US Population Hits 300 Million, but Is It Sustainable?

[raccoon]

Published on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 by the Independent / UK

US Population Hits 300 Million, but Is It Sustainable?
by Andrew Buncombe

The population of the United States will pass 300 million today, or tomorrow. No one knows exactly where, no one know precisely when. It is a milestone for sure but is this a cause for celebration or anxiety?

Some American commentators are already saying the landmark is a chance to note the US is perhaps the only country in the developed world where the economy is being bolstered by a population that is growing at a discernable rate. But many experts say passing the 300 million milestone should be a wake-up call that demands a reappraisal of the extraordinary, unparalleled rate of consumption by the world's largest economy and its third largest by population.

As an economic model for the rest of the world to follow - in particular the rapidly developing economies of China and India - it is unsustainable, they say.

On a global scale the average US citizen uses far more than his or her fair share of the planet's resources - consuming more than four times the worldwide average of energy, almost three times as much water and producing more than twice the average amount of rubbish and five times the amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming. The US - with five per cent of the world's population - uses 23 per cent of its energy, 15 per cent of its meat and 28 per cent of its paper. Additional population will mean more people seeking a share of those often-limited resources.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1011-08.htm


The population problem isn't just about high birth rates in Third World countries. It's about consumption of the world's resources.

[nam78_two]

1. Recommended

Its tied in with this stuff I posted about yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2363273&mesg_id=2363273


Check out the "ecological footprint" of the United States :wow:

[AndyA]

2. This is why God created gay people. To help control the population

explosion. There's a reason for everything.

[Critters2]

16. I actually heard someone say this at a Coming Out Day event

yesterday. I'd like to say I was surprised, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Quantess]

3. This is an issue that is very crucial to me, and I hope, for most DUers

Overpopulation, and the devastating consequences, will eventually cause our demise.

[enigma000]

6. What are your thoughts on "de-population"?

I've come across statistics showing Europe, Japan and Russia having population decline. The number of births per women in Europe are: Ireland at 1.87, Germany and Austria are at 1.3, Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1. What will happen as their population ages and shrinks?

I'm concerned because it seems like Red State America is outbreeding Blue State America. The statistics I've seen show by 2050, there will be 100 million more Americans and I suspect they will be mostly Red State Americans.

[Quantess]

8. It's an extremely complex issue.

Generally, as a society (usually this applies to individual families as well) improves their standard of living, the number of births decreases, and the infant mortality rate decreases. That would be because ideally there would be a lot less unwanted pregnancies and better prenatal care, and better health in general. That's what I learned in school, anyway.

That seems to be happening in places like Europe and Japan, but that doesn't exactly seem to be happening in exactly the same way in the U.S. Some groups of people in the US are really restraining their family size, and other groups are not.

[The2ndWheel]

9. And improved living standards

increase consumption. China and India want in on the game now, and everyone can't consume 25% of world resources, so something has to give.

It's why the two problems of population and consumption fit so well together. Improving efficiency won't help. That just causes more people to want more.

Unfortunately the only way out, to me, would be getting rid of agriculture. But to do so would be murdering billions, and you'd be worse then every mass murdering statist of the 20th century combined.

To decrease anything on a large scale, in the reality we've created over thousands of years, would be the same as death. Not only is it a complex problem, it has no answer. Other than to go back to human scale ways of living. But who in their right mind would ever want that? That might mean that everyone can't do everything. Nope, can't go that way.

[Quantess]

12. what did you mean by this?

"Unfortunately the only way out, to me, would be getting rid of agriculture.."

There are no perfect or easy answers. If each community could start to value the quality of life for everyone, and value the ecosystem and the quality of the environment, that would definitely be a positive direction. Humans need to stop exploiting other humans, stop exploiting the earth. Especially those who exploit others and abuse the earth just to exponentially increase their own unrequited lust for material wealth.

[The2ndWheel]

17. Exactly

The only reason we are able to exploit other humans, the earth, and eco-systems for our exponentially increasing lust for material wealth is because of agriculture. You stated what I wanted to say in a much more detailed way.

[Quantess]

22. If you have time, I'd be interested in hearing why

agriculture plays a role. I have not heard this before.

[The2ndWheel]

24. No problem

http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/

http://vtcommons.org/node/431

Just a few opinions there. You can probably find more if you wish, even opinions that disagree. Not saying just read these. If you've never heard of it before, read anything you can. I've always been very interested in this topic as well. Just like anything in life, there are at least two sides. It's a give and take. Not saying a world without argiculture would be a utopian conflict free existence. At the same time, the organized, large scale, warfare state wouldn't exist either.

[SoCalDem]

10. As people are more educated, they usually have smaller families

The problem we have in the US, is that poor families are increasing in number, and many poor families have multiple children.

It takes a bigger and bigger family-income every year just to maintain lifestyle, and media drives us to always want ...bigger..shinier..newer..more more more

Europe is having a similar problem too, because although the "old-euro population" is not reproducing as much, the "new euro immigrant population" IS ..

Clashes are ahead for them as well ( and are already happening)..

and

here in the US, it's often more about distribution than actual numbers.. We have many LOW population areas, but of course people do not want to go there because there are few jobs..

[Rosemary2205]

11. Take heart

some of the red states are actually purple.

[Cassandra]

4. And with so many jobs going overseas...

what are we all supposed to do for a living?

[raccoon]

5. Work at Walmart, or wash dogs. :sarcasm: nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. I'll take the job of dog washing!

:-)

[The2ndWheel]

7. This contributes to the problem

Higher paying jobs allows people to use, want, and expect more. It's the problem with endless growth.

[spooky3]

13. immigration is a significant factor

quoting:

William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said there are three reasons for U.S. population growth: the birth rate is relatively high, we're healthier and living longer, but mostly, it's immigration. He said there is a net increase of one immigrant — legal or illegal — every 30 seconds.

"I have predicted that the 300-millionth American will be a boy born in Los Angeles County to a Mexican mother," he said. "It's not only a prediction, but I think it's, it's more symbolic of what the population will look like in the next several years. The 300-millionth American represents going back to our melting pot roots in a way, because we're now bringing in much of our growth from immigrants, the children of immigrants, and a diversity to our population which we haven't seen in a long time."

Immigration has been a hot button political issue leading into the midterm elections. Frey said that because the 300-millionth American is likely to either be an immigrant or child of an immigrant, some people will "mixed up with all kinds of other issues associated with the illegal immigration debate, with the rancor that sometimes comes along with this in some states where immigrants are a new phenomenon."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/08/sunday/main2072483.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2072483

[Gregorian]

14. If you're a breeder and you know it, cross your legs...

Everybody! Sing along...

[raccoon]

27. If you consume the lion's share and you know it, throw away

your credit cards, sell some of your cars and ride a bike...

[Selatius]

15. 6,000,000,000+ worldwide is unsustainable

There could be a population "correction" if the ecosystem collapses under the weight.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. yeah i bet 1 to 2 billion is the carrying capacity of earth (sustained)

[rman]

28. how do you know that?

[Critters2]

18. I used to feel had about not having kids

Now I think I'm doing the right thing.

[wuushew]

20. kick

:kick:

[sofa king]

21. As I recall from the fruit flies in the jar...

...It's a self-correcting process.

Seriously, though, the really crummy part about it is what we're going to do to everyone else. We supply much of the world's grain and also the fertilizer needed to grow it. Fertilizer production is energy-intensive. When the fuel runs out, the fertilizer doesn't get produced, the grain yields drop, the exports decline, and the people who get screwed are in places like Belgium, Japan, Rwanda, and India, all of which have ten times our population density. Island nations especially are going to be in real trouble.

But America will probably be just fine by comparison. Some paleoanthropologists are still arguing that at one point North America supported perhaps as many as a hundred million hunter-gatherers. With old-world crops and large domesticated critters for farm labor, North America is actually better suited for humans now than it ever was before.

That of course is assuming that environmental disasters, international jealousy, and perpetual warfare don't knock us back to the stone age. I think that's what the neocons really want, even if they don't realize it. Part of the pathology of conservatism is an irrational yearning to return to the idealized past of our ancestors--and we're well on our way. But those earliest ancestors--they were busting rocks for a living.

[Quantess]

23. And, their skulls were so thick they could bust those rocks on their heads

But, maybe what you say is true, that fundies yearn for a return to the good old days of biblical yore. Those were simpler times, when the written word was mostly reserved for the word of the prophets, and Satan wasn't able to infiltrate rock-n-roll and TV, for example.

[sofa king]

26. Yeah, all they had to worry about was God.

He was quite the asshole back in those days.