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.
Did you go to The Washington Post website and look up the article about how we're running out of potable water? I'm guessing that the answer to this question is "no". Why do you refuse to do research on this topic? What are you afraid of learning?
Fact---Phoenix and Tucson rely on underground aquifers for their water supply. Experts have no idea as to how much water there is in those aquifers or when it will run out.
CA is having a severe drought.
So...you've been avoiding this issue---India has over 1 billion people and not enough potable water. Is that a good thing in your eyes? If so, why? Is that what you want for this country? Is India doing so well that they are first world levels? After all, they have lots of people. You steadfastly ignore this example because it kills your idea that we have to add more people to the planet for the economy's sake.
Maybe you should take a look at the Work and Employment forum. There is a thread about how there aren't enough jobs worldwide to support the population.
You certainly do have an agenda and you are terrified at the thought of the world's population declining. Why is that? And why do you think that there are unlimited resources such as potable water?
So, why do you think it is wonderful that functionally illiterate illegal aliens are breeding like rabbits? How is it a good thing in your eyes to bring children into this world all the while knowing that you can't properly care for them? Apparently, you think that it's okay for the taxpayers to support these kids---am I correct? And this is all in the name of adding more people to the planet that has finite resources.
Yes, when we had fewer people the Dow was lower. How is this a bad thing? The middle class was thriving when our population was at 200 million and we had low immigration. Unemployment was low.
I guess that you weren't born then yet. So, honestly, you don't know what this is like.
Anyone who is cheerleading for a large population doesn't care about the future of this planet---and that is a real shame.
Intelligent people realize that if families can only afford one child, the population will decline. One child does not replace two parents.
-----------------
So...if a couple is responsible and decides that they can only afford to have one child, that means that they aren't intelligent?
If said couple irresponsibly brought children in the world without being concerned with properly providing for those children, then that means they are intelligent?
Wow...oh wow... It's obvious that you are young, not married and don't have children to support. Either that or you aren't reproducing responsibly.
As the thread continues it would be super awesome if you all left your straw men at home. Try addressing what was actually said, not what it could have meant if you decided to post a "bizarro" version. Maybe, who knows, an actual adult discussion will take place, you know one where facts are not equal to opinions. A discussion that educates instead of dumbing down, like many here do.
Try it, it's fun and rewarding, much more so than whatever this is.
Yac.
Every country that has had population decline has dropped into economic disaster followed by economic irrelevance.
When you have too many people to begin with and there is a shortage of jobs and resources then population decline is a positive not a negative. Economy isn't everything and the economy will adjust anyway. That's no disaster.
When you have too many people to begin with and there is a shortage of jobs and resources then population decline is a positive not a negative. Economy isn't everything and the economy will adjust anyway. That's no disaster.
Economy is everything. Suicide rates and homocide rates are linked to poverty. Infectuous diseases are linked to poverty. Starvation is linked to poverty. Birth rates are linked to poverty. Crime is linked to poverty. What happens to poverty when we enter a recession?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
If said couple irresponsibly brought children in the world without being concerned with properly providing for those children, then that means they are intelligent?
Wow...oh wow... It's obvious that you are young, not married and don't have children to support. Either that or you aren't reproducing responsibly.
Irrelevant.
Whether the born child is poor or well-off has no bearing on the math. If you want more "productive" members of society, you should think about decreasing birth rates for the poor and increasing birth rates for the well-off. Stable middle class families have less children than poor families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Did you go to The Washington Post website and look up the article about how we're running out of potable water? I'm guessing that the answer to this question is "no". Why do you refuse to do research on this topic? What are you afraid of learning?
So...you've been avoiding this issue---India has over 1 billion people and not enough potable water. Is that a good thing in your eyes? If so, why? Is that what you want for this country? Is India doing so well that they are first world levels? After all, they have lots of people. You steadfastly ignore this example because it kills your idea that we have to add more people to the planet for the economy's sake.
Maybe you should take a look at the Work and Employment forum. There is a thread about how there aren't enough jobs worldwide to support the population.
You certainly do have an agenda and you are terrified at the thought of the world's population declining. Why is that? And why do you think that there are unlimited resources such as potable water?
So, why do you think it is wonderful that functionally illiterate illegal aliens are breeding like rabbits? How is it a good thing in your eyes to bring children into this world all the while knowing that you can't properly care for them? Apparently, you think that it's okay for the taxpayers to support these kids---am I correct? And this is all in the name of adding more people to the planet that has finite resources.
Strawman.
Indian is not the topic of this discussion. The United States does not have a water problem. The United States has a birth rate conducive to a declining population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Yes, when we had fewer people the Dow was lower. How is this a bad thing? The middle class was thriving when our population was at 200 million and we had low immigration. Unemployment was low.
I guess that you weren't born then yet. So, honestly, you don't know what this is like.
Birth rates were well above replacement back then. Inflation was also much higher. Correlation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Anyone who is cheerleading for a large population doesn't care about the future of this planet---and that is a real shame.
Anyone who thinks the world is facing dire overpopulation doesn't understand math. The world birth rate is ~2.5. Most of the countries above replacement are third world. Nearly every first world country is below replacement. If you want to keep the third world immigrants out of the first world, we need to uplift the third world and have more children in our own countries. We have no desire to do either, so the trend will continue.
Resources are not the global problem; they are a problem of too many people living in regional areas not designed to support that population. Globally, there are plenty of resources. Global capitalism creates a scenario were resources will never be distributed evenly for the good of the planet. I recommend you do some research and brush up on your arithmetic.
Opin_Yunated --- I suggest that you go to another CD forum --- perhaps Great Debates or Politics and other controversies and tell people that you think those who only have one child are "not intelligent" and that you want everybody to have 2 children. If you start such a thread, then I will take a look.
In the meantime, ponder this --- on an annual basis we allow 1 million people to legally immigrate here. This has been going on since 1965. Picture this --- Philadelphia has just over 1 million people---that's what we're allowing into this country population-wise on an annual basis. Then you factor in the millions of illegal aliens who are squatting here.
We are running out of potable water and buildable land. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there isn't the money to properly fix it let alone add more. We've lost lots of acreage of farm land that became subdivisions.
In order for the world to thrive, we need less people---not more.
The US doesn't need more people. And YOU can't make everybody have 2 children, must as you wish to do so.
When you have too many people to begin with and there is a shortage of jobs and resources then population decline is a positive not a negative. Economy isn't everything and the economy will adjust anyway. That's no disaster.
Well put, Oldglory!
I'm old enough to remember when the US population hit 200 million in the late 60s. As a kid, even that seemed like a lot to me.
I also remember that the economy was doing fine. People who wanted to work were able to find jobs. We didn't have the traffic nightmares that we have now and for the most part, the infrastructure easily kept up with the demands.
In fact, I had a friend whose father worked in construction. During the winter, since this was the Northeast, he didn't have work. I expressed concern to her and she said that every winter he goes without work and they do fine. They did fine because construction paid well enough that with proper money management, workers were able to get through the winter. That sure isn't the case anymore!
This was the time when liberals started pushing ZPG (zero population growth) as they were concerned about the effects of overpopulation on our natural resources. Some were so concerned that they didn't have children. Today liberals have done a 180 on that issue!
Fast forward to today---we have over 300 million people and we are running out of potable water and buildable land. We don't have enough jobs to go around. Yet our politicians continue to allow 1 million legal immigrants into the country on an annual basis. Plus no one knows for sure how many millions of illegal aliens we have. All anyone can say for certain is that it is far more than the 11 million that has been quoted for several years.
Opin_Yunated --- I suggest that you go to another CD forum --- perhaps Great Debates or Politics and other controversies and tell people that you think those who only have one child are "not intelligent" and that you want everybody to have 2 children. If you start such a thread, then I will take a look.
I never said anywhere in this thread that people with one child are not intelligent. You may want to read that one over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
In the meantime, ponder this --- on an annual basis we allow 1 million people to legally immigrate here. This has been going on since 1965. Picture this --- Philadelphia has just over 1 million people---that's what we're allowing into this country population-wise on an annual basis. Then you factor in the millions of illegal aliens who are squatting here.
I already posted the math for you. We are reproducing at declining rates. A 1.5 birth rate means 4 parents make 3 children. Is that not clear? Our birth rate is 1.89. It needs to be 2.07.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
We are running out of potable water and buildable land. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there isn't the money to properly fix it let alone add more. We've lost lots of acreage of farm land that became subdivisions.
America is not running out of water.
Our infrastructure is crumbling because GOP idiots refuse to spend money on it. They'd rather issue tax breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
In order for the world to thrive, we need less people---not more.
Your agenda is quite clear and it is lacking evidence and common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
The US doesn't need more people. And YOU can't make everybody have 2 children, must as you wish to do so.
Actually the U.S. does. Politicans get it and you don't. Rampant immigration exists because our birth rates have been declining for about twenty years. As much as you think we don't need more people, the math disagrees with you. Population decline is economic decline. If we are printing billions of dollars per month, why do you think inflation is still so low? Population decline is economic decline. Demand is based on demographics. We have declining demographics.
Intelligent people realize that if families can only afford one child, the population will decline. One child does not replace two parents.
--------------------------------
So, in other words, those who choose to have only one child are not "intelligent"? If they were "intelligent", they would have 2 children or more even if they can't afford to do so?
Besides, there is nothing wrong with population decline---despite your fear of it happening. The world will be a better place with a smaller population.
Now, I'm done trying to reason with Opin_Yunated. No more posts directed at him.
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.
