Slashdot Mirror
US Population to Top 300 Million
An anonymous reader writes "The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially. The US census bureau says the 300 million mark will be reached 39 years after US population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million. That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india. It is noteworthy that sheer number of human beings do not necessarily have the heaviest impact on the environment. Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology. The US consumes nearly 25% of the world's energy though it has only 5% of the world's population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each American produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, a rate about 5 times that in developing countries."
All the virgins on here are really practicing population control. I salute you all!
Leave it to Taco to start a flame war at 8:30 am.
This one has the worst grammar ever.
If they all jumped at once they could send the earth out of orbit!
The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas. The "Rust Belt" - cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh - continues to shrink. Pittsburgh alone has lost over HALF of its population from nearly 700,000 in the 1960s to barely over 300,000 today (and not just due to people leaving for the suburbs). If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!
Re: The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."
Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"
They just dont get it.
Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.
I wonder what would happen if China decided to relax those controls, I'm relatively sure the population would explode and almost double within a decade.
This is just crap. Who else is going to be consuming that energy, when most other people do not have the wealth and products that Americans? You think Ethiopians have a need for the energy we have? It's logical that the richest country on the planet will be doing a greater share of consumption as well as production compared to the rest of the world.
I predict this will be another US bash-fest thats so typical on slashdot.
Americans aren't pumping out puppies, it's that we welcome people looking for a better life. So lay off the environmental left wing crap, those people would be somewhere creating pollution.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Asia has too many, Europe has a decreasing population, America is just right. Whats your secret?
Shit! Quick, go to a school and start a killing spree! It's the only way to keep this thing under control.
Meta will eat itself
If you make our over 6 billion people live in the state of Texas, you'll have roughly 100 square meters for every person...
and the rest of the world for everything else!
"The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population..." We can do better than that. Thanks to ATI / nVidia and their 1.21 gigawatt next gen GPUs, I'm confident we can shatter this number by next year.
The population is going to increase 42% till 2050, and there is still no birth control initiatives from the government. Oh yes, IT personnel, there is always a demand.
So, if the US signed up to the Koyoto Protocol could they offset reproduction by getting children in the third world to plant trees? Or even better, plant trees while reproducing... there's a whole carbon-neutral fetish thing here just waiting to be tapped.
Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.
Maybe if China was more like the US, they'd be better off.
Of course, China *HAS* to adopt strict population controls, because of all those people from the neighboring companies constantly crashing their borders to sneak into China for the better life it offers them there.
Oh, wait...
Holy super-freaking-crowded roadways Batman! Where the hell will 120 MILLION additional people go? Probably straight out on the roads to turn my 30-minute commute into 1-1/2 hours.
So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.
Actually, US population is growing too slowly to keep up with the baby boomers' retirement demands. It's far worse in Europe, which will be basically Muslim within a generation, its entire culture and history pushed into slavery (dhimmitude). So please take this whining somewhere else. It's this attitude that lead to our culture's potential extinction in the first place.
This is old news. We're talking cover story on news magazines two weeks ago old.
Actually, the population of America is more like 858,000,000. The population of the USA, however...
Meta will eat itself
You mean from North Korea?
A large part of the growth of the US population is from the large amount of immigration the US has, both legal and not legal. Also, the OP stated that they compared the per capita usage to developing countries, not industrialized countries. It sounds like someone's cherry picking stats to make it sound bigger than it is.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
The linked article says nothing about concerns over Americans energy usage or anything of the sort. Why did the submitter have to add this when the article itself doesn't mention it. In fact, no articles I've read about US hitting 300 million are really concerned about energy consumption. The US will manage it just fine.
The last point of the slashdot writeup is pure flamebait designed to generate the typical flamewar on here. CmdrTaco, instead of being a responsible editor, let this piece of gratuitious US-bashing through.
Shame on you submitter and CmdrTaco.
By simply plugging this data into an XY chart and creating a trendline we should hit 400 million right around year 2050 and 600 million by 2100. And we are trying to solve everyone else's problems.
"The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone [...] for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially"
Wrong! Canada (member of the G8, so technically a major industrial nation, even though a little over a tenth the size of the US) is increasing in size faster. More new immigrants settle in Greater Toronto Area every year than any other N. American city, including LA and Miami. Since I first came to Canada 10 years ago, I've seem the population grow from 28 million to 32. The last government was trying to increase the inflow of immigrants. Yes, it's easier to have a higher growth rates on lower numbers, but the impact on things like services (medical, roads, education, etc) and the enviroment are still proportionally higher.
go to war with China (those bastages are taking all the oil we need), we need to increase population to catch up to them...It is all part of the administration's master plan for when Jeb becomes president.
I found this US Census page, but I can't find the "live" moving clock. It seems, to me at least, that a 1% yearly growth in population isn't really anything to be alarmed about. In fact, if you look at population density, our population density is less than average: 31 people per km compared to the world average of 48 km. That's less than 10% of the density in Japan or India. Some European countries are way up there as well. Germany and the UK both have more than 200 people per km. Even without Alaska, we're still only at about 37 people per km.
If we had Germany's population density, the US would have 2.2 billion people (and still only about 400 interested in the World Cup).
The question isn't about density, as it is about resources and the ecological footprint that Americans have. We're terribly, awfully wasteful. If we all became more conscious about resource use, in twenty years, even with 360 million people, we could use less resources then than we use today. At that point, the economic benefits of population (and immigration) outweigh the other costs.
I'd be a lot more worried if we've maxed out our resource use efficiency and there was simply no way to improve. No, we've got a lot of improvements we can do. If we follow through with them, US population growth won't be a problem in the next century.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
"Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day"
Smart move. Use a unit that almost no one in america is familair with. Next you can talk about the gas "mileage" of american cars in meters. Yeah, say bob gets 16,093 meters off a gallon of gas. 16 fucking 093 meters, thats some eco-friendly car bob has isnt it?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Is there any class of people other than Slashdot editors that doesn't recognize "buereau" as a mispelling? I mean, misspelling.
The consumption of energy (or oil...or other resources) when compared to developing countries is not that interesting (no electric lights, computers, TV's...lower energy consumption...who would have thought?).
It would be more interesting to see how USA compares to other industrialised countries...
The 5-25% phrase bugs me. It's designed to make the US look wasteful while that's definitely not the case.
i stics/horizontal-file_2006.xls]world population and GDP .xls[/url], the US GDP is 8.2 billion and the world's 38.9 billion. So the US accounts for 21% of global economical output using 25% of energy resources. That's below average and something to think about, but it definitely puts a different perspective on matters.
According to Angus Maddison's [url=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Stat
%25 of worlds energy, %5 of population. Awesome! Energy use is strongly equated to wealth, you know. And who's to say we don't use the energy here more efficently in many cases (of course, towards our own selfish ends, (damn freedom!.. my neighbor buying a jetski when he could be subsidizing space elevator research! (which whould be preferable to giving money to the poor)).. Argh. I'm ranting. Too tired for this right now... but, I suppose I should sum up by saying that, although there are many critiques I could make of modern american society.. it's consumption and enjoyment of a large share of earth's wealth (assuming a zero-sum game without innovation) is a pretty awesome thing to me. Go america! Just don't expect it to last with the recent hi-tech modernization of many other competitors in the world. May the best, and most technologically sucessfull and productive culture win!
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Is this 300 million with or without undocumented, er, illegal, er, visiting, um, whoever they are.
In a less trollish tone, maybe we have 300 million residents because, since the 1970s, 50 million people from all around the world decided the US was a cool place to live, and practically climbed over one another to get here.
Anyway, once China gets serious about ridding the world of fossil fuel, we in the US will seem like a nation of effete greenies.
I ask that you use the proper capitalization of American when slamming my nation's environmental record, sir.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
People should need a lisence to reproduce. One that will specify the number of offspring the couple are approved for, and reason.
It should be based on occupation -Primary producers and primary thinkers are the most needed. It should also be based on income to proffesion, IQ, and education.
Countered with things that will lower the number of offspring allowed: Sex offence, religion, violent crime, and the like.
All men and wonen should have some form of reversable surgical birth-control implanted at birth, removed when they are lisenced, and put back once they reach the maximum. Overproduction should be a crime.
1. Immigration, both legal and illegal. The US still has one of the least-irritating systems of harassment toward people looking to flee into the country. I'd love to see population percentages based on sheer land mass. Keep in mind, we're a bit more temperate than Russia, as well.
:P
2. Energy use: I'd love to know how much 'energy' is taken up via cars. Again, see large population plus vast swaths of land. Same for oil.
3. Waste: Damned if it's my fault that Newegg just sent me a laptop hard drive and ram chip in a small box, encased by an absolutely huge god damned box filled with about a cubic meter of packaging peanuts.
The environazis can complain about trash all they want; I'll wholeheartedly agree with 'em that it's bad. But I'll laugh in their faces when they start whining about population and energy use. For the love of god, the majority of the country is still very sparesely populated. Oh noes! We have a large population!
Guess what? We've got plenty of room for many times what we've got now. And surprise! As population increases, energy use will decrease - if only because some poor fool out in the middle of one of those lovely flat, boring square states that make up the majority of our land mass won't have to hop in their car and drive an hour to the nearest store.
America has a disposable culture. Even things that are made to last for more than one use have a limited lifespan. Things are not engineered to last, and are cheap enough to replace rather than repair. Durable goods used to be things that were expected to be last for at least 10 years. This included cars and refrigerators. Over time the definition of durable goods has changed so that they are only good for 3 years, and only includes cars.
Even our cars are pretty much designed to fall apart after 3 years of regular use. How can American's not be leaders in producing trash in this kind of environment. Only good note is my mother in the law is a packrat and has not thrown hardly anything away for the last 30+ years. But I guess she is just a minor rounding error on the average.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
That is odd the current projections by the UN's Population Division, based on the 2004 revision of the World Population Prospects database shows that the population of the world is decreasing and this one claims that the US population is increasing.
Seems that while we have fewer people in the world, those that are born head to the US.
Source
You may also note the US population growth rate @ 0.91%
Oh and as to the oil usage, So what! Look at what we give the world back for the oil we use.
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn), industrial supplies (organic chemicals), capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment), and consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) (In order of quantity)
Population on Earth shouldn't be something we want to grow for ever.
;-)
With life expectances going up, maybe anti aging drugs in the next century, this is a good thing.
The population predictions for the developing countries don't take into account that as they develop women want careers too, which reduces the number having kids. If you want to slow population growth, educate the women. So population growth might slow more then shown here. I'm all for it. As the developed countries population growth slows and reverses, they import people from else where. Ideally it should be from some where they have too many people. It could all work out quite nicely. Think how much easier it would be to control population and reach world agreements if they where only say a billion people.
Let the killing begin! Oh wait, got carried away, but I think you see my point.
*Area of Rhode Island: 3,144 square km
(And we thought that the US education system was bad.)
*Areas from wikipedia
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Let's say the average person dump 2 hg of poo every day, this means that with a population of 300 million, America produces 60 million kilos of poo every day, or 21,9 billion kilos of poo each year. That's a lot of poo.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
According to the Wikipedia article Demographics of the United States, 80% of the population lives in urban and suburban areas, and yet only 9 cities in the USA have a population of more than one million. Is this just a weird effect of the way that American city limits are drawn? By which I mean, if you included the greater metropolitan areas of cities in their population count would you actually end up with many many more cities with more than a million people? I just can't work out how you fit 80% of 300 million people into such small cities.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So that means (with the exception of what we shoot into space and don't get back or whats crashed into the earth) has always and will always be on earth. So humans have to have a maximum population due to the lack of matter on earth. Of course will never hit that number because will run out of things to eat. Theres nothing new just new combinations. That aside don't you have the most intersting conversations at 4am with your friends in their basement? It could just be me and mine but we talk about the universe, the chemistry of why you can't walk through solid objects, and absolute zero as well as stuff like the earths matter.
" I think that freedom is Americas biggest export. Atleast untill China can stamp it out for 20 cents a unit."
Everyone knows that Rhode Island really isn't a state, it just a joke perpetuated by New Englanders on the rest of the country for their own amusement.
New England is really one state, it just gets twelve Senatorial votes and has a particularly byzantine internal tax code.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's far worse in Europe, which will be basically Muslim within a generation,
Oh, and what do you suggest we do about that? You see, putting kids on the world without having the required finances and infrastructure (adequate housing) is insanity. I do want kids (and so wants my wife), but there is no way I can raise a bunch of them in the small apartment we live. Moving to something bigger is impossible since we don't have the finances. Vicious circle. Many young european couples are in that situation.
So, yes, "muslimification" will continue, but only because they don't seem to care in what conditions their kids grow up.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Per dollar GDP, the US is nowhere near being the world's worst polluter. China and India both have far far worse pollution based upon that metric (which presumably is a better measure of productivity than the mere presence of a person), which is, of course, why the US chose not to participate in the Kyoto agreement.
Whats the oli per hactare cost of producing all that food.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
nature has a way of dealing with runaway popultions like this. Its called disease. Aids, avian flu, ebola and probably worse in the future will go a long way yo controlling the poulation in the world. That and there is are 9 other planets and tons of moons in the solar system...
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I am dumbfounded that out of 300 MILLION PEOPLE we can ever only find TWO SLEAZY, SCUMBAG BOZOS to prop up to vote for.
Whatever happened to of the people, by the people and for the people???
andand
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Then I'd have low housing prices and probably better pay.
As the baby boomers would be gone.
Unfortunately I'm on the tail end of the baby boomers and I will see the fall of Social Security as it leaves me seeing it as a government theift of me the tax payer. And to think, that theift started before I was born.
When I look at my mother's house, I can think of several things that have lasted over 10 years (my house for instance). My mom's washer and dryer lasted for at least 14 years before being replaced; her refrigerator may be older than I am (it does not even have an ice maker). The two cars that I have driven (hand-me downs from my grandparents) are a 1993 Toyota Camry (which is on its last legs, sadly) and a 1998 Nissan Altima (which is still in good shape). My mom still uses my first TV (a TV/VCR combo that I got when I was seven); however, the vertical sync is off a bit.
Anyway, gadgets did last longer 30-50 years ago, but they were also more expensive. Western Electric phones were designed like tanks because AT&T rented phones (at $5 per month), and it was cheaper to design a long-lasting phone than to constantly replace broken ones. Also, from what I have heard, automobiles are designed so that they do not break down as often as they broke down twenty years ago.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide.
I really doubt that's true. Not that 25% of the world's energy use takes place in America, but that a good energy accounting system would assign all that use to Americans.
Say what?
What I mean is, America uses more energy per capita in a simple account, but think about what we're using that energy for. At least some of it is going toward production of goods & services for export. Should the energy used to manufacture and ship a computer be assigned to us, or to whoever buys it in another country? I think the latter.
Even taking that into account, I would guess that we still use more per capita. But not 5x as much.
This article points out that Europe and Japan have a declining population. Except for stating that the locals aren't having enough kids it doesn't really explain why. What do we know about these countries with declining populations immigration policies? I'm curious so if anyone's got stats to point out I'd be willing to read/listen.
This article also points out some stats about consumption. As some of the postings point out there's missing information, or rather information thought not to matter from a "Wow, news!" point of view. What's the USA consumption to waste ratio? I assume this is a statistic that is recorded or somehow calculated. If this isn't a way to measure efficiency how does one measure efficiency? Are we an efficient nation compared to others? Of the more efficient ones what do they do to be so efficient? Can we can learn from them?
It's far worse in Europe, which will be basically Muslim within a generation, its entire culture and history pushed into slavery (dhimmitude).
Yet another example of bigotry and ignorance on Slashdot. You've been reading far too much jihadwatch.com or listening to the likes of Daniel Pipes for your own good. Even if "dhimmitude" did amount to slavery, which it most certainly doesn't, you would still have more rights than you cede to the W regime.
Where the hell will 120 MILLION additional people go?
My hope is Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Alaska....
But then the Governator might get upset if Alaska surpasses California in population.
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day
/. posts? Because some of us should be well over 2.3 kg.
Does that include
And what are these kg's anyway? I thought we were talking about americans? Can't we use big macs or something STANDARD to measure things?
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
"Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."
Is this supposed to read:
a) Each American produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, which is about 5 times the rate in developing countries.
or b) Each American produces about 2.3kg of trash a day. In developing countries the rate is about 5 times that.
Perhaps you can provide a few examples of the rights you would gain?
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Don't worry. 300 Million---9 digits. Social security number---also 9 digits. Very soon we will run out of numbers, and that will be the fall of social security (hopefully).
I once had a signature.
More God-bothering, greedy, gun-obsessed, sickos and psychos!
Just what the World needs.
When so many decisions are made in Washington, it's awfully damn hard to feel represented if you don't have a major lobby to counter the fact that you're lost in a sea of constituents.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
Source: http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
here's a quote from that source:
Now why is it that so many people choose to immigrate to the US? And what would become of these people if they didn't emmigrate from their home countries? Answer: they would still add to the world population. So, the US isn't inflating the world population, it is merely responsible for a re-distribution. The real question here is why do so many people move to the U.S. versus, say Europe or Japan?
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
The right of your women to be "gently" beaten if they displease you. The right to be taxed kuffir for not being muslim. The right to kill your sister if she acts in a way that shames your family. Need I go on?
Sorry all,
My manager thought it would be nice to post a few mindless, incenduary comments while I was away from my desk.
Good job Garry Copeland - you fucking jerk.
Sorry, the US gov't is far from welcoming the tired, poor and huddled masses anymore. Now, I'm a US citizen and I love my country despite so many of our mistakes and troubles, but legal immigration to the US is a nightmarish hassle. I know for a fact since my wife, who is a Chinese national, has been doing the immigration dance since March of 2006. It takes a lot of time and money (poor or even average income people from third world countries can just forget it). Also they put you through a series of humiliations. For example there is only one hospital in all of Beijing that is certified to get your health check, and the people there know it so they charge a lot of extra money and treat you very poorly. There are several decent hospitals in Beijing so there is no reason for this rule, but I guess someone somewhere is getting a kickback for this.
:)
Now, I'm not sure if this is good or bad (it's been bad for me of course) for the country as a whole. We need to have a sane immigration policy that looks after the people already here, I understand that. Also a lot of immigrants do feel welcomed after they get to the US (and a lot face serious racism of course) but the gov't process is very bad and unwelcoming. Since this is most immigrants first view of the US I can't see how it will not negatively color their perception of the Country.
Of course this is a bigger problem, since the actions of the US gov't have long negatively affects peoples view of the country and the people, but that's another posting
So that's why so many people simple sneak into the country. It's actually much easier to get in that way versus the legal way. If my wife was just going to come here to live with me and not work I'd be tempted to go that route, and save her the humilation of the process.
Peace, or Not?
I don't know where you were, but I think you're vastly overstating the durability of previous-generation automobiles and appliances.
Cars today are far more reliable than cars were 40 or 50 years ago. You can take pretty much any car today, and expect to get 100,000 miles out of it, properly maintained. This is not just Japanese cars, most domestic cars will last this long too. A whole lot of cars didn't used to have odometers that even went beyond 100k; it was just assumed that it would be scrapped by that point. Plus, they're more efficient, safer, and cost less in real-dollar terms. Not to mention a lower defect rate and less production waste. In short, you get a lot more for your dollar when you purchase a 2006 automobile than its 1956 equivalent.
Maintainance statistics on refrigerators I don't have as readily, but I'm willing to bet that you're viewing the past with some rose-colored glasses there, too. Most major appliances today will easily last ten years, in fact I'll bet that more of them are thrown away because they're no longer stylish, than because they actually break.
There are certain legitimate criticisms of the way a lot of mechancial devices are currently designed (sealed units, difficult to repair), however the upshot of this is that they're both more reliable, require less maintainance (when's the last time you had to have the coolant in your fridge topped off?), and far less expensive than they were in the past.
The reason you don't see very many older cars on American roads is not because they all die, but because we as a whole, don't like to drive them. Rather than driving them until they're actually at the end of their mechanical life, they either get sold to other countries (Mexico imports tons of used cars from the U.S.), or are cut up for parts or scrap rather than being reparied after some non-fatal damage. I suspect that in any major U.S. junkyard, you could very quickly put together enough parts to have a working automobile; it's simply not worth the labor for a skilled mechanic to do so. In other countries, or in the U.S. in the past under different economic conditions, this wouldn't be allowed to happen.
There are lots of things I'm nostalgic about the past for, but I have no illusions about the strides we've made in product engineering over the interim. That we've taken those engineering gains and used them to create a disposable culture is a social, not technological, problem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
According to Nation Master, who gets there information from the CIA fact book, the USA is 17th in oil consumption per capita.
Interesting to note: Luxembourg is number 7 and most of the largest consumers per capita are Island Nations.
That's about 22 million American tons of people. If you're checking my math, remember to allow for kids.
Look up your own satirical comparison here, for example New York alone allegedly produces that much waste anually.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Yes, it's easier to have a higher growth rates on lower numbers, but the impact on things like services (medical, roads, education, etc) and the enviroment are still proportionally higher.
I'm from North Dakota. Recently I visited Toronto on a business trip, and it's obvious how much of the population there are first-generation immigrants. At several of the big-name fast food outlets I stopped at for meals, I encountered service personnel who could barely grasp English. I studied in Paris for two years, so I have knowledge of conversational French. They couldn't speak French, Canada's other official language, either. One had what I would guess to be a very heavy accent in some African language. The other three spoke some sort of Asian language.
I would have thought that it was an isolated incident. But I encountered this situation at two McDonalds, a Subway and a KFC, all in different parts of the city. I don't know their intelligence level or their background, but these people struggled to get a fast food order correct. It was nearly impossible to communicate with them.
I think it makes perfect sense for Canada to try to attract well-trained immigrants who have something to offer to their society. I'm talking about people like doctors, engineers, scientists, musicians, and authors. Even those who wish to obtain an education at Canadian universities should be welcome.
But it seems that Canada is far too willing to take anyone who comes knocking at their door, even those who are criminals or otherwise are unable to offer anything of value to Canadian society. If such immigrants don't know either of the official languages well enough to successfully complete a McDonalds order, then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed into Canada. A nation can't build a strong social fabric if there is so much difficulty communicating between individuals.
What you say is only partially true. In David Brooks latest book, he points out that Pittsburgh - while losing population (not the figure you give which is the city proper and NOT the metropolitan area) is in the midst of a suburban sprawl that rivals the high growth east coast cities.
The reason being Pittsburgh has a lot of things going for it that Buffalo and Cleveland lack... namely CMU and the University of Pittsburgh.
On topic: aren't there huge expanses of the US where no-one lives? It's not like you're going to run out of room!
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
The Republicans want to include all the embryos, but just wait until the Democrats get done including all the dead people...
(insert dead baby joke here)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Actually, US population is growing too slowly to keep up with the baby boomers' retirement demands. It's far worse in Europe, which will be basically Muslim within a generation,"
Exept the fertility rate of your typical natural-born US citizen resembles that of your average European. Nearly half of our current population increase comes from immigration. If Europe is becoming "Muslim," then the US is becoming Mexican and Chinese (et al), and at a far faster rate (even in this day and age we're more immigrant-friendly than most of Europe).
"its entire culture and history pushed into slavery (dhimmitude)."
Xenophobe much? If the US isn't speaking Gaelic after the huge influx of Irish immigrants we've had over our history, why do you believe that immigration from the Middle East and north Africa will change Europe so drastically? Especially when they're coming to Europe to get away from stuff like that?
No, a few sporradic incidents of "honor killings" does not make a general consesus, it's just good copy for sensationalist news outlets.
"It's this attitude that lead to our culture's potential extinction in the first place."
Culture adapts, otherwise most of the music on your hard drive would involve a harpsichord somewhere. No culture on the planet would be in its current state were it not for the cross-pollenization of art and ideas across cultures. One could make the case that the culture of the United States is the dominant one on the planet because of our immigration policies, allowing a blending of cultures to happen on the typical street corner rather than being confined to the esoteric collections of elitist patrons that can afford to import cultural artifacts from abroad.
It's interesting the way "culture" has become the new euphamism for race (does this make "culture" the new "last refuge of a scoundrel?"), I'm a little curious to see what it will be next. Instead of trying to focus on such broad, vague terms like "culture" that can be defined in any way you want to define to satisfy your arguments, perhaps you should focus on particular ideals that are important, such as republicanism. However, letting the people decide for themselves what their "culture" will look like one minute to the next is the exact opposite of the top-down imposition of "good culture/bad culture" that you seem to favor.
Of course, I can't think of any better way to stem the tide of Islamic immigrants to Europe than to impose such a European sharia in the name of preserving European culture. Why would someone looking to get out from under such a system bother moving to Europe then?
Can we get some cites for these numbers? not saying they are wrong, but it's nice to have sources. Numbers like these are always politically charged, so you need stringent fact checking.
Don't worry. I'm sure they'll be +5 Insightful in no time.
"So, yes, "muslimification" will continue, but only because they don't seem to care in what conditions their kids grow up."
Um... they're coming to Europe to have children precisely because they care what kind of conditions their kids grow up in.
"The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5% of the population"
Two-thirds of the world is underdeveloped.
Think about it and try comparing apples to apples next time.
...about American society.
It's been proven statistically that birth rates tend to be inversely proportional to literacy rates and the level of both wealth and education within a given population. (If you don't believe me, look it up) Then there's the issue of the average teen mother not usually having more than a ninth grade education. The recent discouragement of birth control can't be helping, either.
Overpopulation is a problem in most places these days, it seems...it worries me what the outcome of it could be.
What an artfully cherry-picked bunch of statistics!
That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india.
True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.
Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology.
Population density is worth at least a mention, no?
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.
Since the US produces more waste per person than any country in the world, why set up the comparison against developing countries? The US produces more than twice the trash per person of the more efficient industrialized nations. Isn't that trouble enough?
US environmental impact is an important problem that shouldn't be undermined by spinning the statistics. The reality of the problem is more than bad enough.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
But we also produce that. OK, a good chunk we buy from Venesuela or Saudi Arabia, but we discovered the means to use turbines to turn water into power, to harness internal combustion, to turn fission into electricity, to transport electricity long distances, to use solar and wind technologies into electricity, etc. etc. etc. It isn't at all like that percentage of the world's energy would still be floating around, waiting for Costa Rica or Yemen to plug in if we didn't create it.
I'm wondering if they're counting goat carts and wind-powered grain mills in that statistic.
The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month. . .
The article does not state that at all. It states that the U. S. population will likely surpass 300 million soon.
Cleveland has CWRU (my alma mater), and John Carroll. And Cleveland State and Cuyahoga Community College.
the US gov't is far from welcoming the tired, poor and huddled masses anymore.
And we never did.
The whole "give us your tired, your sick" crap was just that, crap. The U.S. has never been particularly interested in taking refugees; exceptions to this are just that -- exceptions -- and not the rule.
I don't know what drives this constant temptation to embellish the past, but it wasn't this wonderful place of sunshine and light. Most of the people who were allowed to immigrate into the United States throughout its history weren't allowed in out of some sort of self-righteous pity, but because they were needed in order to meet the demand for labor. Lots of sick people got sent right back on the boats they came over on, and even if you were young and healthy, you still had to have someone willing to vouch for you here in the States before you were allowed in.
We need to stop deluding ourselves about our past immigration policies. While they may have ended up being more liberal than the rest of the Western world's at the time, that was only because Europe had more people than it knew what to do with, and the U.S. was starved for labor and people to tame the new lands it was in the midst of acquiring. As a nation we needed more people, and as a result we became more welcoming; the latter was a response to the former, not the other way around.
The needs of the United States have always been the driving force in our immigration policy historically; if it worked out well for the immigrants then all the better for them. It's mostly after the fact that people have congratulated themselves for being so high-minded.
Now it's disappointing to me as an American that our immigration process wasn't easier for your wife, who I am assuming is probably educated and employable -- in short, exactly the type of people we need to be encouraging to come here. However, I don't think that as a nation we should be guilt-tripping ourselves into rolling out a red carpet to everyone who needs a place to live, particularly to those without skills, for whom there is little demand today and less so in the future; we have never engaged in this historically, and there's no reason to start now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And with it's roughly 25% usage of the world's energy supplies (including oil) what does the US do with it? Create an even greater percentage of the world's goods
WRONG
World GDP = 60,000 Bn
US GDP = 12,000 Bn
Share of US in World GDP : 20%
Amazingly enough, the US are less energy efficient than the RoW.
If you're looking for an exceptionally efficient economy, try the EU.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
"25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption."
let's see GPD is 8,708,870.00 Millon Dollars... Almost double Japan's. I think it is more important to considerwhat we produce per Megawatt of Energy consumed (I know converted is a more accurate term). What expenditure is used to produce food that ends up being shipped to some war torn African country or to Europe or South American? Then again how many U.S. citizens of are fat on our excesses? Do I feel guilty about our energy consumption? No, do I feel we could do a better job? YES! by all means we could do better!
The major population problem facing the developed world (and even China) is not over-population, but population aging. This is driven by increased longevity *and* low birth rates. If you check the UN projections for the next 50 years or so, the picture looks bleak for Japan and Europe, with an increasing number of seniors per productive worker. The US picture is bad, but not as bad as the rest of the developed world - thanks in large part to higher birth rates and immigration.
...
What can I say? Malthus is alive and well on Slashdot
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Allah seems to be kicking the Christian God's ass...all those God Fearin' Soldiers corpsing it up in Iraq...and then all the poor bastards losing limbs and what not. The US Army, highest-tech weapons available, being stymied by goat herders with post WWII weapons and improvised explosives.
Fuck your god, he can't even protect his own people.
Blar.
You don't get it.
Islam is NOT merely another culture that you can merge into other cultures. The underlying belief system of Islam won't tolerate it and the reason is simple: It is a capital punishment to leave the faith. Once in, there is no going back. Just for your own understanding, study the liberties and freedoms 'enjoyed' by non-Muslims in ANY country with a Muslim majority. The only 'successful' secular governments you'll find are Turkey and Pakistan in which the military either directly hold power or periodically stage coups. Another particularly good example to observe is the spread of Islam through the Philippines and how fast that secular government is being compromised.
Culture only adapts if the underlying belief system is tolerant towards adaptation. In the last thousand plus years, Islam has remained the most static and insular of all major world religions and it is also the fastest growing religion in the world and so, assuming no change in growth rate occurs in Europe, 'Eurabia' is inevitable. If you live in Europe, I suggest you plan your next few decades very wisely.
Plenty of countries out there with more wealth per capita.
What is the multiplication factor if you count corpses in developing countries as trash?
The birth rate for immigrants is much higher than the birth rate for native born US people. That where the growth is coming from. Their birth rate will drop in a couple of generations. But as we "welcome" new immigrants, the overall US birth rate stays level.
The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially. The US census buereau says the 300 million mark will be reached 39 years after US population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million.
Don't worry, the World War III is coming and will quickly solve this issue.
I've heard some pretty hideous things about Rochester, Syracuse, etc. and apparently it's all true. Thanks for the insight.
Bullshit.
If you don't want to have kids, fine - that's your choice. "Moving to something bigger is impossible since we don't have the finances" is a cop out. Just have 1-2 kids, then, instead of "a bunch". Kids don't need square footage, they need food, clothing, a roof over their heads, and parental love and attention. You have the fod, clothing, and shelter for yourselves; perhaps you may have to sacrifice some of that to give to kids. Thats called being a parent - doing without for your kids.
As for "So, yes, "muslimification" will continue, but only because they don't seem to care in what conditions their kids grow up": sit back, say that out loud, and listen to what a racist you are.
You "want" kids, but you don't want to sacrifice to have them. The brown people can do it, only because of their inferiority.
And before you ask - I have 2 kids, 1 income, and live in a small condo.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Really? Then why was the balance of payments deficit for goods for 2005 a record $782 billion? The last time the United States had a positive balance of payments was in 1973, and the deficit has been on an almost steady increase for the past two decades. Read the figures published by the Census Bureau (warning PDF link), or if you prefer, a a graph from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With these figures, the only reason why the United States hasn't yet suffered an Argentina-style economic collapse is that other countries keep buying up US debt...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
>why do so many people move to the U.S. versus, say Europe or Japan?
There are many immigrants moving to Europe, and many Europeans aren't happy about that: There have been problems. Think French riots, Turks in Germany, "Swedish jobs are for Swedes," and new Dutch immigration laws. It is likely that many countries will follow the Netherlands' lead.
And all that's nothing next to Japan, which is famously xenophobic. To preach national and racial superiority is a great deal more mainstream there than it is in the U.S. Japan is investing so heavily in robotics, for example, largely because it'd rather have machines do work in the country than Filipino immigrants.
I expect that much of this difference is because the U.S., unlike European countries and unlike Japan, is not a nation founded on a unique existing culture or an ethnic identity.
Then again, maybe G*D is on our side after all! We got the "New World", all you guys got was a crummy "Old World". All we had to do was get rid of the people that were on our land before we got here and voila' - instant success story.
You're just jealous 'cuz your world is out of warranty!;^D
At what point is enough people enough? If we don't so something mother nature surely will. Actually we should have done a lot in the 1970's to reduce population growth, now I don't see anything but catastrophe in our future. Reducing consumption by 50% and doubling your population buys you nothing. Due to the lifetime of humans it is better late than never at seriously curbing population growth. Go to the CIA world fact book and look at children per woman for various countries. For example Iraq it is 4.18 and the population is young so even if the birth rate drops to about 2, there still will be a large increase in population. This means lots of young men have no hope or jobs and are attracted to the dark side. Another factoid: I remember reading a few years ago that if women in India only had two children from now on the population would level off at about two billion towards the end of this century. Is it possible for India to support twice its population, especially with end of cheap energy which equals cheap fertilizer and transporation? I don't think so. Maybe some of you can offer some hope but I don't see much.
Replying to this post and the one beneath, none of those are rights in a traditional society. The fact that one is taxed is very minor. In case you didn't know, those who join the military are exempt from such taxation. Please tell me you aren't paying taxes now. Muslims must also pay a tax, which non-muslims are exempt from paying. You probably didn't know that in the earlier societies, through the end of the Ottoman empire, many of the highest positions in society were occupied by non-muslims. One also enjoys the right not to be spied upon by their government. Who can raise their hand today and say with any level of certainty that that is a right people enjoy today?
Who can raise their hand and say that spousal abuse, rape, murder doesn't happen at such a prolific level that these crimes almost enjoy the status of a right? Every 2.5 minutes, somebody in America is sexually assaulted and people are rapping on muslim countries for what in comparison are isolated incidents? That is absolutely ludicrous.
It should happen almost halfway through the month on the 12th .57 of the way through the day according to the US POPClock Projection.
I could not imagine a worse time...Ocotober 12th, 1:40:01 PM? way to close to Columbus Day...
(8^)
As a resident of one of the many Detroit suburbs (which, as a whole, rival most other cities') I often wonder at this blind bashing of Detroit. In all seriousness, of the people that posted blindly negative comments about Detroit here, how many of them have actually been to the city?
My parents grew up in Detroit during the 40s/50s/60s and I can tell you that it was a rival of most other US cities at the time. Unfortunately, race riots and a crooked mayor served to destroy the city's core over the course of two decades (70s/80s). The city is finally starting to show signs of life again. So, before you go bashing it, why not see what it's like first?
How many people here read Aljazeera? Read the English version sometime - it really gives you insight into how much hate the average Muslim has for the US. It doesn't matter what the topic is, the US is on the bad side. Muslim good, everyone else bad. Muslims wouldn't burn nuns in churches if only those darn Popes would stop quoting bad texts. Just to show you how nonviolent Muslims are we killed all those that said we were violent.
The only hope is the US Muslims, and to a lesser extent the European Muslims - but think about it, which Muslims are going to move to the "Great Satan"? It is not going to be the radicals...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
According to the CIA factbook....$12.36 trillion! Next time either don't use unreliable sources, i.e. http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics /horizontal-file_2006.xls, or read/transcribe them correctly.
You "want" kids, but you don't want to sacrifice to have them.
No, I want my kids to have the same opportunities that I had. I evidently can't give them that. I'd condemn them to a life in poverty. How could I do that in good conscience when I have been brought up in relative wealth? Having kids is not about just fucking your brains out and then see what you can do. It's about providing a future for them. This includes all you said, plus keeping them out of poverty. I've got already enough trouble keeping my head above the water without kids.
say that out loud, and listen to what a racist you are.
Racist? Me? I'm fucking a foreigner in this country. You won't find less racist than me. What I cannot tolerate is having up to six kids in cramped space, living on wellfare (after all, we're talking about Europe), and the parents not really caring for them. This is not racism, this is realism.
You "want" kids, but you don't want to sacrifice to have them. The brown people can do it, only because of their inferiority.
Absolutely not true.... I am willing to sacrifice a lot, but I do not want to sacrifice *their* (=my potential kids) future. Besides, nowhere, I talk about "brown people". There are white muslims too, and I never complained about either brown or white muslims. The original poster claimed that Europe will be a muslim region in 10 years, and I just tried to explain the causes. I'm not going to "fight", against them. I'll just let them silently take over and hope that they will be tolerant, just as I am right now.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
is slashdot getting it's 'news' from the drudge report now? seriously this was posted on drudge monday.
Why would someone looking to get out from under such a system bother moving to Europe then?
How do you get this when more than half the Muslims in Europe say they wish they could impose/live under Sharia in Europe? Basically, I see this whole situation as people ignoring the cause/effect relationships. They really think that Europe is nice because it has somehow "stolen" something from them - they don't see that Sharia is what destroyed their countries. In most Arab nations, oil propps up the what they call the local economy - but it is not a true economy. In many ways I think the oil wealth has been extremely bad for the people of the middle east.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Usually, the word 'populous', applied to a geographic region, refers to population density. As In "one of the most populous countries in the world is Bangladesh, with 985 people per square kilometer". The population density of the USA is, by contrast, a mere 31 people per square kilometer. India and China too are well down the list, although above the USA.
We're Americans, we measure our trash output in pounds, not kilograms. The metric system is for those snooty Europeans.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
This was first said in the 70's when the environmental movement was trying to call attention to waste in the U.S.
Since then fuel standards have risen, pollution has fallen, and energy efficiency has begun to be built into products as a matter of course. Despite the current administration and Congress's attempts to unravel all that, we're still much further along than we were 30 years ago. So this "25% of the world's energy, but only 5% of the world's population" line is quite outdated and threadbare.
Now, there could certainly be a transition away from a car culture to mass transit, and a full conversion from oil to renewables, and all that good stuff. But it's China's and India's following in the US's consumption footsteps that's an even bigger problem. Unlike the US, which is 5% of the world population, China and India combined are about 50% of the world's population. If their per capita consumption rose to that of the US, we'd need several more Earths just to supply them with raw materials.
So a better thing to do is not wallow in self-hatred nor finger pointing, but to find a sustainable way to raise standards of living for everyone. Think of it as an exercise in balancing an equation.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Point taken. I made the mistake of comparing families of 6 in a cramped apartment, to families of 12 in a tent in the middle of the desert. Compare that family of 6 in a cramped apartment to western standards and you might understand my argument. For the immigrants it's an improvement, for us it sounds scandalous. However, the next generation will want our standards, and they won't have kids either because of the same reasons Western couples can't have kids: not enough space and money.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
So was our involvement in Viet Nam, but my cousin (who spent three tours there on the front line) still has a T-shirt which proclaims "Participant, Southeast Asian Wargames - Second Place".
Your post - isn't funny, insightful, interesting, informative - isn't overrated, offtopic, trollish or flamebait - in short, your post doesn't seem to exist. I think I'd rather be "-1 funny" than -----.
you can calculate your envrionmental footprint.
at : http://www.myfootprint.org/
My results are something like this (# are in Hectares)
Food = 1.1
(vegitarian)
Mobility = 0.2
(bike/bus to work)
Shelter = 0.9
(apartment)
goods/services = 0.8
(I shop at the Sallvation Army)
Total = 3.0
If everyone lived like me we would need 1.7 planets.
--meh--
Of course, the saddest thing is, if we would only bother getting our shit together, and apply some will in to seriously funding space tech, we could be enjoying the bounties of our solar system (and hopefully the galaxy later on), instead of fighting over scraps here on earth.
Even the extremist nutjobs can benefit from this -- fanatical Muslims can fuck off and go build the Mecca 5 space station; Bible-thumpers can go terraform Mars and create Bible-World, and so on...
Everybody CAN be a winner. But I'm just a fucking dreamer. Will never happen.
Swimming across the Rio Grande is significantly easier than swimming across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
This is by far the most disgusting and inhuman comment I've read in my seven years of Slashdot. You and the folks who brought you up should be ashamed.
Or you should learn how to set sarcasm smileys.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Doesn't look to bright for the US, does it?
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Nary a word about the real fact that the long-term birthrate in the U.S., helped by immigration, is just barely at the replacement level, meaning our baby boom will be able to retire without Social Security going bust--if we get medical costs under control. Not a word about all the good the U.S. does in the world while most Europeans pick their noses and whine.
And there's no indication that this cluesless ideologue is aware of a major crisis that is undeniable--the well-below replacement birthrates of Europeans that's driving the immigration into Europe of millions of people who don't integrate into European or democratic culture and who live off the generosity of socialist, welfare state economies, rioting to beat the boredom, as they did in Paris a few days ago. Europeans aren't having babies and their largest economies--France and Germany--are stalled at double-digit unemployment rates and morbid growth rates in productivity. How are they going to pay for the declining years of their aging and spoiled populations? How are they going to keep from coming under Sharia Law when their countries become more that 50% Muslim? No one knows and, more telling, virtually no one in European politics seems to be looking for an answer. Better to bash the U.S. and whine about microscopic quantities of lead or some other 'toxic' chemical in those U.S.-designed iPods.
It's called tranference when someone whose mind isn't particularly strong transfers his attention from a real danger to a fake danger that feels more comfortable. Hysteria about those fake dangers and demonization of their alleged cause are the most obvious clues. From the 1870s to 1940s, the demon of frightened European minds was the Jew. Today it's the U.S. with Israel, filled not accidentally with Jews, thrown in for nostaglia's sake. It is oh-so comforting for these weak minds to feel that all the world's ills could be solved if two of the world's most stable democracies and most productive economies could be reduced to Western European levels of impotence and incompetence. But that isn't going to happen. And baring some miracle, Europe's real problems, left unfaced, with evenutally destroy it. If Europe's cultural treasures survive, it will be because the U.S. persuades this Taliban-to-come to sell them to us rather than destroy them.
If Cmdr Taco really thinks the United States is so awful, he should pack his toothbrush, a change of underwear, and his laptop and move to some country that better suits his ill-tempered ideology. But he'd be well advised to look at their violent crime rates before he moves to some European cities. And in any case, please spare us these mindless rants.
As I have said before, SlashDot would be a lot more interesting and useful if it wasn't so obvious that the gatekeepers do their best slant and spin what gets posted to fit their political correct agendas.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
Exactly right. The rest of the world is just a parasite living off the glory that is America!
Some days, I think America deserves Empire. She need only reach forth her hand....
Demand danegeld from the parasitical countries like France. Send some of the second world, like Germany and Russia, back to third-world status just to make the point.
Those with us, will be with us. Those against us, can be nuked. Why the fuck not? We cure diseases, create more art in two centuries than Europe has in millennia, invent entire industries and spread technology the world over. Nuking the worthless shit will free up resources that they can't and won't ever use, resources we and our allies can use to make our lives better. To hell with the rest, all they do is bitch, if it takes a nuke to get them to shut up it's their own damn fault.
Then I realize the truth, *America neither has nor desires Empire.* Selling a Coca-Cola in India is not Empire. Opening an H-E-B in Mexico is not Empire.
And it's not because of lack of resources that America does not want Empire. It is because America is a more moral country than any before or since, that America very much prefers trade between equals to military domination, and to that end we are willing to spend blood to lift the world closer to our level.
And in return, we get bitching.
When America is relatively inactive in world affairs, she is *isolationist*.
When America is relatively active in world affairs, she is *imperialist*.
No matter what America does, America is bad. The America-haters do not operate from facts, as there is no hating America when facts are acknowledged. It is purely an Old World prejudice, a fear of the "other," and is *xenophobia* low as any Kluxer's.
So all the parasites of the world can just S T F U !
And our friends will be exalted.
I would compare CWRU favorably to CMU. But to try to compare Cleveland State and a community college to the University of Pittsburgh is a reach... a big one at that.
Maybe if folks in Ohio wouldn't equate Ohio State football with being a juggernaut academically, Ohio wouldn't be in the sad shape its in.
The fact that America produces and exports more food than any other nation. That might just show those alarmist numbers to be the BS that they are. Who do you think is feeding the world?
We have too many mexicans coming over the boarder. No, not trying to be racist, being very serious. I am not talking about the legal immigrants, I am talking about those coming here illegally and working under the table. Its time to start locking this people up, that will stop them over time.
According to a quick Google, the fertility rate of the US is ~2.13. Demographers say that the replacement rate (that is, the fertility rate necessary to maintain a level population) is 2.1. Thus, the US's fertility rate is right on target. Of course, we also have immigration, but immigrants would exist on the earth no matter where they lived, so we should not factor them into worries of hazardous growth. Some more quick Googling of "us fertility rate" reveals links which allege the native USian's fertility rate is at the replacement level only, but that the immigrant fertility rate is at Baby Boom levels. This seems to be the real worry.
Is this another argument in favor of restricting immigration to the US? I don't know, and I'm not going to make that argument at 11:30 in the morning, but it's something to think about (note: I think immigration with favoritism shown towards educated people is acceptable, and don't have a very strong opinion about illegal immigration, so don't think I'm one of those "THEY'RE TAKIN' OUR JOBS" type people).
There are debates here all the time about how hard it should be to immigrate. In general, most immigrants are educated. One of the main issues now is that it's too hard for professionals to get their credentials recognized, and they end up driving taxis.
No, they're NOT educated. They're barely educated at all! English language skills are a FUNDAMENTAL part of a Canadian education; every citizen gets a full thirteen years of English language education just by the time they graduate from high school. That's not something you can replace with a two week ESL course; it's a cornerstone of any form of futher education, and it's missing in these people.
I'm so tired to trying to deal with the Chinese, Bulgarian, and other "coders" who can't name variables because they can't speak English, can't document code because they can't speak English, can't write tests because they don't understand enough English to be taught... yet think they deserve full respect as a "professional"; and yet they lack the business skills a ten year old native born child posseses.
It's not fair, and it's ruining our industry. My company is tanking; and they'll blame the economy, and the "programmers" will go on to ruin other companies; and the managers who hired them will sneak in under "diversity" inititives, and import yet more foreigners straight from China.
It's bad when someone speaks your native language, and you have to pause for a moment to re-adjust, because it's been so long since you've heard it spoken. It's literally jarring to hear my friends speak, because when I pause to figure out the flaws in what they've just said, I can't find them, and it takes *twice* as long to double check again, and realize there's no flaw, and I can just go on to mentally parsing the next sentence.
You see, I'm so used to finding *what's wrong* with the person who's speaking to me, and what they "must have meant" to say that I'm actually shocked when there's nothing wrong, and I can just communicate, without pausing carefully to decipher each sentence.
I'm losing my literacy, too. The few of my friends who have the luxury of working in English-only offices are noticing that I'm pausing at wierd moments, because of the parsing issues, and I've notice my spelling and grammar are failing. It's hard to care about mis-placed commas or apostrophes when the guy next to you is using all the wrong words, and pronouncing them wrong, too.
Let the educated immigrants in, sure. But make sure that "educated" means the same thing for them that it does for all the other citizens of this country. That's basic fairness; and it's not too much to ask.
> > That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india.
> True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.
How do you figure? Seems to me and wikipedia that the US is around twice as large as India, and China is a little bit bigger.
Quiet... The Highlands are FULL damnit!
Deleted
Anyway, asbestos on and checked, flame away ;)
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I really love your post. that's right, America shouldn't sell those people cheap food, they should let them starve to death! This way the poor quality 3rd world famers can make lots of money and you can hate them next!!
Really, you're just a troll. How you got modded up I'll never know.
Fight to export the great American Way Of Life! So that all the poor people in the world can join in.
Hm, perhaps I only read it on bad days normally - typically my impetus to read it is to see the Muslim world's reaction to an event like 9/11, Hezbolla's attack on civilians, etc. When I check, the only reaction I see is that it is the US's fault (bad policies, etc), that the Isrealies are killing civilians (which they were, of course, but no mention was made of the civilians Hezbolla was killing). Today's version seems pretty normal - though still anti-west, of course.
..."
Really, did you read the article about the Pope?
"If Muslims close ranks and unite, no one in the world would dare to attack them and insult their religion and Prophet. Those who accuse Islam of intolerance and violence are either ignorant or full of enmity,
This is the guy that Aljazeera says is peaceful and tolerant: essentially, if you accuse me of intolorance your an idiot or bigot. Um, tolerance is accepting the insult and not retaliating, not scaring everyone so much that they don't dare to insult you!
Do you also read the Chinese news, Xinhua? That also provides interesting insights...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
FYI, there are good arguments that plastic bags are better for the environment than paper - plastic takes less energy/materials to produce than paper, and while paper is theoretically biodegradable, the truth is that almost nothing in a landfill actually biodegrades (not enough water/air/sunlight - you can find newspapers - NEWSPAPERS! - decades old that are still readable), and at least the plastic takes a fraction of the space the paper would.
Except why aren't people moving from Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Caucases at the same rate that Mexicans are moving to the U.S.?
As I recall, the romans were sending christians to the lions and the christians were killing heretics, both in europe. Seems to me that both of these religions weren't very tolerate towards adaptation. Eventually, they somehow managed to adapt (well sort of)...
Some people would say that in some parts of europe, the "secular" government started out compromised by religion (germany, denmark, sweden, austria, switzerland, finland all collect church taxes from their citizens in some form or another, but strangly they give nothing to muslim religious institutions). Perhaps that's changing now, but to me it's a little like the pot calling the kettle black...
Does anyone know what the numbers are? How much of our population growth is from immigration vs birth rate and increased longevity?
I'm no economist, but IIRC, the GDP includes things like property/house value increases. If you buy a house for $100k and it becomes worth $300K well congratulations: you've contributed $200K to the GDP, yet no "goods" have been created for the world.
Likewise, a huge economic force in USA is the medical sector where everything seems to cost a lot more than most other parts of the world. Your $50K surgery might cost only one fifth of that in China/India. In GDP terms, the USA output would be measured as $50k vs $10k, yet the contribution to the world is one surgical operation.
I expect that if a more sane measure than GDP was used to measure the USA's output the numbers would look very different.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Actually I have. I've been there more than once, in fact; I wouldn't describe the place as particularly friendly.
Ask yourself, what was the purpose of Ellis Island? Why didn't they just let the boats tie up at a pier in New York or New Jersey and let people off. That would be the more "welcoming" thing to do, if that had really been the U.S.'s principal motivation at the time.
Ellis Island existed principally because of the immigration rules I discussed above. It was a final check to make sure that not only were you basically healthy and disease-free, but that your papers were in good order, and that you had someone in the United States that was willing to vouch for you and keep you off of the public dole. (At times these rules were more relaxed than others, granted.)
If you were sick when you got to Ellis Island, you got put in quarantine; if you turned out to have a chronic or contagious disease (or what we'd today call a mental illness), you went back on the next ship to wherever you came over from. Admittedly the rejection rate was fairly low -- around 2% if I remember -- probably because few people who weren't in good health would attempt the trip in the first place.
The Wikipedia article on Ellis Island has a nice list of the various codes that would be chalked on rejected would-be immigrants, they ranged from being pregnant to having conjunctivitis, poor or absent travel papers, or a bad back.
America was not nearly as indiscriminate in terms of who it let in, even during the boom years of the 19th century, as most middle-school civics classes and politicans' rhetoric would have one believe. The U.S. had the good fortune of needing people at a time when millions of people in Europe needed a place to live, it is only natural that the two needs fulfilled each other.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The easiest data i found on a quick google search, showed as of '93 when europe had 293~ million people it was using 30% of the worlds energy. Comparing the US to the EU is a better juxtaposition than comparing the US as a country to other countries. Or to compare the US & EU to other countries would be more 'fair'.
Unified states creating one country is more akin to unified countries creating the EU.
You know, if you don't like Slashdot, you can go find your intelligent news elsewhere.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
Whatever became of the Zero Population Growth movement?
it seems the appliances of yesteryear (at least the ones that are around and we remember, rather than the ones that sucked so much we got rid of them and forgot them), tended to be at the higher end of quality. (emphasis mine)
I think this is an important point to make as well. If you look around at appliances that are in use right now, it might seem like the further back in time you go, the more durably stuff was made.
Of course, this is because anything that's 30 years old and still working today, probably was built like a tank to begin with. If it hadn't been, it would have died a long time ago. Stuff made in the same era that wasn't as well-built is long since gone and forgotten, thus it doesn't get factored into the mental calculation.
Looking at what's around today is a heavily biased sample; of refrigerators made in 1980, only the good ones are left. Of ones made in 2003, both the good ones and the crap ones are left.
Also, there's another issue: devices which are really expensive are generally made better than ones which are cheap commodity goods. Take a look at some early microwave ovens, for example. They were insanely expensive -- the equivalent of thousands of dollars today. (The calculation is difficult since you also have to factor in that people were less willing to buy on credit as they are today, which creates a sort of mental cost deflation today.) As a consequence, they were well made. If you were going to spend a month's pay on an appliance, in cash, you were probably going to want something that was solid. The cost to get a well-made microwave was a small part of the purchase price of one in the early days of the technology.
Over time, as the cost of production decreased, models could be manufactured that cost less. These appealed to a different type of consumer, and the lower cost meant that people didn't necessarily want to pay extra to get one that was as heavily overbuilt. Today, you can get a microwave for less than a day's labor at minimum wage. It's not built like an Amana Radarange, but neither does it cost anything like it.
The quality devices are still out there -- I can tell you that if you shop around and are prepared to spend a few thousand dollars, you can get a microwave that's of nearly equivalent quality to an old Amana. (Say, a brand new Amana RC30S, list price $4,388.00) You'll be shopping in restaurant-supply stores, but they exist. So it's not as if we've lost the capability of producing equipment that's as well-built and reliable (in fact probably the same number of "good" microwaves are made now as then), it's just that there is a lot of relatively low-grade stuff manufactured as well, which clutters up the present-day marketplace to a casual observer.
You can see this pattern occur with microwaves and personal computers (ever picked up an IBM Model 5150? Talk about solid), as well as many other devices. Most things are built to a higher perceived quality when they represent a bigger fraction of a person's income. If you were willing to pay that fraction of your income/labor today, you could probably still buy that sort of quality, but few people want to.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Because if you follow the rules and get your ticket stamped at the border and enter the country legally the US is a FAR more accomodating society than either the Japanese or Europeans. There are multiple generations of people living in those countries that are considered "Gast arbeiters" or "Gaijin" even if they have been born there. For as much trouble as the US has sometimes on the immigration issue (which has been around since the founding of this country, this current round just a variation on the same theme) the US has always accommodated and incorporated new citizens.
Just in case you didn't know, plastic bags are much better for the environment than paper bags.
here is some info about energy needed to manufacture and recycle both types of bags.
Personally, I get more bags than I need somehow. Every time I shop I bring my own and get a nickel off for each bag. I seem to get about 5 uses out of each bag, and they come into my life a bit faster than they wear out.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Anyway, in regards to your experience. It may be possible that to those fast-food workers it was you who had the hard to understand accent.
I doubt that is the problem. In my past business travels I've had to visit a number of Canadian cities, including Calgary, Halifax, Sudbury, Quebec City, and St. John's. If you're not aware, those cities are from all across the nation. Those from Newfoundland (where St. John's is) often have an accent that many other Canadians further to the west pick up on!
But also keep in mind that a North Dakotan accent is quite similar to that found in Ontario and westwards. In all of those cities, and the smaller Canadian towns I have visited, I have never had any problem ordering food at a fast food restaurant. But I'm not surprised I ran into problems in Toronto; it is where most immigrants to Canada choose to live.
The problem wasn't about differing dialects of English, or slight accents. It was about these people just plain not knowing English at all. I could have spoken with a British accent, or a Texan accent, or a Brooklyn accent. It would have made no difference. When you clearly ask for "green peppers" on your sandwich at Subway, and the server starts putting on olives, there was obviously a communication problem. You know there's a real problem when you ask for "mayonnaise", and he stares back cluelessly at you.
Oh, it's high, even among industrial nations, but a few are slightly higher, such as Canada, mainly due to longer average transportation distances and colder climate. There are other factors too, such as access or lack of access to other energy sources (e.g., Iceland's oil consumption per capita is fairly high, but that's mainly because they are in a cold climate but they have no coal to offset oil consumption, and Saudi Arabia's per capita consumption is high because it is cheap and the population is low).
Here's a good summary map, and there is plenty of other information about energy supply and consumption at the same site. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy is a good source for energy-related information, especially because they release a new one each year, so you can compare trends. They also supply much of the raw data in digital form so that you can do further analysis (although it is in Excel spreadsheets).
This post struck me as interesting enough to do the research. The numbers were pulled together from various sources (linked) and may be incorrect. The computations did present the image of a HIGHLY efficient US workforce though, which manages to produce 20% of the world's GDP with only 5% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
US produces 20% of GDP with 25% of the energy and 5% of the population
EU produces 20% of GDP with 21% of the energy and 7% of the population
China produces 15% of GDP with 15% of the energy and 20% of the population
32% of the global population produces 55% of the wealth using 60% of the energy.
Atanamis
How unfortunate.
The differences become even more clear if you factor in the actual number of workers rather than the total population, or the average standard of living, or the average amount of energy used per capita.
I think that's a self-answering question. We ain't talking suburbs here.
No, that wasn't the question...my question was - how many people have actually been to the city that are making negative comments? I didn't answer my own question. And neither did you for that matter. For the record, I wasn't talking about suburbs either. I simply mentioned I was from the suburbs, hence, given my proximity to and knowledge of the city, my interest in the question.
Not contested...during that time period.
Yes.
You forgot the complete implosion of the economy round about that time, which is still struggling to recover.
True, but at the same time, the race riots, white flight, and crooked mayor had a more profound and deep affect. I think had these not occurred, the city would presently be in much better shape than it is now....despite the economic conditions of the 70s/80s. In any event, my other question was - why not see what the city's like first before commenting on it? You didn't answer that question either.
On a different note, I wanted to comment that the moderation of the three relevant postings here seems particularly biased. Or more bluntly, sucks. Apparently anything that disputes a negativism or shows a hint of optimism/upside deserves a 0 score, while anything negative and close-minded should be applauded with a 1+
They just get smaller, lighter, and flimsier. I'm sure they're move efficient and cost less to produce and ship (by dint of being lighter) but I'd rather trade a little efficiency for 2-3x the lifespan (and with that, less-used landfills) and some user-serviceable parts.
The material needed to make an appliance is not the only parameter, it is also how much resources it consumes. If your new washer uses half the water, it makes good sense to replace the old still functioning washer.
Oh. boo f*cking hoo!
Either do it better, find a market with enough demand or just simply get out of the way.
Tell me... why should we NOT sell cheaper agricultural products to africa? Just so an African farmer can be employed? Do you realize in that case that you might be allowing a single person to flourish while punishing everybody else who is forced to pay more for their food than if you were there??
Subsidies or not, we are supplying the same, or better, product cheaper and there isn't a valid reason not to do so.
And, yes, I gree with you. We should abolish subsidies... ALL of them, every last one. Get rid of all the entitlements too while you're at it. But that is all a different rant.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
does that mean there's more of you to kill?
This thread should be titled "Lying With Statistics 101"
Big news flash:
USA percentage of the world's GNP: 30%
USA percentage of energy consumption: 25%
A subsistence farmer consumes a lot less energy than a wealthy westerner, wouldn't you think?
Completely ridiculous and stupid to not factor economic prosperity into this.
We actually UNDER-UTILIZE relative to our wealth.
GOT THAT?????
No wonder this story was submitted anonymously. They couldn't spell bureau and don't understand the concept of capitalizing proper names.
Just wanted to add that I forgot to take into account who may or may not be counted when per capita wealth is calculated. Considering a country like the UAE is set up to support the Emirates (natives), with every ex-pat, Pakistani, or Puerto-Rican immigrant treated like the "help," it's likely that non-Emirates would not be accurately counted. That would leave you with literally a nation filled with millionaires, which of course skews the numbers.
Oops, you are right. I meant GDP per unit CO2 emitted to atmosphere. Which isn't the same as amount of fossil fuel use, but should be a good indicator.
In case you didn't notice, the US has been "import[ing] the trash from other countries" as long as there has been European settlement on North America, for varying definitions of trash as religious, racial, ethnic, and class biases change over time. Your post smacks of ignorance, class bias, and, yes, racism. (You can't be seriously suggesting that hating one ethnic group in particular is not racism if you like all the others.) I guess it's the immigration policies of Australia and New Zealand that have allowed those countries to become superpowers with the most dynamic population and greatest technological advances, while the United States remains some backwater flooded by Spanish-speaking, Catholic, generally uncivilized Mexicans? Do you see anything wrong with that sentence? Get off your high horse.
Since the US is still growing, it'd be about time to build good transportation in densely populated areas, like Personal Rapid Transit. It would be more energy efficient than trains, buses, or automobiles, and would be more time efficient for the passengers, both for waiting-to-get-in-a-vehicle and non-stop-travel categories.
For the inquiring minds out there, the population equation refered to is I=PAT, where I= influence on the environment, P= population, A=affluence, and T=technology.
"How do you get this when more than half the Muslims in Europe say they wish they could impose/live under Sharia in Europe?"
Got a source?
If you're able to read English as a first language - and not Spanish or Arabic - this should piss you off. Birth rates aren't at the level of replacement, let alone growth, and legal immigration is scant. The majority of that growth is coming from illegal immigration and their native-born offspring.
It's also a large part of the reason why our medical programs are in big trouble.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Actually the European Union has over 461 million citizens, and next year it will include another 20 million (Romania and Bulgaria). And the EU is not Europe.. there are millions of Europeans outside!
What utter rubbish! In fact what has strained our "socialist" welfare system is the very group you are talking about! Of course "non-White" immigrants and "white" immigrants from Eastern Europe are included under our welfare system(s). However since the EU is not national government - it is the member countries that decide what, how and who benefits. Even illegal immigrants without citizenship are given welfare benefits in Europe! That includes housing, food/clothing and education. And the sheer amount of money in benefits given to recently arrived immigrants are fortunes in their home countries - and reports show that this money is of incredible importance to their home countries economies.
Many Europeans actually view (mostly non-White) immigrants as a huge burden on our welfare systems because they are often not able to find work as they lack social and language skills, education or training neccessary in a modern industrial nation. Peasants from Africa do not fullfil a need here as farmers. And then there is the cases in the media of abuse of the system like claiming benefits for multiple non-existent children, unemployment benefits when working etc.
You do not seem to have any in-depth knowledge of how the many different European nations organize their social-Democratic welfare systems. In fact even calling it a "socialist" system is very wrong from a European perspective. Socialism and Social-Democracy is not the same. Today the "socialists" are even more market friendly (in some countries) than their opposition.
before Tony Blair every Prime Minister (both tory and labour) from about 1962 onwards (Wilson, Heath, Thatcher,.. and the leaders of the opposition, too) went to (state-funded) "grammar schools", the same sort of institution that I attended. In fact it's something held against Blair, that he went to the highly prestigious, expensive & "posh" public school, Fettes.
I'd like to point out for all of my fellow Americans here, who are not yet aware of it, that what the friendly chaps across the pond refer to as "public schools" are what we here in the States call "private schools", i.e. schools which are not tax-funded.
I'm curious though, OriginalArlen - what would the term "private school" refer to in England? The state-funded schools? (Doubtful). And how is it that something which is privately owned is called a "public school", in contrast to publicly (state) owned schools? This has always confused me. What does the "public" in that term refer to, and in contrast to what?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Perhaps you are thinking of the French ban on the Hijab? To properly understand why this is NOT a lack of religious tolerance you should read more on the French Republic. The French maintain that religion is a private matter and as such you should not talk about it in public or make it an issue in school. So naturally you may not carry or wear large symbols of any religion in French schools and Universities! This includes crosses, stars of David and Muslim hijab or burqa. The ban thus ensures a true freedom of and from religion.
"Islam is NOT merely another culture that you can merge into other cultures."
How convenient for your distaste for Islam that it just happens the lone outlier in your worldview of culture, isn't it?
"The underlying belief system of Islam won't tolerate it and the reason is simple: It is a capital punishment to leave the faith."
Assuming that this is true (can you find the relevant passages from the Qur'an?), am I to believe that it is the only religion with such a policy? Considering all the acts that the Bible/Torah considers to be punishible by death or mutilation, it's hard to claim a qualitative difference.
"Just for your own understanding, study the liberties and freedoms 'enjoyed' by non-Muslims in ANY country with a Muslim majority."
Turn the clock back 150 years and replace the word "Muslim" with "Catholic." One of the chief arguments against Irish immigration into the United States was the fact that they were predominantly Catholic, coming into what is generally a Protestant country. And, of course, there were bloody clashes between Catholics and Protestants within the United States. In many respects, this antagonism continues into modern times, with John F. Kennedy's Catholicism having been viewed as a liability in elections.
Guess what: we're still here. We learned, we adapted, we persist. There was no great cataclysm, no great apocalyptic battle between two cultures many viewed as mutually exclusive. There has been and continues to be tension, but American style republicanism and secularism persists.
There is no good reason to believe that the phenomenom of Muslims going to Europe is completley unique and without any sort of precedent. The only possible reason to view it as such is to disguise your own irrational discomfort with the idea that some around you might want to go off someplace quiet with their prayer rugs a few times a day. The only source of conflict would if the Europeans choose to make one, and you'd accomplish little more than to demonstrate that the much-vaunted new, enlightened European secularism is a sham.
I understand the concept of mass immigration is new to Europe. Learn to deal with your own feelings before you end up making worse mistakes than we did. Or do you wish to see Europe continue to do little more than play second fiddle to North America?
Quit fucking. It's that simple
This must of come from a non American author that is just upset that the Jehad movement hasn't killed all of the Americans yet. 25%? So? Why should I care.. I'm just a dumb American. Honestly it's like this. Is it our fault America is successful? Damn right. What the author fails to mention is the following: China grows by 7 million people a year. In Shanhi Alone 600 new cars are put on the road every day. Shanhi is about 12x's larger than New York City. China produces more polution with coal than the United States does. China has increased it's need for oil by 6% in the last 3 years alone. China's population is more than all of Europe and the US combined. and guess what, The United States is China's largest buyer of goods. If the United States didn't exist China would not be at the point they are at now. If the United States didn't exist all Europe would be speaking German right now. If the United States didn't exist Mexians wouldn't have a place to illegally find a job in. If the United States didn't exist no one in the world would be allowed to own a gun. If the United States didn't exist the fall of the Soviet Union would never have happened. 25%? The world is a big place and because we use 25% of what the world can produce we have provided for billions of jobs and trillians of dollars so that other people can live and work. Other countries will catch up, it's just a matter of time. The US will not always be a super power, but the US will be an economic super power for years to come. God Bless America and the Hell with those sandy ass rag heads that want to kill us.
Obama = Socialism.
I live in the state of Oregon in the United States.
There's a county in Oregon, Harney County, that covers about 10,000 square miles or roughly 26,000 square kilometers. That's about 1/10 of Britain. The population is 7600.
The state of Oregon, on the US Pacific Northwest coast, covers about 98,000 square miles or about 255,000 square kilometers; it's a bit bigger than Britain. The population is about 3.5 million.
I've lived here all my life and to me Oregon is starting to feel crowded, but that really gets thrown in to perspective when I look elsewhere.
Here's one thing that will pretty much put an end to people being able to fix their dishwashers, microwaves, clothesdryers and other modern whitegoods: those nice flashy control panels with lots of LEDs and membrane buttons tend to use PIC controllers. Now it's just lucky for the manufacturers I guess that some of these devices have built-in ROMs that they know will evaporate after a few years. The result is that the mechanics might be DIY repairable but if the smarts in the controller panel is gone, it ain't going to function no matter what you do. My washing machine has a mechanical program selector, I know that I at least have a chance of repairing it.
As far as I understand the whole idea of currency is that it allows you to compare different goods from the economical point of view, based on their monetary value. Which reflects (among other things) amount of the resources spent in making them. Otherwise I don't know what is the reason for you to say that making a bottle of wine require spending less resources than 10 bushels of corn meal.
From the practical point of view I very much doubt that USA is exporting more raw resources than Hi-Tech products (like copies of Microsoft Windows or drugs, for example).
About the value of dollars - I don't understand what you mean. Because if the dollar on the world market is overvalued (i.e it doesn't worth those resources it's being used to buy) then it means that USA is doing a very cool trick of exchanging goods and natural resources for wortless pieces of green paper (which is what is going on actually, but it is not the topic I am going to discuss here).
--
Excuse my English.
So replying to this post wouldn't be a right in a "traditional society". Please define "traditional society". I consider it a right to post my opinion here, don't you?
So on to taxes, are you saying, as a non-Muslim, I would pay fewer taxes? Please clarify where the "right" here is.
So the Ottoman Empire allowed non-Muslims to hold "high" positions in society. If I am not mistaken that applies in the US today.
OK, onto spying. Are you saying that Muslim governments do/will not spy on their citizens? What do you call it when a woman is threatened into wearing a cloth over her head in public? What do you call it when a government gets involved into extra-marital affairs to the point it becomes a crime. What do you call it when your sexual preference could get you killed? Why can't I bring a Christian Bible into Saudi Arabia? If I worked for a news paper in a Muslim country could I draw a cartoon poking fun at Muslims and not have it censored. (If it didn't get me killed?) Not sure where the extra rights is here. I'll take a little "spying" over any of the above. (The above are state sponsored repression.)
As far as violent crime being a right, you are going to need to clarify that also. Last time I checked it was a crime. (Perhaps the punishments are too soft I will grant you that.) It is interesting to hear you mention the sexual assault statistic, how accurate would the statistic be in a society that doesn't afford woman the same legal status a men? How many assaults occur that are never reported? How many women are doused with gasoline to cover up the embarrassment? To be truthful, I bet the "true" statistics are the very similar.
So perhaps you may want to try again and tell me what rights we would gain?
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Its probably becoz of the asians there. They'll soon turn America into China or India :)
Maybe the US are only 5% of world population, but with 30% (90 milions) of obese and 5% (7.5 milions) of severe obese people they probably weight more or less 25% of world's human fat!
this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
Here. OK, so it is only 4/10, slightly less than half. The point is still valid - these people are not trying to escape Sharia.
(And that only took a few seconds on Google, and has been reported on Slashdot before!)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Unwilling? Talk about reading what you want in to other peoples opinions. Of course we prefer integrating people into our
societies and economies. I just pointed out that so many are unable or unwilling to work that our system is in heavy demand. This would be exactly the opposite of your claim that Europe does not take care of its immigrant populations!! Not to mention the general nature of your claim.
Immigration from some areas of the world are harder to tackle (Africa) especially the illegals ones. In some cases me calling them "peasants" is correct and reflects their skills. European farmers are not exactly looking to expand - nor do they need traditional small scale African agriculture methods. It is not always easy to make first generation immigrants productive when they come from non-industrial countries. It does not stop them from claiming benefits and hanging out with their fellow countrymen. Nor does it stop them from far too easily falling into crime. As statistics will show you they are proportionally overrepresented. And not just because they dont have skills - simply basic knowledge of the language would help. Most countries offer free language training classes. But even after twenty years in Europe there are still immigrants that speak little or nothing of the local language.
Then again even if they are doctors, engineers or lawyers they often arrive in countries with unemployment problems themselves - and I am not even touching the question of compatible/acceptable educational backgrounds, social networks and language skills. We speak more than just English in Europe you know?
My point was that many of them have need more investment to make them productive. Some Eastern Europeans have a far easier task of finding work because at least they come from industrial nations. And often have good enough language skills to be useful. But they all receive the generous welfare benefits and services citizens are entitled to.
Not all - just that the "socialists" are more or less reformed and have nothing to do with their past semi-communist history. Calling Europe socialist is so old. Today Europe is mostly run by Social-Democractic or Center-Right governments. The biggest party group in the European Parliament is the right wing EPP.
Hehe, I do not think so but if they apply maybe they will get work visas. The greatest problem I see with immigration is that many economic migrants falsely apply for asylum claiming discrimination back home. Far too many of the immigrants arriving in Europe are of this kind. My own country only accepts UN quotas and asylum seekers, so that just leaves asylum claims.
Good thing all the liberals do is abort, so most of the babies that actually reach birth will grow up to be conservatives.
"OK, so it is only 4/10, slightly less than half. The point is still valid "
The article also mentions that a plurality is against it and an additional 20% are still undecided.
However, what the article does not mention is what exactly that 40% were thinking when they said they were in favor of imposing "sharia law" in their communities. Aside from varying from country to country, sharia law encompasses a very wide array of subjects. Did every person who ticked off the "yes" option on that poll think about cutting of a thief's hand, or simply punishing public intoxication? On that note, they may have simply been looking to outlaw alcohol (something more than one Western country has dabbled in without the help of Muslims).
Even if they were looking for the imposition of something as drastic as capital punishment, were they thinking of executing people for homosexuality, as is done in Iran and Saudia Arabia, or were they thinking of executing people for aggrevated murder, as is done in the United States and Japan?
Instead of delving these questions, it seems the pollsters and the media outlets that reported on their results decided to simply leave things hanging with the inflammatory phrase "sharia law," because (as I mentioned before) fear-mongering sells copy. This reeks of sensationalism taking advantage of the then-recent July attacks in London, which makes one wonder why people are surprised British Muslims feel persecuted.
"and has been reported on Slashdot before!"
News for knee-jerking? Stuff that pushes buttons?
All you say is (or at least may be) true. Sharia may mean eating only pickles to these people, we will never know. However, it does establish beyond a doubt that these people were not fleeing from Sharia - and that was the point I was responding to.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
"However, it does establish beyond a doubt that these people were not fleeing from Sharia"
Then I'll both point out that I was referencing sharia the same way you were (you'll note I mentioned "honor killings" in that particular post) and also that 61% seems to be quite a bit of doubt.
I'm not talking 'may.' If you're to refute my assertion that Detroit's not a shithole, you need proof. I've supplied statistics showing that it is in fact a shithole. Where is your proof?
;)
Actually, I guess you missed the fact that I no longer cared what you thought of Detroit. I think there was a rats *ss comment you must have glossed over. I was more concerned with your blind faith in web-based statistics than subjective impressions of an actual visit to the place the statistics were about. Per your line of reasoning, numbers = facts, when they obviously don't tell an entire story.
But, let me try and explain the actual basis of why I don't think the city's as bad off as it once was. I don't rely on numbers. I don't rely on a Wikipedia entry. I go downtown. I frequent restaurants, establishments, bars, and sports venues there. As opposed to 10-15-20 years ago when virtually no one from the suburbs would go downtown, people are actually starting to leave the 'burbs and visit. There are actual reasons to visit. Let's see, since 2000: brand new Comerica Park opened, brand new Ford Field openened, the city hosted both the MLB All-Star game and the SuperBowl, Compuware Corp. opened their brand new headquarters downtown, GM has finished completely redoing the RenCen, the Detroit Riverwalk openened, the Campus Martius park was renovated and reopened, tons of new bars and restaurants have opened that weren't there before. If a friend was in town, I'd actually want to take them downtown, when there was no way in hell I'd do that before. In any event, of the things I mentioned, I'm fairly certain there's some section in Wikipedia describing them.
No, I don't live down there for obvious reasons. In many obvious ways it is a shithole. But with people from the suburbs actually visiting the downtown area, interest has been renewed, and redevelopment has started. Slowly but surely things are starting to look up. I know, because I've been there...there was no reason for me to want to visit Detroit much before. But now there is. If someone asked you though, you'd cite some statistics, tell them it's a shithole, and they wouldn't have any reason to visit.
The links are valid, even if Wiki's not. And so far, it's the best source in this discussion, since we're not admitting you as a primary source.
Well I'm a hell of a lot better source than you, Jack.
If I tried to pass off that I knew more about some place I'd never been than an actual person that's lived in the area much of their life, I'd be ashamed. You seem to think it's more than acceptable - The difference between you and I.
So wait, are you admitting it's a shithole?
I've never directly addressed that, but that's all you've been focused on. My main issue was with the lack of any subjectivity in your forming of an opinion. You might remember that's almost entirely what my very first post was about. Regardless, I addressed this above. Detroit was quite the shithole for some time. It's becoming less of a shithole than it was. It'd make even more progress if people's attitudes towards it weren't shitholes as well.
Don't cry little emo! It'll be OK.
It's great to see that precepts of ten year-olds on a playground are alive and well.
And in return, instead of countering my points, you whine, piss, and moan. I'm likewise impressed. Like I said, prove me wrong. Until then, a shithole Dee-troit will remain.
I can't prove anything any more than you can. The only way I could truly prove what I cited to you would be to travel back in time 20 years, have you visit the city then, and then show you the city in the present. Before. After. Can't be done, and you won't even visit the city now, so what's the point?
A city, by the way, you don't actually live in, I'll point out again. Suburbs ain't the city.
A pointless reiteration of something we both already know.
I'll follow that up by saying-
Statistics don't reflect a full reality; Talking about some place and actually being there are two quite different things; I'm a hell of a lot closer to it than you're ever gonna get
Not entirely true, or more accurately, entirely untrue. US agriculture + shipping is in no way cheaper than localized agriculture in Africa. The reason it comes on the market cheaper is that your tax dollars are spent to buy a surplus for the high US price, to ship it to Africa for free, and to sell it there for a lower price. The only reason that US agriculture kills domestic agriculture in Africa is because the income of all Americans is used to make that happen. For instance, the US IT industry subsidizes American food export, and the suppression of the makings of an African economy. At the same time, import tariffs are used to keep that part of African agriculture out that is competitive with this practice. All in all, international food trade in no way resembles a free nor a competitive market, and arguments to that effect hold no water. Unless this situation is rectified, there's no chance in hell that Africa will ever be able to build up its own economy.
So you rather support childmolesters then racists?
I think you have your priorities wrong.
You may call the parent poster a racist, but then I am equally entitled to call you a pervert of the worst kind.
95% of world population still not American. Rest of world says "Ameri-where?"