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.
the US has reached 300 mill, does anybody else think its getting crowded? i was raised during the time when they taught zero population growth for awhile. seems few took it to heart. most people are leaving over populated areas in hopes to find personal space. what seems spacious to some is not to others. i used to farm on land that is now housing tracts. when will it end? when is it to much?
Never, of course. When I was just out of high school, (1971) I took a trip to LA. About 15 miles east of town, next to to the freeway, there was a big developement of new, monotonous, beige stucco houses behind the freeway wall with a big billboard that said "If you lived here, you'd be home by now!" Several years ago I moved to the Big island of Hawaii, then rural, remote, the middle of nowhere in the Pacific, paradise. Guess what I saw on a sign along the highway the other day? Yep. "If you lived here....
Last edited by leilaniguy; 10-13-2006 at 01:25 AM..
Reason: spelling
I started a thread about this same topic and was surprised at the lack of interest. Seeing as so many on these forums are looking for "a little land, nice area", I thought more people would be as concerned about this as I am.
Unfortunately that zero population suggestion was aimed at American-born citizens. The major thrust behind the seemingly unrestricted population growth can be laid squarely at the feet of the massive immigrant population. The situation will escalate even further as our borders remain un-controlled. I may be wrong but it appears that quantity over quality is the order of the day.
The myth that American population growth is solely based on illegal migrants and immigration is just that, a myth. Whereas most of Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and believe it or not...even China (1.7)... are experiencing negative population increase rates because their fertility is below 2.0 replacement and averaging around 1.3 (replacement rate means # of children born to a mother/father). The Middle East, Iran, Turkey, North Africa, all of East Asia, etc. are at below replacement rate. Russia is estimated to be about half it's current population of 100 million or so in 50 years because its fertility rate is even lower and deaths outnumber births almost two to one. The American population... I mean American...not immigrant, illegal alien, etc..... has the highest fertility rate in the developed world at 2.09 and we're having enough children to replace ourselves without adding immigration and illegal migration to our numbers. Although 300 million seems a lot, it's spread out over a continent and most of America remains rural. Sure the coasts are densely populated in California, New England, Eastern Seaboard, etc., but you don't notice 'crowding' in most of America. We're too big. I think it's illogical to be freaked out by the 300 million number when clearly America is handling it just fine. It's better to be growing than declining as most of the rest of the world is as it's easier to solve growth issues than solve all the problems now facing Europe, Asia, Russia, the Middle East, etc. where populations are declining and the populations are getting older with fewer and fewer children born to grow up and help shoulder the burden of supporting an aging population. I think our growth is wonderful!
My goodness, gentlemen. That was quite an exchange.
World population worries aside, my thoughts are this: Yes, much of the USA is still rural, but many of our young people flock to cities--especially the coasts. Our once-industrial midwest is really struggling.
So many American city planners and government seem to focus their policy on being some sort of elite, cool, boutiquey world-class destination-type spot: they focus on the arts complexes, hip culture, deluxe hotels and condos, top-tier businesses.
The wealthy and the poor remain, the middle class and its small mom & pop businesses are getting squeezed out.
I just don't think this urban model is sustainable. Five dollar cups of coffee, sushi bars and fancy-schmancy art galleries will not keep a city going.
Good schools and daycare, affordable housing and public transportation is something to think about. I am no socialist, it's just that I'd like to see employment patterns reflect more than the service class and the gentry.
Not really into all the stats. I just know how the future looks to me. Everyone on these boards writes about too much development, too much crime, crowded schools, not enough good paying jobs.........we often create threads about simpler times that we miss. 300 million+ (we're just talking about the ones we can count) just worries me. I worry about my grandkids being able to afford a good education, or a nice home of their own--I worry about what their quality of life will be. I'm surprised more people aren't concerned.
Not really into all the stats. I just know how the future looks to me. Everyone on these boards writes about too much development, too much crime, crowded schools, not enough good paying jobs.........we often create threads about simpler times that we miss. 300 million+ (we're just talking about the ones we can count) just worries me. I worry about my grandkids being able to afford a good education, or a nice home of their own--I worry about what their quality of life will be. I'm surprised more people aren't concerned.
300m is a drop in the bucket. I understand that people get visions out of a Mad Max movie when they think of the consequences of overpopulation. But the reality is much more prosaic. Hong Kong is a city of 7m. Its population density is about 6000 per sq km. (In the US, that number is about 30 per sq km). If you've ever visited Hong Kong, you'll know that it is a metropolis with developed country (i.e Western) wages and living standards. For the US to approach Hong Kong's population density, we would need a population 200 times as large, or about 60b people. We're not getting there either in this century or the next. And that even that population density wouldn't be the end of the world - ask any Hong Konger.
People tend to point to China as a case of what overpopulation can do to a country's economy and living standards. The reality is that China's land area is slightly larger than the US, and its population density is less than half of Britain's. China is a relatively poor country not because of overpopulation, but because its economy was run on Marxist lines for 30 years after the Communists defeated the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War. Even the limited moves China has made towards a free market system has propelled the country towards high single digit percentage annual economic growth. The bottom line is that it isn't population growth that causes problems, it's government policies that regulate things that aren't within the skill sets (or ethical standards) of government officials to regulate effectively.
300m is a drop in the bucket. I understand that people get visions out of a Mad Max movie when they think of the consequences of overpopulation. But the reality is much more prosaic. Hong Kong is a city of 7m. Its population density is about 6000 per sq km. (In the US, that number is about 30 per sq km). If you've ever visited Hong Kong, you'll know that it is a metropolis with developed country (i.e Western) wages and living standards. For the US to approach Hong Kong's population density, we would need a population 200 times as large, or about 60b people. We're not getting there either in this century or the next. And that even that population density wouldn't be the end of the world - ask any Hong Konger.
People tend to point to China as a case of what overpopulation can do to a country's economy and living standards. The reality is that China's land area is slightly larger than the US, and its population density is less than half of Britain's. China is a relatively poor country not because of overpopulation, but because its economy was run on Marxist lines for 30 years after the Communists defeated the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War. Even the limited moves China has made towards a free market system has propelled the country towards high single digit percentage annual economic growth. The bottom line is that it isn't population growth that causes problems, it's government policies that regulate things that aren't within the skill sets (or ethical standards) of government officials to regulate effectively.
Very interesting posting and I agree. I've been to Hong Kong twice. I've seen how they have forty story apartment blocks built on mountains where you'd never guess anyone would ever build such structures, especially for housing. While I wouldn't want to live in one of those buildings myself, they look clean and habitable and clearly little Hong Kong manages its population.
The world's human population has quadrupled in the course of the last hundred years.
The United Nations states that
• Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population is expected to swell to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.
• Worldwide population is currently growing by more than 75 million people per year. Net growth by mid-century is predicted by the United Nations to be 34 million per year in contrast to the roughly 76 million per year that was seen from 2000 to 2005.
• In 2000-2005, fertility at the world level stood at 2.65 children per woman, about half the level it had in 1950-1955 (5 children per women). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.
• During 2005-2050, eight countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth.
• Global life expectancy at birth, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep on rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Among the least developed countries, where life expectancy today is just under 50 years, it is expected to be 66 years in 2045-2050.
• The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.
• During 2005-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million. Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration.
• In 2000-2005, net migration in 28 countries either prevented population decline or doubled at least the contribution of natural increase (births minus deaths) to population growth. These countries include Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.
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.
when will it end?
