Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 07-23-2012, 07:25 AM
 
130 posts, read 166,194 times
Reputation: 98

Advertisements

According to many census projections, the US will have a population of well over 400 million yet. Any sane person would agree that's too many people, given how crowded our economic and physical infrastructure is with 308 Million. Yet, talk to anyone who lives in a city or county that has lost population in the last census and they'll tell you they're not happy about losing people. If I lived in such a place, I'd be embracing the correction with open arms.

What few people realize is just about all our modern problems(ie. inflation, pollution, stress, food shortages) can be traced either directly or indirectly to this never-ending increase in population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:09 AM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,744,223 times
Reputation: 5669
Political representation and economic dominance.

What matters is the balance of wealth and resources, not necessarily the number of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Atlanta & NYC
6,616 posts, read 13,833,652 times
Reputation: 6664
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
What matters is the balance of wealth and resources, not necessarily the number of people.
And there you have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:24 AM
 
Location: prescott az
6,957 posts, read 12,063,850 times
Reputation: 14245
maurb: I totally agree with you. Back in the 70s when people getting married were told to just have 2 kids only to replace themselves in life , I took it to mean it was urgent to do so. I had 2 kids. Others had 3 and 4 or even 10. Birth control was becoming available to everyone and several different types were on the market also. Not just abstainence. So, I did what was best for the country. I took it to heart. Others did not. And here we are now, with all these problems as you said, not enough jobs, not enough food, limited water, pollution, traffic, crime, etc. and it all stems from over population. And some cultures continue to have kid after kid. Selfish I would say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Michigan
4,647 posts, read 8,602,317 times
Reputation: 3776
400 million is hardly too many people. The United States has one of the lowest average population densities in the world. New York City, the most populated city in America, is only 19th in the world by population and 13th in density.

The problem America has is that the county is so big and cities are so far apart, it's expensive to connect them, and as a country that prides itself on low taxes connecting them takes some ingenuity. The problems have more to do with societal norms rather than simply population numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:44 AM
 
130 posts, read 166,194 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Political representation and economic dominance.

What matters is the balance of wealth and resources, not necessarily the number of people.
Which is far less balanced than it was in previous decades, decades when the population was far fewer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,836,776 times
Reputation: 5871
Quote:
Originally Posted by maurb View Post
Why is Population Decline/Moderation frowned up when we have too many people?
According to many census projections, the US will have a population of well over 400 million yet. Any sane person would agree that's too many people, given how crowded our economic and physical infrastructure is with 308 Million. Yet, talk to anyone who lives in a city or county that has lost population in the last census and they'll tell you they're not happy about losing people. If I lived in such a place, I'd be embracing the correction with open arms.

What few people realize is just about all our modern problems(ie. inflation, pollution, stress, food shortages) can be traced either directly or indirectly to this never-ending increase in population..According to many census projections, the US will have a population of well over 400 million yet. Any sane person would agree that's too many people, given how crowded our economic and physical infrastructure is with 308 Million. Yet, talk to anyone who lives in a city or county that has lost population in the last census and they'll tell you they're not happy about losing people. If I lived in such a place, I'd be embracing the correction with open arms.

What few people realize is just about all our modern problems(ie. inflation, pollution, stress, food shortages) can be traced either directly or indirectly to this never-ending increase in population.
perhaps the answer to the question above is that an awful lot of people out there are not as sane and rational as you are. seriously, maurb, you've exercised an activity known as "thinking" based on what you wrote above, something far too many of the people you describe are incapable of doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:48 AM
 
130 posts, read 166,194 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
400 million is hardly too many people. The United States has one of the lowest average population densities in the world. New York City, the most populated city in America, is only 19th in the world by population and 13th in density.

The problem America has is that the county is so big and cities are so far apart, it's expensive to connect them, and as a country that prides itself on low taxes connecting them takes some ingenuity. The problems have more to do with societal norms rather than simply population numbers.
The fundamental flaw with your statement is it doesn't take into account the amount of consumption of each American, compared to people in other parts of the World. For instance 1 billion Chinese, living in China is far less of an impact on our Earth's resources than say 400 Million Americans. We consumer far more per capita as a nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:55 AM
 
130 posts, read 166,194 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
perhaps the answer to the question above is that an awful lot of people out there are not as sane and rational as you are. seriously, maurb, you've exercised an activity known as "thinking" based on what you wrote above, something far too many of the people you describe are incapable of doing.
Very true. However, it doesn't take a PHD to put two and two together, regarding the problems we face nowadays that we didn't in the past with fewer people.

To anyone who has kids, ask yourself this: Do you really think your kids are going to be as well off as you, competing with 100 plus million additional people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,836,776 times
Reputation: 5871
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
400 million is hardly too many people. The United States has one of the lowest average population densities in the world. New York City, the most populated city in America, is only 19th in the world by population and 13th in density.

The problem America has is that the county is so big and cities are so far apart, it's expensive to connect them, and as a country that prides itself on low taxes connecting them takes some ingenuity. The problems have more to do with societal norms rather than simply population numbers.
7 billion on the planet. we're heading for 10 billion this century. scientists tell us that the maximum number should be 2 billion if we are to sustain human life on this planet.

we're killing the planet and our vast numbers are a big part of the problem, along with the way we use resources.

any nation that prides itself in "low taxes" is in deep trouble. those low taxes cannot build nor fix roads, cannot educate our children to be competitive with other nations, can not adequately police our streets, patrol our skies,make our drinking water, food, and drugs safe, maintain a court system so that justice can be served, provide public transit so are streets don't go into gridlock and so that people can connect with jobs, and provide endless services....when the money is spent right....that actually enrich us. virtually every advanced nation but the US has had a publicly funded health care system that keeps cost down to consumers since there is no profit motive that the US system has. Me? I don't believe in high or low taxes; I believe in taxes that are sufficient to do the very important work that they do, taxes that are carefully managed. I expect to contribute to the system and, in my contribution, I benefit. The good of the order that comes on how we enrich the commons pays dividends to all of us. When America was at its strongest, such as the era after WWII, we were investing vast sums into quality education, building a huge interstate highway system, and advancing science and the benefits we get from it (as would come shortly after that from the internet, which was set up and established through the efforts of our government).

and if we have to worry about NYC not being big enough and won't be happy until it surpasses Calcutta or some nameless, faceless city in China, we are in big, big trouble.

New York is the 13th densest city in the world (I'll take your word for it). So what? Why should that bother New York and why should he strive for a higher density. San Francisco is the 13th most populous city in the nation; do you think that SF wishes to go up in rank? Do you think it bothers SF that it is the only the 4th largest city in California and....horror of all horrors.....only the second biggest city in its own Bay Area? And yet it somehow manages to be among the world's greatest cities.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top