Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Population Hits 300 Million
ChrisK87 writes "The United States' population will hit 300 million on Tuesday morning, just 39 years after it reached 200 million, the US Census Bureau estimates. A 'population clock' will record the milestone at 0746 (1146 GMT) — a timing based on calculations that factor birth and death rates and migration." From the article: "But it is not possible to say if the 300-millionth American was a new-born or crossed one of the US borders. Correspondents say that there is not expected to be the same hullabaloo as when the figure of 100 million was reached in 1915, or the double century in 1967 when President Johnson gave a speech and newborn Robert Ken Woo Jr was hailed the 200-millionth American by Life magazine. Today, the population figure is mired in the divisive politics of immigration — a hot-button issue ahead of the 7 November mid-term elections, they say." The story has lots of interesting stats and graphs, for those of us so inclined.
My name ees Jose and I am dee tree hundred million person in dee Joonited Stace. I come from Chihuaha Mehico and my favorite color is jello.
... but for me it would have only been 299,999,997.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
At the current rate of birth/death in the US, we'll hit 400 million in approx 2043, with the southern states gaining the most. It makes sense that the south would gain more, because I can't see how we can support that many more people in the bigger northern cities.
stuff |
Anyway, congratulations. I heard on the radio this morning the states are the worlds third most populous country, right after China and India. Surprised me.
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
America is the only developed nation which is still robustly growing. Our own average fertility rate is just above 2 kids per woman, which is enough to sustain population. The substantial immigration provides grows.
Economist thinks, religion has something to do with the fenomenon...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Too many people, not enough oil. People are somewhat flammable. I think I know of a way we can solve both of these problems at once.
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries?
Higher birth and immigration rates.
Which demographics are producing most children?
Red states. I'm serious. Comapre Utah to California. (I'd give you the stats if I were less lazy.)
How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
Don't know, but for comparison, I read that of all immigrants in the world (people who leave one country for another to live), 3/8 of them have the US as their destination.
Another stat I can't be bothered to check, but sounds reasonable.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Wider-spread religiosity and gender-equality are the factors according to this article.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's the divisive politics of Illegal immigration. I know and have read of no one who is against immigration in the U.S. We're all too closely descended from immigrants.
It's *Illegal* immigration that causes the rift.
Don't lose control of the words. Words mean something.
Basically, the poorer you are, the more children you have. So inversely, the richer you are, the less children you have. Just think about it this way: People that are rich have time that is very valuable, so they can't afford to have many children, because they would waste too much of their own time.
Poor people, it seems, have nothing but free time, and can therefore have more children. Although the care they give per child is less than the care given by parents who have fewer children.
"Welcome to the U.S. Alejandro you are the 300 Millionth American. Your prize? Deportation. Have a nice day!"
Call me when we hit 3,141,592.
I agree. . . the sprit and promise of Lady Liberty is still very much alive.
You know what though, you know what the immigrants who were welcomed by the Statue of Liberty did? They stopped at Ellis Island to register and apply for residency.
-CR
"So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
How does that saying go?
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night; light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
A few reasons. Europe is mainly 'full' -- its landmass is less than that of the US IIRC, or darn near close...they have 700+ million, the US just hit 300. Alot of central Europe is mountain region remember, they just don't have the wide open plains like north america.
Also, Europe is comprised of very old, mature set of societies. Less social and economic mobility; all the land is owned and in use. The US still has large amounts space and sparsely populated cities. The rustbelt has a negative population growth for example.
Finally, I think the social objectives are a bit different. Speaking in very broad terms, most European societies are not as materalistic. There's alot of negatives to materialism as a motivator, but it does give your economy a very powerful engine. This creates oppportunity, which in turn attracts immigrants.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
A quick google turned up this article
h tml
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/tilove092006.
Cheap UK and US VPS
Seriously -- mod parent up.
There's no "immigration debate," at least not in mainstream politics; the debate is over illegal immigration.
Immigration per se isn't a divisive issue at all. Except for the very far-right fringe, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we should stop legitimate immigration of people with skills that are in-demand, here in the United States. The disagreement is in how to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants, doing mostly low-value work, and the consequent social problems that having an effective sub-class of workers entails.
The only debate I can think of that involves legal immigration has to do with the way the U.S. grants refugee status, and the "anchor baby" phenomenon, but those are closely tied to the same issues that make illegal immigration important; they're not really fundamental questions about immigration.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Oddly enough, most American Catholics don't really in practice give a damn about what the Pope says regarding contraception. They don't even care as much about abortion as you might think; the two most Catholic states (by far) are Rhode Island and Maryland, both of whom have decently liberal laws regarding abortion, and while the institution of the Catholic Church bitches constantly about it (I live in one of those two states) the parishioners kindly and gently ignore them. No, most of the religiously-based conservatism in the US comes out of Dominionist churches and sources in the south and midwest.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
...And still not a girlfriend in sight. ;)
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
Yeah, cuz back in the day when the population was much smaller, there were no such things as war (over land), famine, pollution. Sure humans made less of an impact on the Earth on a global scale (ie global warming), but I think your utopian view of a less populus world is inherently flawed. Cities from the early days of the industrial revolution were heavily polluted, and also had less people in them.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Let's not bundle the whole of Europe in one basket. There are large birth rate differences between European countries and religion (or catholicism as you mentionned) seems to have little to do with it: Italy very catholic, low birth rate, France, mostly atheist high birth rate. The main differences in Europe seems to come from different state/employer benefits for women and cultural attitudes. For instance in Germany or the Netherlands, a woman with a young child is frowned upon if she goes to work, whereas in France it's the reverse.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I'm definitely onboard with sustainability theory, but I cringe when people talk as if the planet's just bursting at the seams with people. It isn't.
Furthermore, people are not hamsters. Each person who is born has a brain, and intelligence that can be applied to solving problems such as "overpopulation". I suspect inefficient resource allocation is a larger part of the poverty problem than raw "mouths to feed" numbers.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Are a few extra immigrants really somethign to get worked up over?
It is when it's a few million, and if the immigrants in question consume more in services than they contribute in GDP; if that's the case, then they are a net economic loss, and decrease per-capita GDP and with it, the overall standard of living. While previous generations of working-class immigrants were basically self-sufficent and used little in the way of public-sector social services, this is not the case today with many people who are immigrating illegally.
Besides which, "eight acres for every person" is a mis-statement. Much of that land you're talking about isn't really habitable, or is already being used for other purposes (such as food production). There's lots of "empty" land in the badlands of Wyoming or up in Alaska, but you're going to have a hard time getting the people wading across the Rio Grande to go there.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well, I am not speaking to the reasons for Europe's birthrates. You can't turn a corner here in the US without hearing about 'family values' and the 'baby culture'. Some people pop out kids for social acceptance, others do it for intrinsic cultural values that often come from religion (Catholicism being but one of them). A noticeable trend appears to be that child rearing is most often inversely proportional to income and intelligence, which is bad news. Of course there are always exceptions.
I'm confused. A Washington Post story says that the 300 millionth American may have just walked across the Mexico border. Umm, doesn't American mean a citizen? Sure, illegal immigrants have children in the U.S. who are citizens, but last time I looked, newborns aren't walking across the border.
Penny - plain text accounting
What you are missing is that during the first half of the last century the USA did not have the welfare state that is currently in place here now. Because of this if you came into the USA before the 1940's, you were expected to either work or starve. Soup kitchens and other charity was setup by PRIVATE individuals and other charity organizations (mainly Christian churches). These were supported by PRIVATE citizens who donated to those causes, there was no government support or bail-out like we have now. As such new immigrants were a boost to the economy by providing a cheap and willing labor force since those coming over were looking to ASSIMILATE and BUILD a new life here in America. What we are seeing now is that there is a large and growing population that does not want to assimilate, does not want to contribute and only wants to take what they can. Now to be fair there are a lot that do want to come and be a part but those are the exception not the rule and typically are the LEGAL immigrants. By having this bloated welfare system that gets bigger everyday, immigration must be limited to those that will come and work otherwise the net drain on the system will cause the economy and the country to collapse. That is why student, work and tourist visas are easy to get but limited in duration while permanent immigration visas are much tougher to come by since part of the process requires you have a job and a sponsor (who is supposed to take care of you if something happens to you job so you aren't a burden to society) or that is how it is supposed to work.
I always am a little perplexed when that sentiment is expressed. What family values are being promoted by having 50+ hour work weeks, no national health plan, preschool that is glorified baby-sitting, a laughable primary education system, and open hostility to reproductive rights? All that aside, right now it is prohibitively expensive to have children under this system. Granted, this is purely anecdotal, but within my circle of friends (all around 30ish), nobody is having kids or planning on having kids- its just too comfortable to cohabit in sin and live it up.
Sig cannot be found.
It's called a diesel.
It is amazing that we will destroy our own country just so we can have cheap labor.
Although I dislike Political Correctness, it isn't why the US is letting in illegal immigrants. PC is part of it, but it isn't the root cause. Yes, we will get what we deserve when the US is broke and China assumes its place as the dominant power in about 40 - 70 years.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
(I'll skip the obvious joke about how Americans are just growing and growing, in population as well as belt size...)
I am an American living in Japan, where the population has just started shrinking as of this year. No one has babies -- too much stress, cost, and there are subtle pressures to have 1-2 kids because everyone else is having 1-2. It's odd and a little scary. Is population shrinkage (which will be small of course, and much less imporantant than the tendency of people to get the heck out of the "inaka" (the sticks) and head for the cities, either big ones or medium sized ones) really a bad thing? Does it mean permanently shrinking GDP, or is it just one more of those things that we'll deal with? (I suspect the latter).
Anyway, it's great to read all those books from the 1950s about how we'd all be shoulder-to-shoulder by now, with absolutely no room to stretch in any direction. Just goes to show.
You've got a friend in Japan: http://www.jlist.com
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
Legal immigration and hispanic birthrates are what contribute to the growth. In some states (ie Utah) Caucasian birthrate is above replacement level, but in most states it is not. Europe has the same problem, Caucasian people are pretty much dying out. African Americans aren't much better, as they are right around replacement rate (2.1), and I suspect in a few years they will fall below it.
As cultures/people become intigrated into western society they tend to have less children. The availability of Birth Control, higher education, and workplace oppurtunity for women are what I believe causes it, along with dropping sperm counts.
People that are rich have time that is very valuable, so they can't afford to have many children, because they would waste too much of their own time.
You're thinking about it backwards. Has it occurred to you that rich and middle-class people are well off precisely because they don't have kids? Kids are expensive. They reduce the overall household income (by causing one or both parents to work less, or even quit their career altogether), in addition to raising household costs (increased food consumption, clothing, water use, education, sports, etc.). The net effect being that it holds families back financially.
People don't start out rich and then "decide" whether or not to have kids. Kids prevent people from getting rich (generally), whereas those of us who opt not to kids can put that money to other uses, like investments.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
...Attending a Jesuit university. I don't know if this is just because of the Jesuit influence, but fundamentalist Christians would surely hate our guts. Non-literal reading and analysis of scripture, ethics not entirely based on the papacy, evolution is fine (both embraced by John Paul II actually), toleration and even support of gays. Overall, a lack of hate or bigotry, even against some of the more hard-hitting issues like abortion. So yes, there does seem to be a "liberal" flavor to American Catholicism though I would technically call it moderate (in a number of Catholic communities at least). Though I did see some pretty fundamentalist Catholics while I was visiting in Arizona. So it really depends on region I suppose.
Much more efficient to render the entire person. Plenty of fat stores that are simply not accessed with today's liposuction technologies. Any remaining proteins and carbohydrates can be converted to lipids via algae tanks. The small remaining amount of biomass can be used to fertilize crops.
-
There is plenty of room for growth in the northern half of america. The reason that southern states grow the most is because they on average have lower levels of education and have a weaker economy. The dumber you are and the poorer you are, the more kids you have.
It is a defense mechanism that all animals possess. When your survival is in jeopardy, start popping out offspring with the slim hope that some will actually survive to adulthood. In the animal kingdom all but the most fit just die off. But in our world of welfare, the rest of us keep them alive and make the problem worse.
It is just a problem of morality. I could never look at a 1 year old baby that is starving and say that we should just let it die. But to fix most of our societies problems, we shouldnt be helping them. But because most of us are not immoral monsters, the lowest class of our citizens will continue to reproduce rapidly.
--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
There exists a process that can turn just about anything carbon-based into oil. That article was published in 2003, but a more modern article (which I can't find online) says the cost to make this oil comes out to higher than the cost of crude oil- IIRC $80-$90 a gallon. Once crude oil prices exceed the cost of manufacturing this oil, I'm sure this technology will spread rapidly. Right now, I think this and other alternative fuels are what keeps OPEC from pricing crude oil higher.
Apparently government is against legal immigration especially of highly educated people (BS,MS, PhD). Try to immigrate to US legally. There is three ways: 1 simple. Marry US citizen. No problem here as long as you can get to the country and find somebody who want to marry you. If you are married already, well you have a tough luck. Only divorce can help. Even if you get married you can not work legally for 2 years. That helps welfare and Social Security a lot. 2. Invest at least 0.5 M$ and hire 6 US citizens, not very easy for every one. 3. Through the family, as long if you are not from Philippines because you have to wait 15 years or Mexico (13 years)to be able to apply for permanent residence. For other countries something like 5 years, Off course for all that time you have to wait in your country or be in on your family support since there are no worker visas available. 4. Through employment, not possible since there is no worker visas available and there is about 500 000 people waiting in line for permanent residence with only 100 000 permanent resident cards a year. Wait again 5 years If you add family members to people waiting in line the number will double and waiting time appears like 10 years. Good luck to all legal immigrants! Now you know why people immigrate illegally.
All those people? What are you talking about? The US has one of the lowest population densities in the world. It also has a lot of arable land. Not to mention that rich countries are in a better position to retool their infrastructure as the price of oil goes up. When inflation hits in the developed world, you give up luxuries so that you can meet your basic needs. In the developing world, you aren't even meeting your basic needs, so a price increase leads to starvation. People in the US, believe it or not, will car pool or take a train if they are forced to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
EXXON GREEN IS PEOPLE!!
> What did they have, 350 million?
More like 290 million, at the peak of the Soviet Union.
> Didn't think the Baltics and Kazakhstan had that many people.
Kazakhstan has about 15 million people.
The three baltic republics together have about 7 million.
For reference, Ukraine has about 50 million. That's the second biggest (after Russia) population of the ex-Soviet republics.
As I recall, Kazakhstan was third. Then Belarus with close to 10 million. Then the others.
I read in Smithsonian magazine last night that the US allows more legal immigrants than the rest of the countries in the world combined. Kind of blew me away.
Read any good sonnets lately?
Well that's wonderful. More food for thought: if we were all the size of hamsters, but square, with interlocking pegs on top, I could use most of the population of America to insulate my garage. That's an equally useful statement.
Don't be foolish: just because you could concievably live in five square meters doesn't mean that you'd want to, or that you could somehow cram all the infrastructure that it takes to support a person (food production, waste management, power generation, etc.) into that space. Not to mention that unless sedated, most people would probably go batshit crazy and kill each other if forced to live like that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Soylent Fuel -- it's PEOPLE!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Well said. I was going to try and say this but you pretty much nailed it.
The only thing I'd add is that it gets even worse when you consider people that have children at a very young age -- i.e. the phenomenon we politely call "teen pregnancy." When someone has a child before they're even able to support themselves, they essentially create two loads on their family (and/or the tax-supported public welfare system): themselves and the child. Not only do they create a new non-worker, but they take themselves out of the working pool, or at least into a lower wage class than they probably would have been in, effectively making two unproductive individuals. Also, there are fairly convincing statistics showing that the children of very young parents often become young parents themselves, perpetuating the problem.
So in places in the U.S. where, for various social reasons, you have high rates of teen pregnancy, you can quickly have generations of people burdened with supporting large numbers of non-working adults and children; it's a recipe for poverty that's basically unstoppable, unless you can break the cycle of young people continuing to have children.
Unfortunately, certain parts of the U.S. political structure are absolutely unwilling to take this problem on realistically, instead pretending that it can be dealt with indirectly.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You can work legally right away, if you do it right. My wife entered the US on a Fiancee Visa and we got married right away; this allowed her to get a SS# and work permit immediately. Going through the process to get a temporary Green Card and then a permanent Green Card has taken longer; we just had our fourth anniversary last month, and we're waiting for the permanent Green Card to finally arrive in the mail. Next year, she'll be eligible to apply for citizenship; we expect that she'll be able to vote in the next presidential election.
This approach has cost a lot of time and a couple thousand dollars in application fees, and only worked because she was still in Canada when we got engaged, and didn't move until we were ready to get married. It was the best approach though, because she was able to work during the whole process.
Obviously we just need to start publishing Slashdot in Spanish; that ought to take care of the problem nicely.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"the average employed American works a 46-hour work week" http://www.libraryspot.com/know/workweek.htm
no national health plan
"Most individuals not covered by private insurance are covered by government insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and various state and local programs for the poor. Much of the cost of outpatient medical supplies and durable medical equipment is borne by state and federal governments in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare patients and veterans may be able to avail themselves to earned public ambulatory care. Since 1986, a controversial federal law, EMTALA, has required all American emergency rooms which bill federal healthcare programs to stabilize all incoming patients without regard to their ability to pay."
The federal government does not provide these services but US states do (think of US states like EU member nations.
preschool that is glorified baby-sitting
Also controlled at the local level, not the job of the US federal government. BTW the teachers unions have alot to do with this.
laughable primary education system
Also controlled at the local level, not the job of the US federal government. BTW the teachers unions have alot to do with this..
open hostility to reproductive rights
Or maybe just a disagreement with you about when human life begins...
All that aside, right now it is prohibitively expensive to have children under this system.
Huh? people are having more kids in the US than in Europe..
Granted, this is purely anecdotal, but within my circle of friends (all around 30ish), nobody is having kids or planning on having kids
And in my circle of friends (mid to late twenties) about 80% have had their first kid and about a fifth have a second...
its just too comfortable to cohabit in sin and live it up.
So the fact people want free time and disposable income more than kids has what to do with, for example, the election system in the US?
I wonder if the birth certificate/immigration papers of the 300 millionth kid/immigrant says something like this:
"Congratulations!!! You are our 300,000,000th person!!! Please click here to claim your special prize!!
(void where prohibited)"
I can neither support nor refute your claims about why people wish to immigrate to the United States. But let's assume that you're descriptions and motivations are correct. That it's the social programs that are drawing immigrants who desire a free ride. Isn't the appropriate response then to say that this is an unintended consequence of the social welfare programs and call into question the validity of those programs? It seems to me that continuing to support restrictions on immigration is an attempt to prop up social programs as if they had no consequences.
If what you're saying is true, that seems to me to be a knock against socialized welfare. Not something that should support restrictions on immigration. Is there something that I'm missing?
Full Disclosure: I'm a classic liberal (in contrast to a modern liberal) and I'm opposed to restricted immigration. I believe that we live in a country of endowed rights, not government granted rights. Which means that the government can neither give nor take away rights. Our rights have been endowed to us by our creator (using the language of the constitution). One of those endowed rights is the right to free association and to assemble peacably. Which means that Mexicans have it whether they're here or not. So do Chinese, Germans and Finlanders. The difference is that some other governments don't protect those rights, and in some cases, wrongly repress those rights. The US government is constituted on a promise to protect those rights within the boundaries of this country. So that when someone from Mexico or China or Germany or Findland sets foot in this country, our government is required to protect their rights to freely associate with any of us who are already here. Immigration laws are based on the premise that you only have those rights if you're a US citizen. In other words, the US Government grants them to you. I believe that's incorrect. I believe laws restricting immigration are counter to the concept of rights described by the constitution. I believe that all such laws should be overturned.
One of the impacts of immigration laws is to insulate the voting American public from the negative unintended consequences of social welfare programs. I believe that if the American public felt the full brunt of those unintended consequences, that we would make changes to the detrimental effects of those policies. But as long as those effects are hidden, there's less motivation to change the policies.
Immigration laws hurt us: they undermine our core values, and they insulate us from the effects of bad policies. I think we would be better off without them.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Less social and economic mobility; ...
i onOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTru st_report.htm
...
M obility.pdf
Au contraire...
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformat
In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/Intergenerational
Carbon dioxide is hardly the only pollutant released by the burning of hydrocarbons. There's tons of waste products, including nitrogen and sulfer oxides that cause acid rain, and naturally occuring radioactive materials like uranium. While CO2 pollution my be reversible, the health and environmental damage caused by these other waste products certainly are not. Moreover, the waste products of nuclear plants are containable, while the waste products of coal plants are freely released into the biosphere. Because of this fact, coal plants actually release more radioactive material into their local environment than properly-maintained nuclear power stations. You receive more radiation living next to a coal plant, because its spewing uranium and thorium into the atmosphere, than you do living next to a nuclear plant, where the radiation is contained behind layers of shielding and safety protocols.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Nuclear pollution is not permanent. Nuclear radiation occurs because the atoms in question are slowly decaying to a stable state. It is the decay itself which releases the radiation and is harmful to us. So essentially, it is the very fact that nuclear particles clean themselves up that is dangerous to us.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Europe has 10.4 M sq km and 710 M people, vs. the US 9.5 M sq. km and 300 M people, so the US has less than half the number of people per square km (or whatever unit of area one choses to use). You're dead on about the US still having large amounts of space. However, if you count Europe as "west of the Ural Mountains" you have some pretty extensive plains in western Russia, and the western US is pretty damn mountainous, speaking as someone who lives within two hours' drive of several ranges in the western US.
I'm not sure that I buy this. I spent a month there visiting my wife's family last fall, and the societies I saw (mainly England and Sweden) didn't seem any less materialistic than the US. I think you might be mistaking free market, where government regulation of industry is lax, for materilistic. England and Sweden both seemed to have quite a few immigrants. (According to Wikipedia, 13.3% of Sweden's population is foreign.
The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
You should really get modded up.
I notice that the '1% decline' folks haven't responded to you.
The only thing I have to add is that the last time I went shopping for fish, except for the stuff that was farmed, the selection wasn't nearly as good as it used to be a few decades ago.
And although it's before my time, if you read historical accounts of the shellfish harvests in New England, they're nothing like they are today. Lobster used to be so common in Maine that it was considered a poor-person's food; you could basically go and pick them up from the rocks in many bays and inlets. Don't even bother trying that today. Similar with clams, although there you also have toxic contamination to worry about.
Were it not for international treaties, I think it's safe to assume that a whole lot of both whale and large sea-fish species would now be extinct. (We got pretty close with swordfish; it's just getting back to normal now.) The free market is great for a lot of things, but that "tragedy of the commons" is a real bitch. Sometimes the market -- and people in general -- aren't really forward-thinking. They'll slaughter the goose today rather than have the golden eggs later a startlingly large percentage of the time.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you are white, making fun of another person's accent is racist. Of course, it isn't racism when Eddie Murphy or Dave Chapelle make fun of white people's accents. That's just hilarious.
If you are white, it's racist to even mention that hispanic people are moving into the country in large numbers. If you aren't white, it isn't racist to say, "Let's get rid of whitey."
Personally, I think race is a red herring, an idea designed to keep the working class of all races from recognizing their true enemy: the hereditary owning class. Damn richers! Kill all dollarheads!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
People concerned about race relations are idiots. Discrimination takes place about many more things than just race, and much more intensely. Age, religion, gender, all three affect how one is treated far more than race does. And wealth puts the rest to shame. If you're upper class, you can throw coke-and-daterape parties every night, and never have the cops even drive past your house. If you're lower class, even a regular beer and medium-volume-music party is enough to get a serious grilling from the cops and a fine for noise. A single whiff of pot smoke in the air, and you're all in for a strip-search from sexually deprived cops.
Hence the wierd surges in diseases (like diabetes).
There are two reasons for the surge in diabetes:
1) We can diagnose and treat it. (used to be you just died of the disease after a couple years)
2) We're living long enough eating a carbohydrate-rich diet to get Type II diabetes.
Bring back smallpox and stop making synthetic insulin. You'll see diabetes go away, and we won't have to do anything to our food! What a great deal!
Eventually, some portion of humans will adapt to the diet and they will do okay.
Blah, blah, blah... remove your head from the sand. If the disease does not render you dead or infertile before 25, then resistance to the diet-caused-disease will at best be weakly selected for. Natural selection can only take place through reproduction. If you reproduce before you die, YOU WIN! Thanks for playing!
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Females aged 18 to 40. They're waaaay ahead of any other group.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least be accurate :)
Hydrocarbon + O2 -> H2O + CO2 is a simplification. In any real combustion process, even with pure substances, you won't just get H2O and CO2, but a whole spectrum of intermediate products composed of some combination of H, C, and O. Even ideally, the precise distribution of these combustion products will depend on the stoichiometric mixture of the fuel and oxidizer, and the combustion temperature and pressure. In pratice, it'll depend on things like the local stoichiometric mix, which depends on how well-mixed your fuel and oxidizer is, as well as the vagracies of the burning process itself.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...