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.
Immigrants aren't given a chance to acquire land cheap/free out in the Dakotas or what have you like in the pioneer days. All that land is owned by somebody now. So they have to settle into existing cities driving up their population resulting in more pollution/congestion/etc.
But just because parts of the country are not densely populated does not mean we are not overpopulated. Driving every other species to extinction to fit as many humans on the land as possible is not sustainable.
Immigrants aren't given a chance to acquire land cheap/free out in the Dakotas or what have you like in the pioneer days. All that land is owned by somebody now. So they have to settle into existing cities driving up their population resulting in more pollution/congestion/etc.
But just because parts of the country are not densely populated does not mean we are not overpopulated. Driving every other species to extinction to fit as many humans on the land as possible is not sustainable.
Net immigration has kept US population numbers rising since the 1950s CE, that's true. But recently (since the US economy contracted), Hispanic immigration is down, immigration from Mexico has even been reversing. The rate of increase of the Hispanic population in the US has also slowed. Although I'm not sure what immigration has to do with this discussion - as noted elsewhere in this thread, people in cities have less of an environmental impact (energy, transportation, water use, sewage, comms, health, education, infrastructure) than rural or suburban populations with the same services.
The second point - driving other species to extinction - I agree with. The issue there is to make our economic/political systems recognize clean air, water, soil, the health of the biosphere are not mere externalities to the economic system. Externalities are basically counted as being out of bounds - & therefore, no one is responsible for them.
In the World, where nearly everything is connected, toxic pollution (for instance) released into the air or water, or pumped underground - travels & comes into contact with food animals or crops, & eventually makes its way into the human food chain, unless carefully isolated. That isolation can be done, but it takes money, expertise, equipment & above all - political will. If not done, then we need to count the medical & death costs as part of the actual cost of whatever the good or service is.
Most goods or services are not efficient, if they entail this high a cost. Our economics need to recognize this fact, & plan otherwise when the costs rise too high.
The earth is a long way from being overpopulated, and the population is leveling off.
Historically people had to have many children to be assured 2-3 would survive. Child mortality (death before age 5) was between 33% to over 75% in poorer areas. Polio, smallpox, measles, random bacterial infections. Then starting around the mid 20th century, child mortality rates began dropping rapidly because of things like antibiotics, vaccines, and better medical care in general. But people kept on having tons of kids because that's just what you did. My dad (born around then) has 10 siblings, all living. This was the "baby boom".
But eventually, people in industrialized countries stopping having so many kids. Partially because it was such a huge burden to raise so many living kids at once, but mainly because they didn't have to have 6 kids to be assured 2-3 would live to take care of them when they were old. In most modern industrial countries the fertility rates have fallen below the replacement rate (about 2-2.1 per female for industrialized nations), which is the minimum rate needed for a long-term steady population.
Fertility rates are about 1.9 in the USA, 1.6 in China (but really much worse thanks to the one-child policy that resulted in a generation of men who will never be able to reproduce), and about 1.4 in Japan. Source: Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
Global population rates are still climbing because third-world countries still have high birth rates but are steadily gaining more access to modern medicine, along with the statistical anomaly caused by the baby boom. While USA birth rates are around below replacement rate, the population is still climbing because there are a higher than average percentage of child bearing age females (currently the "millennial" generation) at the same time their grandparents of the baby boom generation are still alive. Also immigration is a factor. Within a few decades the baby boomers will start rapidly dying off. If not for immigration the population of the USA would start rapidly dropping.
You are well informed.
The world's population seems to have stabilized about where it is. And many countries have seen their peak and are now declining. Russia, for instance.
Pakistan is still out of control (no surprise, there) and so is India and one of the African countries. The rest of the world is just shifting around.
In fact I look for a world population decrease in generations to come. I won't be here.
Once women learn there is no need to have multiple children, they stop having them; that trend has never in history reversed itself.
One of the most effective ways of stabilizing a population is to install a government sponsored retirement income system. Once women, except where they are considered chattel, realize they will not need to have many children to survive their old age the women have a lot fewer.
IMHO the world would be a far better place for humans, and everything else, to live if the human population was no more then two billion or so. I expect this will happing in the next couple of centuries as humans realize that, when children are concerned, less is, indeed, more.
The world's population seems to have stabilized about where it is. And many countries have seen their peak and are now declining. Russia, for instance.
Pakistan is still out of control (no surprise, there) and so is India and one of the African countries. The rest of the world is just shifting around.
In fact I look for a world population decrease in generations to come. I won't be here.
Once women learn there is no need to have multiple children, they stop having them; that trend has never in history reversed itself.
I'm afraid your info is out-of-date. I believe that I posted this link to the latest UN population projections earlier in this thread:
It shows world population projected to increase from just over 7 billion now to over 11 billion in the year 2100. Over 80% of the increase would occur in Africa. Of course, these long-range projections are subject to change, sometimes dramatic change, but that's the road we are on now.
This is regarding immigration,at least legal anyway.
I always read that the Usa is way overpopulated yet we have several states that are hardly populated,places like North and South Dakota,Iowa,Idaho,Wisconsin,Alaska,Montana,Utah,an d several more.
I can understand if folks were talking about financial-wise,but the density argument is kind of null.
I don't understand why the Us Gov does not encourage both citizens and legal immigrants to settle in states that are sparsely populated.
Maybe they can offer incentives to move out West AND "maybe" penalize densely populated states(which they already do to a certain extent).
(I do realize lots of folks from California are moving to the Mountain states,esp Montana.)
Land wise,we do have enough room for about 800,000,000 people.
Immigration, regardless of status, wouldn't "overpopulate" the US. Our issue is how we use our resources and our land.
We don't need to have Manhattan- like density but if we had a more free market for housing construction then I would imagine low density and single family housing would be more reserved for the wealthy.
New Jersey is the armpit of America. NO ONE wants to live there. The entire east coast and much of the west coast is overpopulated, polluted, environmentally destroyed and unbearable to anyone who has lived a normal life. Only people who have never known anything better could possibly think that the current population of anywhere on the east coast (especially New Jersey) is acceptable. As someone who has lived in both California and New York (NYC and upstate), I simply say, "What depressing, sorry, miserable lives people on the east coast live!" It's sad that they'll never know a better life.
In this country people are free to live where they choose. I have lived in 4 states, each move being my own choice.
800 people a day move to Florida, try diverting them to Alaska or North Dakota.
The population of the US has doubled in my lifetime, I don't see that as an improvement.
Overpopulated? Yes in the major cities. But once you get out into the country - not so much. Population exists only on 4.4% of the land. 68% belongs to the feebs - usda, usfs, blm. Another 4% belongs to da rez. The rest is rocks, trees, mountains and water.
Oh yeh ? I remember going for drives in the country on weekends as a kid and even young adult. The country was the ONE place you could get away from other people.
Today there is ALWAYS at least one A-hole on your tail trying to rush you along. Other places that USED to be secluded get aways are now as packed add your average Squalmart. This includes our natural areas, hiking areas etc.
I don't know about other states, but I can say that the natives in my state are getting fed up with people coming here and trashing our beaches, parks etc...even vandalizing them.
In fact, just considering our natural areas alone is iron clad proof that we are overpopulated.
Also, the fact that we are encroaching on other species homes is further proof. I don't want to live on a planet without animals, sorry.
The only people who see nothing wrong with producing more and more people live on plenty of acreage, I'm convinced. I don't know anyone whose crushed into a tiny apartment with little personal space who doesn't think the world ISN'T overpopulated.
The anti-immigrant forces focus on the few that do illegal things and then project that on everybody. Guilt by association. When you combine this with a relentless FUD* campaign by certain "news" organizations, you a wild case of xenophobia.
*Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Made popular by Joseph Goebbels.
??? ??? I just look at the math:
X million undocumented individuals in the country + The Rent (Y) Is Too High
Anyone else see a connection between X and Y?
Would a reduction in X lead to an increase or a decrease in Y?
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.
Allocating costs in the real World
