300 Million Strong

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's getting very crowded on this planet. Time to move.

I'm not sure the environment can continue to sustain this level of growth of humans, especailly as we consume and waste more and more resources.

Malthusianism.

Engels on Malthus's hypothesis: "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship."

[Kuciwalker]

Not to mention that human population growth doesn't obey Malthus' predictions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not to mention that human population growth doesn't obey Malthus' predictions.

I thought what did not obey his rpedictions was the growth in food supply. His point was that food supply would grow arithmetically while human population would grow exponentially. He was right about the growth of the human population. He was wrong about its ability to feed itself.

[Narz]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Malthusianism.

Engels on Malthus's hypothesis: "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship."

I'm sorry Malthus offended Engels delicate sensibilities. Nature is nuetral towards the beauty of too many doe's and too many humans alike. That's why I friggin' love it!A hurricane'll blow you off the map no matter how you feel (or whine) about it.

Malthus was right, the discovery of oil and how to utilize it allowed us to vastly overshoot our carrying capacity. But the cheap oil ride is almost over and they'll be alot of people who will have their rides cut short.

The US'll never see 400 million that's for sure.

[Dis]

we'll see 400 million easy. We'll get that from illegal immigration (and their offspring) alone.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I thought what did not obey his rpedictions was the growth in food supply. His point was that food supply would grow arithmetically while human population would grow exponentially. He was right about the growth of the human population. He was wrong about its ability to feed itself.

not if he meant the exponent to be fixed. Yes, in any given year the mathematical drivers of human pop growth, life birth rate, death rate, and TFR apply to the given population, so technically that is exponential growth. But the exponent keeps changing, and generally in somewhat predictable ways. Thats the demographic transition. Driven by checks on the birth rate that Malthus discounted. So while his spefic statement about the "exponential" nature of pop growth was and is mathematically correct, his larger expectation that pop growth would not slow down except due to checks like war and famine was wildly incorrect. One of the worst predictions in the history of the social sciences, in some sense. Not that id blame him - we're looking with 20-20 hindsight, and his analysis was brilliant for its time . We are dwarves on the shoulders of giants, and so see further, yada, yada....

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
I thought what did not obey his rpedictions was the growth in food supply. His point was that food supply would grow arithmetically while human population would grow exponentially. He was right about the growth of the human population. He was wrong about its ability to feed itself.

No, he was wrong on both points. Look at the population growth [decline] rates in the industrialized world.

[BeBMan]

So today's the day?

Who is it? Will he/she get some cool benefits, like free lifetime ApolytonPlus membership?

[Winston]

They dropped him in all the excitement.

His lawyer is filing for damages in court as we speak.

[LordShiva]

Sadly enough, the "baby '1 billion'" who was born in India a few years ago had her picture taken so many times that there were some complications that arose with her eyes, or something.

[Arrian]

The US'll never see 400 million that's for sure.

Whether or not we'll be in real good shape when we hit 400 mil is one thing, but not hitting it at all? That's pretty funny.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Narz
But the cheap oil ride is almost over

It isn't. We're discovering new sources all the time, and developing alternatives to burning oil in cars.

[DanS]

Today's the day!

U.S. population now 300 million and growing

(CNN) -- The United States became a nation of 300 million people Tuesday morning, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

Fueled by an estimated net gain of one person every 11 seconds, America -- the world's third most populous country -- joined China and India with populations greater than 300 million.

The main reason is simple: Births outnumber deaths. According to the Census Bureau, a child is born every seven seconds, but a death occurs every 13 seconds.

But immigration also plays a role. The Census Bureau estimates that a migrant enters the country every 31 seconds.

America claimed 100 million people in 1915 but didn't reach 200 million until 1967. The 400 millionth person is likely to arrive in 2043, according to the Census Bureau.

Flight to South, West

Since 1967, the American population has undergone several demographic changes. Americans have moved out of the Northeast and Midwest and into the West and the South, according to the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.

For instance, in 1967, Phoenix, Arizona, had a population just shy of 440,000, according to the Census Bureau. By 2006, the city had 1.5 million residents and was the sixth most populous in the nation. Florida in 1967 had a population of 6.2 million; the Sunshine State now boasts 17.8 million people.

"The West surpassed the Northeast in total population back in 2000 and is projected to overtake the Midwest region before 2030," said Linda Jacobsen, director of domestic programs for the Population Reference Bureau, told reporters Wednesday in an online discussion. "The South will continue to have the largest population of any region through 2030."

In addition, American suburbs have seen steady growth -- between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of the total population living in suburbs grew from 38 percent to 50 percent.

Despite the larger population, however, there are fewer large households in the United States. In 1970, less than 18 percent of households consisted of just one person. During the next 30 years, one-person households increased to nearly 26 percent of the total population.

The change is fueled by both young and old; young people may delay getting married and choose to live on their own, while older people who are divorced or widowed also live alone rather than remarry.

"As men and especially women live longer and are healthier and are able to live independently, the share of households that consist of a person living alone will likely continue to increase," Jacobsen said in a report tied to the attainment of the 300 million mark.

And classifying households is not as easy as it may have been in previous years, Jacobsen noted in the report. A household with a mother, a child and the mother's boyfriend, for instance, might not be classified as a family, the Population Reference Bureau said.

Meanwhile, married-couple households have dropped from nearly 75 percent in 1967 to 50 percent today. And nonfamily households have increased from 17 percent to 33 percent.

Other points noted by the Census Bureau include more women in the workforce and better-educated Americans.
Immigrants bypassing 'gateway states'

Migration is playing an increasing factor in population statistics and is projected to continue to do so. According to the Census Bureau, there were 9.7 million foreign-born people in the country in 1967. By 2004, that number had mushroomed to 34.3 million -- 12 percent of the total population.

"Immigration is certainly contributing to the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population," Jacobsen said Wednesday. "The share of the population who will be Asian and the share who will be Hispanic is projected to double between 2000 and 2050."

However, she said, "it is important to note that the share of the population that was foreign-born was higher [13 percent to 15 percent] during the whole period from 1860 to 1920 than it is today. One pattern that is different today is that immigrants are increasingly dispersed in communities across the U.S."

The Population Reference Bureau noted in its report that traditional "gateway" states such as New York, New Jersey, California, Texas and Florida have long been a "first stop" for immigrants.

"But increasingly, immigrants don't go to traditional gateway states at all," Jacobsen said. Some go directly to relatives in destinations such as North Carolina, Nevada and Georgia.

Although the majority of current immigrants are Mexican, Jacobsen said Wednesday that a proposal to build a fence along the Mexican border would not slow population growth -- "not in the short term."

"Hispanics in the U.S., especially Mexicans, have higher fertility rates than non-Hispanic whites," she said. "Even if no additional immigrants came across the border in the next few years, population would continue to grow in the U.S. because of this built-in momentum."
Impact on the environment

Although the nation's growth rate is larger than that of any other industrialized country in the world, it remains slower than that of developing countries, including India and China, she said.

The country's burgeoning population is having an adverse effect on the environment, Jacobsen said.

Land is being developed at twice the rate of population growth, and some of the nation's fastest-growing regions are in the Western dry areas, which affects water resources.

Air pollution is a problem in larger cities, she said, and poor air quality may contribute to increased health problems among children and the elderly.

Energy is also a concern; the United States consumes a quarter of the world's energy and is the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dis
we'll see 400 million easy. We'll get that from illegal immigration (and their offspring) alone.

at that point maintaining a unified united states will be quite a challenge to say the least.

[Dis]

how so?

I think this poses an interesting question as to what the U.S. will be like in 50 years.

Yes it is true that many mexicans do not assimilate like the europeans did when they came over. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Even recent European immigrants at my work place don't go around practicing silly european traditions. Yet mexicans and other hispanics still insist on the traditions of their home countries.

But even so, they know that the U.S. is good for them. What reason would there be to fragment or secede? Only massive terrorism (which I have described before) capable of obliterating cities could fragment the U.S. There will be social problems. Riots possibly. But if you look at the immigration marches, they have been peaceful.

So while I disagree with their desire to maintain the traditions of their home country, most of them do accept the laws and traditions fo the U.S. as well.