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.
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.
"Welcome to the U.S. Alejandro you are the 300 Millionth American. Your prize? Deportation. Have a nice day!"
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?"
Bigger northern cities? You mean Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, and many others that are a small fraction of the size they were 50 years ago? If people wanted to move up north, theres plenty of room for 'em.
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."
...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.
Yea...that's why the oceans have huge dead areas with no fish in them any more... Why we are down from 3' of topsoil to 9" of topsoil and it has a fraction of the nutrients it really needs to produce nutritious food.
I'll grant we can probably figure out some way to "exist" with 9 billion people on the planet.
But only 1% of them will have a good life and the other 99% are going to live very constrained existances.
There's only so many beaches- so many ski mountains- and either only the rich or powerfull will have them- or they will be so grossly overcrowded you really won't want to be there. Truly rare stuff is starting to rise in value.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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
It's called a diesel.
Yea but, in Tokyo a hotel room is a 4' shelf and your feet hang off the end. We're far too fat in this country to ever sardine ourselves together like they do in Japan.
~Rebecca
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.
You are down to that topsoil level maybe if you are in a desert on the opposite side of the world from the closest volcano (extinct or active.)
Here, however, the nutritious topsoil is about 19' deep on average - some years annually growing with river deposits. Also, in California there are an estimated 1500+ very-long extinct volcanic vents which are loaded with nutritious soil thousands of feet deep. The only places in the world that have only "9 inches" of topsoil are deserts. Just because you only dig down nine inches in your San Francisco condominium and find the concrete structure below does not mean that there is only 9" of topsoil in the whole world.
Oh, and the places in the ocean where there is no life have always had no life. Talk to any REAL marine biologist (not some liberally-biased person) and they will tell you that the oceanic population is not even 1% lower than it was hundreds of years ago (so far as they can tell)...
While we may be overpopulated in the metropolitan areas, but I am absolutely positive that you cannot say you do not contribute to that overpopulation. Go to any truly rural area - like Montana or Alaska - and you will see that overpopulation of the planet is probably not within the grasp of our children's, children's, grandchildren's wildest imaginations.
However, many of the richer nations (especially us Americans) are generally extremely wasteful. The true problem that you should be concerned with is NOT lack of oil, lack of food or lack of space; but generation of waste. So many of the third-world nations are even more wasteful than we Americans (have you ever seen Mexico outside of the tourist-y areas???) There needs to be a more efficient and intelligent means of waste disposal addressed. Granted there is Recycling to help, and compaction techniques are very advanced, that doesn't account for the fact that only 6% of recyclable material is actually recycled, and (estimated) around 45% of garbage is compost able.
Erutangis ym si siht.
...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.
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
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.
First and oldy but a goody9 330131.html
u rrent/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html ... ... ...
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/speeches/1
The Black Belt of Central Texas: This region, whose fame as a cotton-producing area is known to the ends of the world, once was a real black belt of highly productive black clay, rich in lime, humus and plant nutrients. Vast changes have come over the region since it was broken out of the prairie sod some 30 to 50 years ago. It is no longer an unbroken black belt, but a mixed black and white belt with countless areas scoured off to the underlying white chalk or marl.
Erosion in the Red Plains Region: A large part of the 36 million acres of predominantly red sandy lands extending from western Oklahoma far down into Texas has undergone terrific erosion during the past generation,
Effects in the Corn Belt: A tremendous amount of land has been severely impoverished in the rolling counties of northern Missouri, southern Iowa, eastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska, and many farms have been abandoned as the result.
These are from 1933.
Do you think it we have reclaimed any of that lost land?
More recently
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/c
The world's croplands are in decline due to the pressure of human activities. The figure shows the regional and global trends in the total available area of the world's croplands.
Worldwide the amount of cropland per capita has declined due to population growth. North America and the former USSR have substantially more cropland per capita than the rest of the world.
The total loss of arable land can be summarized in the following figure. Of the total available (1500 million hectares, signifant components have been lost due to the combined effects of desertification, salinization, erosion, and development activities.
Summary
# Degradation of land includes soil erosion, salinization, nutrient depletion, and desertification. The rate of degradation has increased dramatically with growth in human populations and technology.
# Severe land damage accompanies large scale agriculture. Restoration is very problematical.
# Continued loss of arable land will jeopardize our ability to feed the world population.
# Land degradation is worldwide - both developed and developing countries.
On the oceans...
http://agonist.org/20060803/the_dying_oceans
First global map reveals rapidly shrinking hotspots for tuna, marlin, swordfish - Diversity has declined by up to 50% over 50 years due to fishing
http://www.net.org/marine/fish.vtml
What's left behind is a dead zone, like a forest after being clearcut, except that it takes centuries rather than decades to grow back.
---
I'm not so pessimistic as these folks are. I think it could recover in a generation if we would stop killing everything. But as the human population increases- there are not any more real fish out there.
So what's more likely-- 9 billion or 3 billion? I'm thinking 9 billion and my investments in scarce resources and global luxury property (fidelity has a nice new fund just for this which I'm not in yet) are doing nicely.
I agree with you on the waste. We deal with it inefficiently because it's cheap. But again the root problem is too many people. If the world population was 50% lower, the trash would be less and there would be a lot more places to put it.
It's bad.
It's going to get worse.
And we can't or won't do anything about the fundamental problem-- too many people. Every exit scenario I see is very bad. I'm hoping I get to die comfortably before that point.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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?
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...
"they will tell you that the oceanic population is not even 1% lower than it was hundreds of years ago..."
This certainly doesn't take into account the fish that we consume. Many fisheries have been wiped out or nearly wiped out. Chilean sea bass are the most recent example. I don't know any "REAL" marine biologists (I roomed with an undergrad in college, but the last I heard, he was selling office furniture). However, I have talked with more than a few fishing guides and here in Florida, they will tell you that the fishing is not nearly as good as it was in previous decades.
Now I'm not a rocket surgeon or brain scientist, but it seems pretty obvious that particular species of fish populations have decreased much more than 1%. Maybe these fish have been offset by gains in plankton or brine shrimp, so the net change is less than 1%. However, I'm not too interested in an "all you can eat" brine shrimp special down at Red Lobster or an old-fashioned New England plankton bake.
I'm a big fan of the free market. Under normal pressures, it can adapt to handle supply/demand fluctuations. However, the free market doesn't deal well with extremely tight supply. As an example, every Christmas there's the hot new toy that everyone's gotta have but nobody can find through the regular outlets. People lie, cheat, counterfeit, steal, and even assault each other to make thier kids happy. Now, imagine what these same people would do (myself included) if the shortage is food or water or land or energy. As a consumer, I would rather compete with 6 billion other people than 9 billion other people.
For a good example of the environmental impacts of overpopulation (and piss-poor government), check out Haiti.
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