Notice the spin in this article, since we're no where near as densely populated as Germany, everythings just fine.

http://cnn.com/2000/US/01/13/population.double.ap/index.html

I'm going to try a hotlink.

Relentless Population Growth

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), January 13, 2000

Answers

Astute observation, Guy. Germany has no desert, no vast national parks, no protected rainforest, and few (if any) swamps, all of which are basically uninhabitable and unsuitable for agriculture.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 13, 2000.

Our mass squandering of resources makes me wonder what horrible impact doubling the U.S. poplation would have on the rest of the world.

(From this editorial) "Although Americans comprise only five percent of the world's population, we use 25 percent of the world's resources and produce more trash and pollution than citizens of most other nations. The average American's energy use is equivalent to the consumption of two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 32 Indians, 140 Bangladeshis, 284 Tanzanians, and 372 Ethiopians.

Vice President Al Gore fancies himself a defender of the environment, but Al Gore has four children. Not just average children, mind you, but rich, white, American children. Americans have the attitude that if we can feed 'em, it's okay to breed 'em, but we rarely consider that our breeding has a global impact. Al Gore's four children  whom he can, admittedly, comfortably support -- consume the same amount of resources as 24 Mexicans, 128 Indians, 1488 Ethiopians (1995 U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 868). If any of his children have children, they will consume approximately 30 to 40 times the natural resources that a child does in the developing world.

In the face of these statistics, it's not uncommon for an American to say, "But our environmental laws are so advanced, and besides, WE'RE not cutting down the rainforest!" True, but our demand for such items as coffee, bananas, wood, and meat ensures that developing nations will sacrifice land in order to make money and appease our demands".

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

The census is wrong about their prediction.

We should be so lucky to double our population in 100 years.

In 100 years, we will have roughly the same number of people that we have today, but those people will be a LOT older than they are now.

Everyone will be asking about everyone else's single grandchild and wondering how come there aren't more of them.

Human beings are assets, not excess baggage.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Americans beware!

While our government has been promoting and ACHIEVING zero population growth of AMERICANS they allow over a MILLION NEW and legal Immigrants each year. It appears the government WANTS to POPULATE our country but with third world immigrants. The reason is to "control inflation". (e.g. they can work cheaper and would love to in order to gain permanent entrance to our beautiful country.) Who can blame them? I (and you) would jump at the first opportunity Within thirty to forty years our country will be unable to FEED ITS own people. I wonder what affect these people will have on the voting of our country?

What do these people think of our legal system? Of our basic constitutional rights? Of our right to bear arms? Just ask any non-American they'll tell ya! Now fast forward 50 years when these "Americans" and their children start affecting the laws and policies of this country. What will the affect be? Why is my government forcing my children and theirs to be a minority in their own country? Better yet why ARE WE ALLOWING IT! It sure appears to me that the only race abiding by the zero population growth are the Americans and is clearly indicated by the census. Why have a policy of de-populating America of white Americans? It's really quite simple: Cheap, docile and highly controllable labor pool.

Anyone notice the protest on the Golden Gate bridge where these 10,000 Indian immigrents protested our governments policy on a non-nuclear India? I wonder what would happen if 10,000 Americans blocked a bridge in in India protesting that governments treatment of it's non-Hindu population? I wonder.....

If you think writing your representative will help get a life as the people pushing for the cheap labor pool has your Rep and mine in their pocket. Think your reps/congressmen/women represent you? HAHAHAHAHA

This will not and cannot happen until big business stops funding "Our" representatives.

Americans please vote to restore the stuff we were taught about America" By the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE. History proves that big business cares about 1 thing: BIG PROFITS. Do they care that this growth is destroying our ability to feed ourselves? Duh! If it doesn't affect fourth quarter profits it's not on their radar.

-- Cynical (breedlikecrazy@americans.com), January 13, 2000.

People thought the same thing about the Irish and Italians and just about any Catholic 100 years ago.

Can the descendants of Irish and Italian (and Catholic) immigrants feed themselves? I think so, last time I checked. Cynical, you're not cynical, you're a bigot.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

Has anybody ever calculated how many people Americans feed, clothe, provide jobs for, medicate...?

-- Mr. Mike (mikeabn@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

No species knowingly limits its own reproduction; limits come from predation and population crashes, with crashes coming from famine and disease. Look around. Given that fact, there is no genetic "recipe" for such self-limiting, in the sense that there are common genetic instructions for fingers, webbing, anger, intelligence, etc.

Further, we are descended from tree-dwelling primates who don't bury their body wastes, as cats do, because trash simply falls away from us. That's one reason why it's hard to toilet train children - they have no instinct for it. It's also why it's hard for us now to properly dispose of toxic wastes. If out ancestry were feline, it's safe to say we'd make proper waste disposal a top priority.

We have been unable to limit our own numbers because of the first point, and the second point prevents us from easily seeing the connection between ourselves and the state of the world. Only a few see it, and it takes effort.

Our numbers will in the end be limited by the carrying capacity of the world, because we will probably never be able to limit ourselves. Instead of millions of births prevented this year, there will be billions dead of famine in some future year. When that crash begins, it will be in a technologically interdependent framework, where natural resources are stretched to their max, and then some possibly minor flaw disrupts a vital link. Y2k could still be it, but it looks unlikely. Doesn't matter, something else will break, not because it's necessary that something break, but because it's inevitable.

After the break, whatever it is, the techno infrastructure will be damaged by the die-back. We will revert not to a lower population level sustained by the infrastructure, but to a minimal population sustained by no infrastructure at all.

If you thought Y2k was a hoax, you will probably not share this view, either.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 13, 2000.

Cynical: deary me, are you afraid that a new wave of immigrants will screw up your fat, indolent lifestyle? Tell me, when did your ancestors arrive in North America, and how much did they care about the inhabitants that they found there?

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

bw, I totally agree with you, and it is truly sad. However, personal responsibility dictates that we should all individually be responsible for limiting our familial growth.

It all begins with the individual. How sad that so few want to help preserve society and resources for future generations. What is happening now in Africa could happen anywhere that ignorance and lack of personal responsibility and self-control are prevelant.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

Etta,

My dear where have you been hiding all these decades? Have you not noticed farmland being gobbled up? Perhaps you have not either noticed that 97% of our forests are GONE? Notice any increase in traffic? Perhaps you have! What about your kids school? How many kids are in your classrooms?

Etta, your not a liberal you're an idiot!

Do the math stupid!

I WANT TO LIMIT IMMIGRATION OF IRISH CATHOLICS / GERMANS / PROTESTANTS HINDUS. ALL IMMIGRATION! Shall I draw you a picture? (e.g White/Brown/Yellow/ I'm a "bigot" against all "colors".) I am an equal opportunity discriminator when it comes to immigration.

America has X land and X resources available. Do you think these have changed since the turn of the century? Duh!

Do ya think America's needs have changed over the decades? (Remember X has not and CANNOT CHANGE!) THINK!

Do you think you can stop me from attempting to stem the wholesale destruction of our country by type casting me as a bigot? Etta, I would highly recommend you sign up for another four years. Or at least until your green card comes through.

Got Brains?

Got any facts to support the current level of immigration?

Got any facts to support your contention that farm land mass/population ratio of 10 decades ago and the policies it engendered is valid with today's and more importantly TOMORROWS population level.

Don't worry Etta, your green card will come through long before this short sighted policy of our government is changed.

Got facts?

-- Cynical (breedlikecrazy@americans.com), January 13, 2000.

Cynical, I do not have kids. I am a 30 year-old, white, lower middle class, American citizen (born) of two other native-born American citizens. I would like to know how you think native-born Americans "breeding like crazy" will help stem the depletion of this country's natural resources.

Fact: As a percentage of our total population, immigration in the 1990s is among the lowest in our nation's history

Fact: American Immigrants Win Nobel Prizes for 1999 One-Third of All U.S. Winners Born Abroad

Please, Cynical, don't breed.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

We recognize "carrying capacity" as a valid criterion in management of all non-human populations -- deer, cattle, catfish. We don't allow ourselves to think of it with respect to our own. But "carrying capacity" will govern us, one way or another. This is not a novel idea. Garrett Hardin has been pointing this out for the last 30 years.

See The Tragedy of the Commons [Hardin 1968]:

But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. "Space" is no escape.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. (The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed.) When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, can Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be realized?

No -- for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a theoretical one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) variables at the same time. This was clearly stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern, but the principle is implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to D'Alembert (1717-1783).

The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, any organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day ("maintenance calories"). Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by "work calories" which he takes in. Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no artI think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is impossible.

and Ethical Implications of Carrying Capacity [Hardin 1977]

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 13, 2000.

Etta, Fair question I'm surprised it just came up now as it's kinda obvious and apparent contradiction.

I'm quite cynical of government/business that would appear to have been talking out of both sides of their mouth. (The OBVIOUS need for zero population growth that was preached during my childhood and practiced later in life! Yet currently being SUBVERTED by our "representatives"! I feel the watering down of American public opinion on constitutional, environmental and legal issues may be a side affect (goal?) of this policy. This could open a Pandora's Box and affect not only the existing meager protection of our resources but our civil rights as well. There is only ONE thing I fear more than the wholesale destruction of our country and that is the wholesale destruction/extinction of our people and what we've created.

Since I know these people employ very intelligent folks to lobby/set government policy, one has to wonder about what hidden agenda dictates such a policy DESIGNED to lower the standard of living of American citizens and residents. (E.g. lower wages, and reduce if not eliminate our middle class.) Watching American middle class workers being replaced by cheaper immigrants has given me cause for concern.

Etta, So because I'm unwilling to work 7 days a week and/or 14 hours a day like my immigrant counter parts I'm lazy? Because I would like to have a life that include spending time with my family and I'm unwilling to accept lower wages and move to a lower rent district I'm lazy? Help me understand.

And the meat packers of Iowa who required a wage that would allow them to live in the SAME area THEIR FAMILIES have LIVED for DECADES are lazy too? They should have willingly sold their houses, moved to the slums, sent their wives to work, their kids to day care and happily accepted pay cuts. That's already happened in California and now we're sentencing middle America to the same fate. Just so their companies could have better profits? Huh? Those GREEDY/LAZY MEATPACKERS! Want a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why this policy exists and the AFFECT on Americans? http://numbersusa.com/cgi/text.cgi?Iowa

One irony is that I noticed you agreed with the opinion of bw. When the rat colony exceeds its ability to sustain itself what do YOU think will ensue? It will not be pretty. Who do WE USE as a "relief valve"?

When the proverbial straw breaks, and it only takes fourth grade math skills to see IT WILL BREAK, [Etta your in luck!] and SURVIVAL becomes the order of the day, one cannot help but wonder if race/religious/civil riots/fights/wars will ensue. All of these "Lazy, Soft" Americans may have trouble competing as we have NEVER had to scratch for survival against sentient beings of similar numbers.

It's true that "immigration built this country" but need it destory it as well?

Bw, what do think will occur when the straw breaks?

Etta, As I understand your position when our population doubles we should double our allowed immigration? Huh? Surely you're joking right? What about the fixed land mass we have and the DECREASING avaiable farm land and BURGEONING population? Helllloooooo....

Help me understand how we can survive? How can we house them? Where do we jail them ? Increased poverty = increased crime. California has been importing poverty for quite some time. Sorry, but cannot quote exact numbers, but I read where the number of people living below the poverty level in California has increased by many percentage points in recent years. (Great CHEEEAAAP labor pool though!) Ahthough, these poor folks have to work several jobs to survive and their kids? Well who knows? (I know they don't!) What happens when the middle American manufafcturers discover the this cheap labor pool? I think, yet more middle class Americans looking for a new line of work or declaring bankrupcy. More two wager earner families and kids left to be raised by their peers.

-- Cynical (BreedLikeCrazy@America.com), January 13, 2000.

Considering we have improved our farmland and our methods of farming since 1900, we'll be all right with our increased demand for resources. No way could this country have provided enough food for 270 million people in 1900, but it does now-and quite cheaply, I might add.

I called you a bigot earlier because you seemed to generalize all immigrants as uneducated, welfare-grabbers or 24/7 workers. I assure you, they are not. You cannot generalize people based on their desire to become citizens of the greatest country on Earth!

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

Etta, Fair question I'm surprised it just came up now as it's kinda obvious apparent contradiction.

I'm quite cynical of government/business that would appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. (The OBVIOUS need for zero population growth that was preached during my childhood and practiced later in life is being SUBVERTED by our "representatives"! I feel the watering down of American public opinion may be a side affect (goal?) of this policy. This could open a Pandora's Box and affect not only the existing meager protection of our resources but our civil rights as well. There is only ONE thing I fear more than the wholesale destruction of our country and that is the wholesale destruction/extinction of our people.

Since I know these people employ very intelligent folks to lobby/set government policy, one has to wonder about what hidden agenda dictates such a policy DESIGNED to lower the standard of living of American citizens and residents. (E.g. lower wages, and reduce if not eliminate our middle class.) Watching American middle class workers being replaced by cheaper immigrants has given me cause for concern.

Etta, So because I'm unwilling to work 7 days a week and/or 14 hours a day like my immigrant counter parts I'm lazy? Because I would like to have a life that include spending time with my family and I'm unwilling to accept lower wages and move to a lower rent district I'm lazy? Help me understand.

And the meat packers of Iowa who required a wage that would allow them to live in the SAME area THEIR FAMILIES have LIVED for DECADES are lazy too? They should have willingly sold their houses, moved to the slums, sent their wives to work, their kids to day care and happily accepted pay cuts. That's already happened in California and now we're sentencing middle America to the same fate. Just so their companies could have better profits? Huh? Those GREEDY/LAZY MEATPACKERS! Want a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why this policy exists and the AFFECT on Americans? http://numbersusa.com/cgi/text.cgi?Iowa

One irony is that I noticed you agreed with the opinion of bw. When the rat colony exceeds its ability to sustain itself what do YOU think will ensue? It will not be pretty. Who do WE USE as a "relief valve"?

When the proverbial straw breaks, and it only takes fourth grade math skills to see IT WILL BREAK, and SURVIVAL becomes the order of the day, one cannot help but wonder if race/religious/civil riots/fights/wars will ensue. All of these "Lazy, Soft" Americans may have trouble competing as we have NEVER had to scratch for survival against sentient beings of similar numbers.

What do YOU think will occur when the capitalist straw breaks as it has done consistently throughout history?

-- Elliot (Elliot127@yahoo.Com), January 13, 2000.

Only in America:

We gasp at the "relentless population growth"

AND

Gripe when HMO's won't pay for Viagra. %-}

-- Ric (ice163@worldnet.att.net), January 13, 2000.