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.
I agree with most of your post however who keeps spreading the rumor that Americans aren't making enough babies? Right now our birthrates are nearlly double our deathrates. Where is this so-called shortage of babies? Americans are breeding at replacement levels and that means our population growth should at least level off.
As for your remarks about needing more young people to support the elderly, who is going to then support these new young people in their old age? It would just be a never ending cycle of needing more and more new young people to support the new elderly. We need to set a goal in our country on population numbers vs the carrying capacity of this country. Constantly importing people to supply labor for an over bloated economy is not the way to go in the long run. This generation of baby boomers will eventually fade away. Let's not create another generation of baby boomers over and over.
And supporting the elderly only works when the babies are born to the middle class, but far too many babies are born to very young illegal mothers with no education, no ability to learn English, and require tons of tax dollars themselves, money that could go to supporting needy Americans instead.
The assumptions being that you consume the average amount of beef (the typical American eats 67 pounds of beef alone each year...cattle require a lot of land), your spending habits are that of the average American (very wasteful, not green), you live in the typical American house (approx 2200 sq. feet), and you drive the typical car.
The social capital that you discussed is exactly why we need to push education in this community. Yet, ironically, you would rather not educate them.
The vast majority of these problems are not at all linked to illegal immigration. These are issues of consumption. Americans are not the most efficient people on the planet when dealing with its resources.
There are already severe water shortages in some areas. Southern California is in a constant battle over water. Remember when water to farms in Central California was shut off earlier this year?
How about electricity? Remember the brownouts of a few years ago? In California different areas had their electricity shut off for a period of time on alternating days in order to save.
We can't continue an uncontrolled population increase with these conditions.
The water shortages were due to the growth of Mcmansions in far flung exurb communities.
The brownouts were due to bad policy of deregulation. The energy crisis was fabricated.
Again...everything to do with resource management and nothing to do with illegal immigration.
"Overcrowded"? This country could hold 500 million people easily. Heck, I bet it could even hold a billion, if we decreased our resource consumption (e.g. driving smaller cars and walking / biking to places).
the US isn't overpopulated, in fact the US could probably hold twice it's population and still not be over crowded but of course you have to blame this on those nasty illegals.
I think it's all in what people consider overcrowded. There are families from Mexico around here who happily live 3 or 4 families in a one family home, homes less than 1500 sq ft - it's roomy in their cultural mindset. One family per bedroom and teenage kids sleeping in the living room.
Americans culturally are used to more elbow room. To hispanics, Mexico City might seem on the underpopulated side but not to Americans.
"Overcrowded"? This country could hold 500 million people easily. Heck, I bet it could even hold a billion, if we decreased our resource consumption (e.g. driving smaller cars and walking / biking to places).
Why stop there? We could easily hold TWO billion; all we'd have to do is make a few cutbacks; sleep in shifts; ration our water; restrict travel; forbid the ownership of private property, and bury our sewage. We could do just about anything, with a little determination and 'belt-tightening'.
Sounds like a 'brave new world' for sure. It could be an eye-opening experience; get us out of our 'comfort zone'. Might even build character.
Why stop there? We could easily hold TWO billion; all we'd have to do is make a few cutbacks; sleep in shifts; ration our water; restrict travel; forbid the ownership of private property, and bury our sewage. We could do just about anything, with a little determination and 'belt-tightening'.
Or we could choose not to live in 4000 sq foot homes (the average home size went from 1400 sq. feet in 1970 to 2330 in 2004). We could also get rid of our Hummers and invest in better public transporation. Your above statement is really emotionally charged and doesn't reflect reality.
Sounds like a 'brave new world' for sure. It could be an eye-opening experience; get us out of our 'comfort zone'. Might even build character.
So people in ALL dense areas have bad lives? What's wrong with being more responsible in managing our resources. Japan is highly efficient, we could take a page from them...
"Overcrowded"? This country could hold 500 million people easily. Heck, I bet it could even hold a billion, if we decreased our resource consumption (e.g. driving smaller cars and walking / biking to places).
A billion people? As a result of this huge increase in people, we would probably see the population of most cities in this country increase by a factor of about 3.4 (you really don't expect people to start building brand new cities to live in where none now exist, do you?).
So New York City's population would increase from about 8.3 million to about 28.2 million (wow!). Los Angeles' population would increase from about 3.9 million to about 13.3 million (that would probably increase the freeway commute time by a factor of about 3.4 or more).
And what about food, water, housing, jobs, schools, hospitals, social services, etc. for these 1 billion people?
Last edited by mrbartlebee; 01-06-2010 at 02:12 AM..
Reason: Corrected sentence
A billion people? As a result of this huge increase in people, we would probably see the population of most cities in this country increase by a factor of about 3.4 (you really don't expect people to start building brand new cities to live in where none now exist, do you?).
So New York City's population would increase from about 8.3 million to about 28.2 million (wow!). Los Angeles' population would increase from about 3.9 million to about 13.3 million (that would probably increase the freeway commute time by a factor of about 3.4 or more).
And what about food, water, housing, jobs, schools, hospitals, social services, etc. for these 1 billion people?
You do realize that NYC's greater metro is currently about 28 million and LA's greater metro is about 14-15 million...
Also, people have built (and continue to build) brand new cities. Ever hear about the Inland Empire? Or what about the Tejon Ranch area? Or most of Orange County.
A billion people? As a result of this huge increase in people, we would probably see the population of most cities in this country increase by a factor of about 3.4 (you really don't expect people to start building brand new cities to live in where none now exist, do you?).
So New York City's population would increase from about 8.3 million to about 28.2 million (wow!). Los Angeles' population would increase from about 3.9 million to about 13.3 million (that would probably increase the freeway commute time by a factor of about 3.4 or more).
And what about food, water, housing, jobs, schools, hospitals, social services, etc. for these 1 billion people?
Think China where everyone rides bikes or scooters. I can't wait
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.