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'd have to agree with that, my money is on the super bug.
If a long duration grid down event doesn't occur first. What is it, something along the lines of less than 15 years before it is projected current antibiotics will be rendered ineffective/useless?
Oh and another funny thing that's so typical of white right wing elderly voters like here in this forum.
They seem to be the most scared of "overpopulation" and brown people "taking over".
So what do they do? ...............They bad mouth the UN, ...they call for the UN to be defunded.
All the while the UN is in these impoverished countries helping to bring the fertility rates down by providing education about birth control, raising their standard of living, etc.
So typical of the right wing ignorance in this country. They can't even make decisions in their own interest.
Why is it that overpopulation is one of the root causes for half of the problems we encounter today as a society yet no one ever addresses it?
Overpopulation has increased pollution, decreased the quality of life, and destroyed the environment, just to name a few. Society along with technology has been feeding this ongoing problem and it is only going to get worse. If you could solve this problem I am sure many of the other problems will be solved as well.
Because its a touchy subject and a good way to make enemies. It's like bringing up religion at a dinner party.
The solutions that countries have come up with range from "tax breaks if you get sterilized" to "keeping girls in school past the 3rd grade". Both work fairly well; the sterilization has a more immediate effect, the education doesn't show immediate results, but has the side effect of increasing literacy rates. The second choice, to me, seems a little more...humane.
If you were talking specifically about the US, our population growth is fairly slow, although it's still above the replacement rate. Many women are delaying childbirth to their 30s and many couples are only have 1-2 children. I don't think any policy regarding population growth has a chance of being passed in the US.
Because its a touchy subject and a good way to make enemies. It's like bringing up religion at a dinner party.
The solutions that countries have come up with range from "tax breaks if you get sterilized" to "keeping girls in school past the 3rd grade". Both work fairly well; the sterilization has a more immediate effect, the education doesn't show immediate results, but has the side effect of increasing literacy rates. The second choice, to me, seems a little more...humane.
If you were talking specifically about the US, our population growth is fairly slow, although it's still above the replacement rate. Many women are delaying childbirth to their 30s and many couples are only have 1-2 children. I don't think any policy regarding population growth has a chance of being passed in the US.
The US fertility rate is slightly below replacement levels. Only immigration to the US has managed to keep the population growing barely
I just notice a difference on the rodeway in the past 10 years. Id give anything to get stuck in the traffic I was stuck in 10 years ago. Honestly that the only noticeable difference that I have seen and felt. But that is at my level. There is a much larger level and as it is the rate of people born on a daily basis is much greater than those that die. More people = more problems.
You on the coast? Try the ground on a "fly over state".
Population growth has been slowing in most parts of the world, a lot. What more do you want?
Well good for us. As long as we are sure to keep our infant mortality rate higher than other industrialized countries, the fertility rate will be below the replacement rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
The US fertility rate is slightly below replacement levels. Only immigration to the US has managed to keep the population growing barely
Well good for us. As long as we are sure to keep our infant mortality rate higher than other industrialized countries, the fertility rate will be below the replacement rate.
I'd say the best way to lower the population of the USA, which I'm fine with.
Provide sex education in all the public schools, free and readily available birth control to teenagers, universal health care, and abortion services. This would especially lower the fertility rates of hispanic immigrants who's rates are still high in comparison.
Seal our borders, and go after visitors who overstay their visas.
Help the UN raise standards of living in Africa/South Asia.
Why is it that overpopulation is one of the root causes for half of the problems we encounter today as a society yet no one ever addresses it?
Overpopulation has increased pollution, decreased the quality of life, and destroyed the environment, just to name a few. Society along with technology has been feeding this ongoing problem and it is only going to get worse. If you could solve this problem I am sure many of the other problems will be solved as well.
I am also an environmentalist and you ask a very important and puzzling question. Third world poor countries seem to have high birthrates. Here in our country the availability of welfare handouts to welfare queens keeps them breeding out of sight. Seems these types lack the intelligence to care about the future in regards to all the negative impacts it will have on the future for all human beings. Humans are polluters and consumers of our natural resources. You would think that governments and citizenry would take this problem more seriously and make lifestyle changes to protect the future of this planet. I realize that birthrates aren't the only contributing factor but all things negatively impacting it should be taken seriously before it is too late.
Some parts of the Great Petri Dish are very overcrowded but others are nearly empty. The stress level depends where you are.
When I was in college in the 70's the US population was about 270 million. I expected the drop in birth rates accompanying increased prosperity would hold it at that level or it would slowly decline. Instead it has actually grown to over 300 million. Most of this growth has been along the coasts as fewer people are required to grow the food in the heartland. There are a lot of small towns with more housing than people.
There are two major problems with steady or declining populations. The first is who takes care of the elderly? There just are not enough of the next generations around to provide medical and social care for the grey hairs. There are even fewer people around to pay for the care.
The other problem is economic. Although increased automation has reduced labor required (a look at “How It’s Made” illustrating a candy making machine illustrates reduced labor requirements) needed to produce a huge amount of stuff. The problem with a declining population is finding people to buy the stuff. Without sufficient demand the sales decline, the prices drop and, due to reduced profits, the stock prices drop. Very few economists have a clue about the economics of slow decline. Our current economics and business practices are based on continuous and accelerating growth. Even if we discard the absurdity of these expectations we are still stuck with production exceeding demand.
I believe figuring out how to live with steady or declining populations is going to be the major challenge of this and the next couple of centuries.
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.