality, is with the others who aren't now and haven't been self limiting their birthrate.
The ones who don't think about these things and who don't pay their own way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2013, 09:45 PM
 
9,096 posts, read 9,269,518 times
Reputation: 4676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonnenwende View Post
Just a bunch of anecdotes, but I and my husband are only having one child. My sister and BIL are only having their one child. My brother and SIL are only planning on one child when they are ready. We aren't saying just one because we are waiting for the economy to recover. We don't think it will and even if it did, we are spooked and wouldn't trust it to last. Kids are too expensive and job security is dead. Several of our friends have gone for zero and taken steps to that effect.
In terms of world baby production it almost doesn't matter what an individual in the first world does. Have zero kids or four kids. It's a drop in the ocean. About 30% of the world's babies are born in China and India. Carrying capacity of overcrowded places like Pakistan and Bangladesh or the ability to feed children in Nigeria and Ethiopia are going to make the difference between what could potentially be one of the world's greatest catastrophe.

Births in 2013 estimates
24,708,999 India
16,532,427 China
6,767,402 Nigeria
4,591,356 Pakistan
4,365,163 Indonesia
4,325,693 United States
3,611,863 Bangladesh
3,573,898 Ethiopia
3,009,114 Brazil
2,743,936 Congo (Kinshasa)
2,602,842 Philippines
2,162,872 Mexico
2,029,153 Egypt
1,797,757 Tanzania
1,725,681 Russia
1,576,312 Uganda
1,531,433 Vietnam
1,469,312 Iran
1,389,559 Turkey
1,324,653 Kenya
1,214,770 Afghanistan
1,074,710 Sudan
1,047,293 Japan
1,042,111 Burma
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top