U.S. Population Reaches 300 million, Heading for 400 Million

The 'one child per family' rule is sounding better and better. I've always been a fan of this. Any more than 2 kids per family is irresponsible - in my opinion.

I seem to remember reading that the US birth rate is actually below the replacement rate (that is the number of births needed to maintain a stable population). It's actually immigration that fuels our population growth, in which case the US is no different than the other industrialized nations you refer to, we just allow more migrants (legal and illegal).

Growing worldwide populations are the scourge of the environment. Yet, governments continue to reward selfish breeders with tax breaks, subsidized education, and childcare funding.

Automation technologies will eventually eliminate the need for hoards of fast-food, agricultural, and retail workers. Economic growth can continue through fewer shared resources.

It's time governments penalized parents of more than two children. Or, a controlled breeding program based on population/employment projections, combined with forced childhood enrollment in education for needed professions (based on aptitudes) would be a solution.

I agree that population increasing can become a big problem if not addressed properly. However if only the people with the "treehugger" mentality participate in having less children, there will be less responsible individuals. The ones who do not care or do not know will continue to have unimformed children. I believe a national consumption policy would be more effective than trying to curb our natural habit to reproduce.

I just read an article yesterday that large families are becoming popular again. I once read that the sustainable pop. of the planet was around 2 billion people, can anyone confirm that as the world heads for 7 billion and beyond.

"I once read that the sustainable pop. of the planet was around 2 billion people, can anyone confirm that as the world heads for 7 billion and beyond."

What is sustainable for the planet depends on how many factors. If we used clean energy, used it more efficiently and didn't waste so much food, we could probably sustain a population much higher than what we have now.

BUT, in all scenarios, more population is harder to sustain than less population (within limits), and since we're not there yet in terms of efficient use of resources, having a lot more people living western lifestyles is putting a big extra strain on ecosystems.

Shouldn't the headline read "Will Reach 300 Million Within a Week"? Not quite there yet - a little over 44,000 people to go.

Probably be in the morning on the 17th when we hit 300 million.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

--
editor note: Well, it's all based on computer models anyway -- the exact number is not known.

Sustainable Pop. is almost impossible to define. But if you base the projections on Food avalibility it is likely that 12 billion is about what the planet can hold. http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.html

The main problem is americans consume a lot of stuff so having more of them reduces the amount of stuff other people can have so the world won't support 12 billion americans.

We are in trying times because only 6 billion people have ever been alive to this point in history and now 6 billion people are alive.

The rate limiter will likely be water which will reduce everyones ability to eat meat but we will see. I think most of us may be around to see the sparks fly when nuclear India has to ask america to stop wasting so much stuff.

Good luck to all of you.

Limit kids huh? Wow. Move to China. Oh and I read that China is the biggest consumer of natural resources, not Americans. Some of the idea's here astound me

Limit kids huh? Wow. Move to China.

Sounds like a pretty good idea. I hear Shanghai is really exciting these days.

Oh and I read that China is the biggest consumer of natural resources, not Americans.

You read that, huh? Must be true then.

Some of the idea's here astound me

Yes, just listen to the echo some time.

editor note: Well, it's all based on computer models anyway -- the exact number is not known.

But I thought computers didn't make errors. ;-)

--
editor note: If you feed them the exact data, usually not. But if you feed them approximations, they can give us the exact number of people in the country :-)

Per capita the US is the biggest consumer of natural resources, China thankfully has limited it's population growth or we'd already be seeing the problems of the future today. Jiltedcitizen what astounds you about these ideas? We cannot continue an economic or social model that is based on unlimited growth, especially when that growth depends on limited natural resources. Question the institutions who's rosy predictions fall short again and again (they are trying to sell you something..) and look around. I'm sure that by just fully educating americans on birth control people could take care of their own needs, it is shocking the amount of people who have no idea how to not become pregnant.

Jilted, those that bok at these kind of ideas, i find, are those that do not want to lose their "way of life". If their way of life becomes more efficient and less destructive great. Your point of view is appreciated. But at some level you must agree that human population must come down.

How it actually happens is another story.

Selfish breeders? Almost as if having children is an unnatural thing.
Punishment for having more then 2 kids?

Sounds kind of Orwellian to me.

If you want to have a stable population then stop immigration. The U.S. has almost no growth except for growth due to immigration. Europe is in a decline and Japan is going into a very steep decline in native population. Approx. 30 million immigrants in the last 25 years coming into the U.S.

Please don’t get on now about anti-immigration being racist. People who do have children enjoy them and it is a natural. I think that we are all here due to a dreaded “Breeder”

How do you make the most effective population policy? Well, as with any social problem, you have to look at the needs and motivations of human beings and then you structure your policy so that works with human nature (needs and motivations) while redirecting people towards a healthier way of life.

You can try and work against human nature, and impose restrictive laws, and try to use punitive measures to get what you want, but this tactic is far less effective, and actually unsustainable!

For a truly sustainable sustainability policy, we would need to recognize people's inherent urges to:

A. Have sex
B. Want kids in their lives

Once we encourage people to acknowledge that these are healthy needs for all human beings, then we can start to look for ways to satisfy these needs in so that people don't feel the need to crate more humans than is sustainable.

Some suggestions:

• Free contraceptives and family planning for everyone who wants them (also known as universal health care coupled with access that doesn't require parental consent).

• Media that positively features childless people, and doesn't glamorize pregnancy and having kids!

• A more integrated social system that includes children in people's daily lives. (How about openening public schools to the public in the afternoons and evenings, and set up programs where people of all ages could come together to learn things and/or work on community projects in multigeneration groups? And how about encouraging people to bring their kids into work environments? And lets create a public version of the Big Brother Big Sister organization and expand it drastically?). Hanging around kids is good for the soul, and people who don't have their own kids are often treated poorly when they try to get some soul enriching time around kids.

There are lots of other ways to encourage people to meet their sex and kid needs without making more humans. If we could spend a little time brainstorming, and working to bring such policies into fruition, I think we would become far more sustainably-minded as well as being a healthier species.

If Treehugger-types want to be effective at reducing overall population while increasing the Treehugger-type population, they can spend their time and resources on educating other people's kids about being responsible planetary citizens, instead of spending the time and resources on their own child.

It's easy to inspire kids to be environmenally responsible, since it pretty much goes along with their natural desire to live in a healthy world. You don't have to become a teacher like I did to do this (though the world does need lots of great teachers!). You can just be an inspirational environmentally friendly neighbor or relative, or even just send some money to an organization like Jane Goodall's Roots and Shoots group or donate environmentally friendly books to your local library or school.

Seriously, just imagine all the time and energy and money you would have to spend raising one kid, and then imagine all the amazing programs and projects you could do for hundreds of other kids with that same time, energy and money! Sending a kid to college alone is probably going to cost you a good $100,000. That amount could fund an amazing sustainable living program in your community. That money could outfit a whole school building with solar panels and a small scale wind power set up (for energy and educational pruposes). I'm sure you can think of all sorts of really impactful things you could do with that kind of money...

I like to think that our species has evolved to the point where we not only procreate genetically, but we also can procreate memetically. So when people ask if I have any children, I tell them that my ideas are my children!

No I don't agree that the population must come down. I think we are getting technoougically advanced enough to solve our problems. We just need to do it. I'm all about sustainable living. But in my view freedom trumps all.

China is the largest consumer in some resources
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/17/content_417043.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0516_050516_chinaeco.html

Freedom is important, but being smart is important too.. I'm sure the Easter Island people loved their freedom of having more kids and using more resources, but it didn't help them.

Even with the help of technology , we must not increase our population faster than the speed at which we improve things..

If your implying that the Easter Island demise was due to unsustainability then read this http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_easter_island.html

No I don't agree that the population must come down. I think we are getting technoougically advanced enough to solve our problems. We just need to do it.

Fortunately, wiser people aren't so reckless and faith-based. Whatever happened to conservatives being conservative?

I'm all about sustainable living.

Aren't you fairly new to all this? Perhaps you should learn a little more before jumping to conclusions about the big issues.

But in my view freedom trumps all.

Freedom doesn't mean much on an unlivable planet.

China is the largest consumer in some resources

Oh, now it's SOME resources? Before you said "China is the biggest consumer of natural resources, not Americans (sic)".

Since they have 4.3 times the population of the United States, it's unsurprising that they consume quite a bit of resources. Usually, though, when you're speaking of sustainability issues, the point is the "footprint" which usually means per capita consumption, not gross consumption, since most of what sustainability is concerned with is global in scale.

You'll come to understand all this once you're done getting your feet wet in this very complex field.

For example, here's a comparison of countries based on their ecological footprints. Granted, the data is a little old and you're dealing with some subject metrics, but the idea itself has a fairly strong basis.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_eco_foo-environment-ecological-footprint

A more complete model might take into account things like outsourcing industry and the comparative advantage of certain nations with respect to certain resources.

You're actually making an argument for population control by mentioning China, since it's a good example of what happens to the environment when an economy grows rapidly with a large population base -- it starts to eclipse the gross consumption of many other countries very quickly.

Learn a little more what? Socialism? Being an a*****e? I'm sure I can learn a lot from whom ever you are. Though I might give you a run for your money. I think many so called treehuggers need to learn a little more about issues also. I don't think oppressing people and telling them how many children they can have is a very productive solution. Living doesn't mean much if you are oppressed by your government.

[i]Oh, now it's SOME resources? Before you said "China is the biggest consumer of natural resources, not Americans (sic)".

Since they have 4.3 times the population of the United States, it's unsurprising that they consume quite a bit of resources. Usually, though, when you're speaking of sustainability issues, the point is the "footprint" which usually means per capita consumption, not gross consumption, since most of what sustainability is concerned with is global in scale.

You'll come to understand all this once you're done getting your feet wet in this very complex field.[/i]Good point. Yet why do you have to be an a****le? But China is still growing and only a fraction of the people are using all those resources. It can be expected to grow as it industrializes.

Learn a little more what?

About sustainability, the topic at hand, which is very complex and takes years of study and personal experience to even begin to grasp well. That's assuming you have a good base of education to being with so as to be able to learn effectively.

Socialism?

Who mentioned socialism?

Being an &^%^%^%?

No, I think you have that one mastered.

I'm sure I can learn a lot from whom ever you are.

You probably could if you weren't already so sure of yourself with very little to go on.

Though I might give you a run for your money.

I doubt that.

I think many so called treehuggers need to learn a little more about issues also.

Yes, they certainly do. No need to replicate the laziness or closed-mindedness of certain other people, though.

I don't think oppressing people

Who's being oppressed?

and telling them how many children they can have is a very productive solution.

China seems to have found a way to deal with it. There's a lot of humans on the planet and we consume resources faster than they can be replenished. This is a bald fact and somehow it needs to be addressed. Simple faith in technology or the market or whatever is part of the reason we got to this point to begin with.

Are one child laws a good idea? Probably not - certainly not everywhere. But that doesn't mean one should then neglect the effect of an increasing human population on the planet, particularly in places whose economies are growing rapidly.

Living doesn't mean much if you are oppressed by your government.

Which government is oppressing its people?

Language language...

frankly, anonymous, you ARE being an a*****e, tho not for jiltedcitizen's reasons. youre being one becos youre treating environmentalism and an interest in sustainability as some elitist thing that only can be grasped by someone who has been studying it for years. "About sustainability, the topic at hand, which is very complex and takes years of study and personal experience to even begin to grasp well. That's assuming you have a good base of education to being with so as to be able to learn effectively."

i came to environmentalism recently, as a natural progression after ridding my home of all chemicals, my shower and makeup case of all chemicals, and my food of chemicals. after learning about what these things can do to my body i started thinking more and more about the impact on our planet. now i try to live and breath sustainability, which surprisingly hasnt been as difficult as i expected, especially with the help of treehugger and like minded websites, despite living well below the poverty line.

now you seem to be saying efforts of myself and others like me are unimportant, are useless to the movement, that our ideas are invalid, becos we werent here from the beginning. when i was a teenage punk i thought the same thing about any kid who came into the punk scene. but ykno, i stopped being a teenager and i opened my mind and my heart to helping newcomers. wish you felt the urge to do the same with environmentalism.

your attitude, and attitudes like yours, just serve to push people away from the movement. which does far more harm than good.

heres to you, and hoping air quality is better up there on your high horse.

Throwing in my two bits here-

One solution for population pressure is to encourage and help poorer nations to modernize, both in terms of economic devlopment as well as human rights improvements.

Many coutries that support a large midle class seem to have slower population growth.

Nations that are stricken with cyclical poverty seem to experience greater population pressures, and violence, corruption and poor job choices push families (like my parents) to immigrate.

Imagine a stong, vibrant Mexico that could compete with the USA for skilled workers.

I don't think this is the answer for everything, but I think it's one part of the essential equation.

If I could wax poetic for a moment in regard to US population growth, perhaps the saddest part (for me) is our car culture's tendency of gobbling down land like there's no tomorrow. But I do think we ( as a people) are learning and getting better little by little.

now you seem to be saying efforts of myself and others like me are unimportant, are useless to the movement, that our ideas are invalid, becos we werent here from the beginning.

That's not what I said - not at all. You're misreading my words.

your attitude, and attitudes like yours, just serve to push people away from the movement. which does far more harm than good.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but seeing as you don't even understand what I'm saying here, and don't know what I do and say beyond here, making that sort of snap judgment has lead you to being way off, and you're actually making my case for me about the position I took -- which is, newcomers oftentimes leap into this issue area and think they know it all rather quickly. I felt the same way, too, way back when, but time has shown me that a great deal of what I thought and how I approached problems was seriously off the mark. Some of it was dead-on, but time has changed my outlook considerably -- and that's just what learning is all about.

You know, the one thing about environmental issues is that people, when they become "converted" to it, feel a real urgency to do something to stop all the damage. This is natural. But unfortunately, complex problems are not usually readily understandable, nor readily solvable, so this urgency oftens undermines good solutions because many people just jump on the existing "solutions" which actually don't work very well (eg, guilt-tripping people).

heres to you, and hoping air quality is better up there on your high horse.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I think that is something to celebrate.
Not to mention out economy is doing better then it ever has.

The author of this is "left"...and thye dont see good news like normal people...all they see is doom & gloom.

You nag on the US for being "overpopulated"....pa-lease.
China has less land then the US and over 4 times the population.

No matter how we look at it there are just too many people. Unfortunatley we are using up the worlds resources causing suffering in other countries, and here at home. How will we react when there is no more water or drought spreads across our heartland. Then it will be too late to contemplate issues of over population.

I hate to wade into this...but I always cringe when this topic comes up. Treehuggers and liberals in general (I of course am solidly in both groups) often present our views on topics that people are most sensitive about in the most insensitive ways, hurting our cause.
If someone who happens to have (or want) kids is interested in going green, how will this discussion help them?
Someone with 4 kids who rides the bus and conspicuously cuts consumption and passes those ideas onto their kids is a better friend of the environment than most.
Including those of us who can't...stop...buying..."green".

We are not running out of space, food or water. That is nonsense and no one actually believes it. What we do have is a terrible system of distribution where we pay farmers not to farm, killing people in developing countries twice and don't create jobs or housing in places that can sustain growing population.

I have lived in the developing world and I have driven between LA and Toronto. Corruption, consumption and corporate interests are the reasons everyone can't meet their needs.

"We must face the prospect of changing our basic way of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature."
-Jimmy Carter, 1976

Like him or not, he had a point.

Just because the earth can support more people right now doesn't mean it can in perpetuity.

Forests, fisheries, fossil fuels and soils are being depleted, aquifers drawn down, and the population is going up.
Something has to give.
Either we give up some things now which we take to be "freedoms," or in a few years we'll all be excercising our "freedom" to starve. (probably for lack of water, not land)

"Freedom doesn't mean much on an unlivable planet."

Neither does being a slave on a utopian planet. I don't know about anyone else but I put freedom WAY above environmentalism. I visit this site because I care about the environment but it wouldn't mean much to me if I was a subject in an opressive govt that only allowed me to have 1 kid (among other things).

Uhm guys, please, it's not one or the other. Don't act like the environment and freedom are in opposition.

Actions to protect what keeps us alive (air, water, earth) have to be based on evidence. If it tell us that we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, is that oppression? If evidence tells us that we either have to radically change our ecological footprint OR reduce our population, is that oppression?

Neither does being a slave on a utopian planet.

I see the hyperbole has gone up another notch. Now discussion of population issues is akin to slavery. Yeah.

I don't know about anyone else but I put freedom WAY above environmentalism.

Hmm - another strawman. Did anyone compare the two? I believe what was said (since I said it) is that freedom doesn't mean much if the planet's unlivable. Do you grasp this simple notion? It's kind of like being obsessed with what clothes you're wearing on a sinking ship.

I visit this site because I care about the environment but it wouldn't mean much to me if I was a subject in an opressive govt that only allowed me to have 1 kid (among other things).

Which government would that be? The US? Is that even a remote possibility that that would occur? No. So why pretend like it is?

As for only having one kid, how is that oppressive? Many people find having zero kids to be liberating.

Why don't we just institute a cap-and-trade system and let people who want to breed in excess of a certain limit pay the people who don't procreate for the privilege? I'd also think it would be nice to require parents to be capable of raising a child well. Strange that we require licenses for our pets (and to drive), yet somehow the most crucial thing in the world (giving life and being responsible for another human being's welfare) is considered something which should require no standards besides reactive mechanisms like child services and the like.

Chill and let your mind roam a little. It won't hurt. These are just ideas to consider - no one's knocking on your door and hauling you away to a gulag.

anonymous, i never once said i knew it all. i admit i'm new to this. i want to learn more, as i want to help, and i love learning in general. i said that you were being elitist and dissmissive, and from your response i stand by that. no, i don't kno you in real life, maybe you hug strangers on the street and wish them a good day. how would i kno? more so, that almost seems irrelevant to the argument. reading your responses to jilted citizen made me want to close my browser and walk away, and if i do that, then im not learning anything i can do to help. i dont neccesarily agree with jilted citizen, and reading some of the comments he/she leaves on treehugger i can see why he or she would rile you up. but accusing newcomers of thinking they kno it all, and treating them as they kno nothing isnt fair, and really, wont help the cause. i understand that im generalizing about your attitude, assuming you always think one way or another, which i kno to be untrue about anyone as people are complex and always changing, and i apologize, but its only in response to a generalization you made.

and on topic, since i didnt respond to the actual posting before, i tend to agree with turil on expanding information about birth control and expanding access to birth control. i dont have statistics to back this up, but i do kno that better educated people tend to have less children. and i kno that my high school had an abstinence only sex education program and alot of pregnant teenagers roaming the halls, earning our school the nickname "bradley baby makers" from the neighboring high schools. i dont think any govenment mandate about how i use my uterus is ever a step in the right direction.

Nobody ever says on their deathbed - "I wish I had less children." or "I wish I paid more taxes."

All this squabbling about controlli