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 controlling other people is not solving the problems of reducing the amounts of water needed to farm.

Nor is it debating the usefulness of technological advantages to farm water out of the air (it's called an air conditioner).

People adapt - if there is less food available at stores for a period of time, people will catch on and simply make do. Life goes on.

Liberty does involve not being controlled by others, that is a U.S. belief which even in this age of paranoia of terror stands firm.

This comment is asked to be kept civil, so I won't point out in the vernacular that no amount of money will help you when you die to feel good that you left a legacy on earth. Go ahead put some solar panels on a school building - put your name on them, nobody will remember you fondly for being against the thought of having children! Some single people are beyond selfish, and also work to bring everyone else around them who has a decent family life down.

P.S. China's one child policy is a failure - look it up.

I agree with JiltedCitizen - there will be a technological solution, or more likely, a market-driven solution to the world's burgeoning populstion. Any other solution is Orwellian, and likely counterproductive: how can anyone view China's one child policy positively when it's left hundreds of thousands of abortions and orphaned children in its wake?

Nobody ever says on their deathbed - "I wish I had less children."

That one's too easy.

or "I wish I paid more taxes."

Who mentioned taxes?

People adapt - if there is less food available at stores for a period of time, people will catch on and simply make do. Life goes on.

That would be the nihilist's solution. Hey, people in sub-saharan Africa are experiencing another famine. Oh, well. They'll adapt. Life goes on.

You know what many people wish on their deathbed? That they were less selfish and cared more about the welfare and suffering of their fellow human beings -- didn't spend more time worrying about taxes and dismissing the fact that severe and abrupt damage to ecosystems leads to tangible, preventable human suffering.

Liberty does involve not being controlled by others, that is a U.S. belief which even in this age of paranoia of terror stands firm.

You're already controlled by others. Clearly your thinking has been controlled by others, as you are simply saying random talking points that you don't realize you've been conditioned to say. Nor will you, or anyone, ever live in a world where other people don't seek to, and accomplish, controlling you in some manner or another. We all inherit the customs, institutions, laws, and other things from those who preceded us in life, and even though those may go strongly against our personal desires for action, we oftentimes have to accept them as facts of life. Better to focus on specifics of things you find wrong and work on them instead of believing in notions like absolute liberty, which don't exist (nor should exist, since people shouldn't have the liberty to kill other people, to cite just one example).

no amount of money will help you when you die to feel good that you left a legacy on earth. Go ahead put some solar panels on a school building - put your name on them, nobody will remember you fondly for being against the thought of having children!

Who here is against the THOUGHT of having children? Who here is against children themselves? I certainly don't see anyone, nor do I know anyone like that in real life. What's being discussed is the overall issue of the large and growing number of human beings on this planet relative to the available resources, and the fact that that has extremely negative consequences. In response to that, people are offering their ideas and perspectives.

I can tell you, though, that simply procreating isn't a very noble act. It's one of the easiest things in the world to do - especially for men. What's much more difficult, and more noble, is working for the well-being of people other than yourself and your immediate family. Those are the people who are remembered fondly, and frankly no one cares if such people had any children or not.

How many children did Davinci have? Do you know? Neither do I. How about Einstein? Galileo? Mozart? MLK? Jesus? The Buddha? Mother Theresa? Maybe some of them did. Many of them obviously didn't.

Some single people are beyond selfish

Many people are beyond selfish. You probably know one very well.

and also work to bring everyone else around them who has a decent family life down.

Strange, I have never encountered such a person in my life. Usually what I encounter is strong peer pressure to procreate and certain biases in society against childless couples and individuals. In a country that's more than 80% Christian, that's to be expected.

************

there will be a technological solution, or more likely, a market-driven solution to the world's burgeoning populstion. Any other solution is Orwellian, and likely counterproductive

Wow, so all non-technological approaches to problems are "Orwellian"? I guess we should just disassemble all governments, non-profits, religious institutions, and all human relationships for that matter -- they obviously won't make a difference and are "Orwellian", whatever you think that means.

how can anyone view China's one child policy positively when it's left hundreds of thousands of abortions and orphaned children in its wake?

Both strawmen.

Wow, so all non-technological approaches to problems are "Orwellian"? I guess we should just disassemble all governments, non-profits, religious institutions, and all human relationships for that matter -- they obviously won't make a difference and are "Orwellian", whatever you think that means.
Association fallacy
You know what many people wish on their deathbed? That they were less selfish and cared more about the welfare and suffering of their fellow human beings -- didn't spend more time worrying about taxes and dismissing the fact that severe and abrupt damage to ecosystems leads to tangible, preventable human suffering.strawman

Association fallacy

Incorrect use of a logical fallacy. The person stated that "any other solution" other than a technological one is "Orwellian". That's a logical exclusion of all other possible solutions besides technology, eg, fiscal incentives, education, etc. There is no "guilt by association" argument being made. MattS exluded all other possible solutions with his assertion.

strawman

Wrong again. A strawman is misrepresenting someone's position. I merely stated my opinion about what people think about on their deathbed, in contrast to his opinion. If you're referring to the "people adapt, life goes on" comment, that certainly is a mindset which conceptualizes and dehumanizes suffering. It's the same one that leads to "Earth will survive us, so let's not try to make it more livable".

So why are you debating in "Joe"'s and "MattS"'s place?

Originally I brought up immigration as the main cause of our growth pattern/problems.

Any thoughts on the graph at this links?
http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/GreenRedPopChartSm.gif

Highly advaced countires usually have very low birth rates. Why should native Americans have no children or one child when they are not the main cause of the population growth?

Originally I brought up immigration as the main cause of our growth pattern/problems.

Actually, 43-44% of population growth in the US is attributable to net migration, with the remaining 56-57% attributable to the birth rate outpacing the death rate.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/06s0004.xls

Any thoughts on the graph at this links?

None really, except it seems fairly arbitrary to set 1970 as the reference date, and I'm not seeing much by way of supporting doumentation besides gross links.

Also, if one is looking at population growth as a global issue, it doesn't much matter where people are being born, aside from the fact that people tend to consume less (yet more "dirtily") in less developed economies.

Highly advaced countires usually have very low birth rates.

Not all of them, nor do many countries resemble the United States, which is from its founding a country of immigrants.

Why should native Americans have no children or one child when they are not the main cause of the population growth?

Native Americans are the ones who preceded whitey. What would the population of the US land mass be without the hordes of whiteys coming here and breeding like mad? No red and green charts for that?

This site amazes me; it has some good things but there is a definate liberal bias here! What causes all our problems is not the increase in population but the refusal of people at large to conserve, ration and share what they use. A.k.a. the American poeple. People in water starved areas like Idaho, where the whole state is irrigated, are watering their green grassy lawns! Same for food, oil, resources, etc.

If you think there are too many people on this planet, then instead of whining and encouraging the depopulation of the world through mild measures through to the death of infants through planned parenthood and the likes, jump off a bridge yourself. I bet no one will do that though.

This site amazes me; it has some good things but there is a definate liberal bias here!

Environmentalists are overwhelmingly liberal. Call the press! :)

death of infants through planned parenthood

cf.

Infant is a formal term for the word baby, the youngest category of a child. The term "infant" derives from the Latin word in-fans, meaning "unable to speak." There is no exact definition for infancy. Quite often babies are called infants until they reach the age of one. However, babies are traditionally called "toddlers" when they start to walk whether or not they have reached their first birthday. Daycares with an "infant room" providing care will call all their children in the infant room "infants" even if they are older than a year and/or walking; they will sometimes use the term "walking infant".
"Infant" is also a legal term with the (quite different) meaning of minor[1]; that is, any child under the age of legal adulthood. A human infant less than a month old is a newborn infant or a neonate[2]. The term "newborn" includes premature infants and postmature infants, as well as full term newborns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant

**********

Planned Parenthood doesn't kill infants.

jump off a bridge yourself

Huh - you have concern for the lives of unborn children, but want living, sentient humans to go kill themselves? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?

Preventing a birth is not equivalent to murder or suicide. In the latter case, the being already exists. In the former, especially when you're speaking of contraception and other preventative measures, the life is only a future concept or potential.

Normally, human beings distinguish the needs of the living from the needs of non-existent beings, therefore it's often prudent to consider when our numbers might be too large for the sustainability of our ecosystems. Such thinking is actually respectful for the unborn you seem to cherish, since it will be the world they will be inheriting from us.

Hey, Rocket Scientist... have you ever heard of the Church of Euthanasia?

I know I might be in trouble for what I'm about to say, but I'm a republican (please don't hit me). With that, I also believe in environmental conservation. I'm going to rant here for a little, so please be warned...

I am not happy about the rise in population. It's too crowded, it's too polluted, and people are too wasteful. How do we cure these problems? This population thing is out of control, how do we cure it? abusive parents, convicted murderes, rapist, child molestors and the like should be spayed or nutered (take the advise of Bob Barker). Yes it sounds harsh and no one wants to infringe on people's rights to have kids, blah blah blah. These folks clearly should never procreate, and to do so could endanger that child futher down the road. Desperate times call for desparate measures, get over it.

About the environment, why don't big business use environmentally friendly products for thier factories? Why don't they use solar, wind, or wave energy to power thier facilities? Or towns for that matter? Beach front homes and properties could take advantage of all these types of alternative energy. If you live on the beach, you can clearly afford to shell out a few bucks and throw some solar panels up for crying out loud. I know that if I were a big company like Johnson & Johnson or Nike, I would not only take advantage of efficient, and cheaper energy, but I would advertise the hell out of it! Being "green" in the media, and hollywood is very chic. It's almost as popular as saving an African nation.

Finally, there is really no reason for us to be as wasteful as we are. It's disgusting. I'm not going to lie. I grew up in the desert in southern Cal. There were months that would go by where we couldn't water our lawns. What did we do? The town passed out flyers about simple ways to save water and electricity. You learn to wear shorts, and a tank top, drink water, turn down the ac a little and put a brick in your toilet to conserve water (the brick will raise the water level in the toilet so you use less water per flush...it's a quick fix if you don't have a low flow toilet).

Basically, I really hate it when I hear about liberals trashing conservatives and vice versa. We are PEOPLE and like it or not, we are all living on the same planet that we have all dirtied up. We have to work together and acutally - gasp - compromise. Otherwise, we are all going to ruin the planet to the point of no return and that whole "I told you so" shit will be pointless.

"What's being discussed is the overall issue of the large and growing number of human beings on this planet relative to the available resources, and the fact that that has extremely negative consequences. In response to that, people are offering their ideas and perspectives."

Okay here's some food for thought:

"and also work to bring everyone else around them who has a decent family life down.

Strange, I have never encountered such a person in my life."

Lucky you, you're not associating with people who go around cheating on wives who end up raising children alone.

Sustainability of people has familial ties to it. If there's a population issue that needs addressing, it's just plain teaching people to be responsible parents, and stick with their kids the whole 18 years until the children can decide to tackle problems.

Respect of the elderly also falls into the category of population control. Older people have means to solve problems at a pace albeit slower than computers. Human intellect and experience goes further to save ourselves though. If we were limited to computer models like the one generating this map, we'd all be arguing and complaining all the time. We have a lot of brilliant people with lots of time on their hands - network their good ideas. Use snail mail if you have to, get to know your grandparents and parents.

People are creative, lifelong assets. Not Liabilities. The food supply is the liablility; the problem to be solved. What idiotic society tries to limit it's population?

Oh and in reply to this -
""people adapt, life goes on" comment, that certainly is a mindset which conceptualizes and dehumanizes suffering. It's the same one that leads to "Earth will survive us, so let's not try to make it more livable"."

Life is suffering. Accept it. I was not referring to your interpretation at all. I don't know who you are "anonymous" and I don't recall this being a philosophy debate. Nice to know you feel intimidated enough to believe I am not thinking on my own. You most certainly are not either - just wading through the "oh I think we should limit ourselves to x y or z which were proposed by Italian and Black hating women in the 1920's" type answers pisses me off.

Dear Anonymous,
Your racist rant against Whitey does not add to the discussion.
Immigration, whether it's 80% or exactly 43.5% of the increase in population cannot be ignored. If we go to zero increase from current citizens (Native Americans) and ignore immigration we still have an increasing population.

As far as having 1970 as the starting date for charting the contribution of immigration to the population makes sense since there was very limited immigration to the US from 1920's until the after 1970....please read a history book.
And please do let us know which nations that have are highly advanced and have a substantial middle class have a high rate of population increase that is not due to immigration.

Thanks so much

Hehe - where do you people come from? One long rant about cheating husbands and valuable grandparents, with the standard "No, YOU'RE racist" comment, then another "No, YOU'RE racist" comment.

Lovely. Glad to see we can discuss this issue with the maturity, patience, and focus it requires.

mmigration, whether it's 80% or exactly 43.5% of the increase in population cannot be ignored.

You said it was the number one contributor. It's not. Apparently this upsets you. I'm not the facts, just the messenger.

As far as having 1970 as the starting date for charting the contribution of immigration to the population makes sense since there was very limited immigration to the US from 1920's until the after 1970....please read a history book.

Then where's the chart for all the years prior to 1920? Oh, right - most voluntary immigrants prior to 1920 were white, and those are "real" Americans, unlike all the hordes of yellow, brown, and black people coming in now to "dirty" us "native" Americans, right?

Glad to see we can discuss this issue with the maturity, patience, and focus it requires.Well said, but there is none of that here. Just some condescending know it all spouting off.

most voluntary immigrants prior to 1920 were white, and those are "real" Americans, unlike all the hordes of yellow, brown, and black people coming in now to "dirty" us "native" Americans, right?
Oh yeah sooo mature.

Well said, but there is none of that here.Just some condescending know it all spouting off.

Actually, many people attempted to keep it so, until fight-picking, condescending know-it-alls like yourself started bleating about slavery, liberty, and God knows what other ridiculous strawmen.

Oh yeah sooo mature.

Here's your very first comment on the thread, Mr. Maturity:
"Limit kids huh? Wow. Move to China."

Stop whining. If you want maturity, then start being mature. If you make inflammatory and strawmen comments (ie, flame and troll) don't stand around and act like you're some victim.

Do you think no one here notices that you do this day after day after day?

If this were my site, you'd have been 86ed long ago.