So the US population hit 300 million.. and i need your thoughts on it..

[Jake D]

<Pokes 3imo with stick.  Chuckles.>

[3imo]

* 3imo says "STOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

[RVertigo]

Dude...  Just don't have kids and you won't care.


When the U.S. falls harder than Rome, you can just pick up and find somewhere else to live...  You don't have to worry about keeping the little rugrats alive.  You just have to worry about #1 (and #2 if you're married).



So, here are my thoughts on the population increase...

First, look at the statistics of who's having the kids...  People that REALLY think about having kids aren't having many...  Rich, educated people aren't having many...  Three at most...  Some aren't having any kids.  People that DON'T think about it are having lots of kids...   Poor, uneducated people are having as many as they happen to have...  One... Twelve...  You know, whatever happens.


So, take that trend and fast forward 5 generations.


But, you see...  I'll be long, long, long dead...  So, why the f%$k do I care?

(And yes, I just said that if you're shitting out lots of kids, you're f%$king stupid.  Rarr)

[Jake D]

Sub 2 treats problem, not symptom.  Hey, wait.  So do sub 1 and sub 3.  Wooopsies!!

Relax guys.  I've got this one figured out already.  Here is my three phase plan.
Phase 1: Get certain religions to relax their views on the use of birth control.  This would have a wide sweeping effect.
Phase 2: Require anyone that receives state social assistance to submit to a yearly Depoprevera shot.  You want babies?  Show us you can keep a job. 
Phase 3: Get our government, as well as others, and all the major religions to start teaching the idea that you should only be directly responsible for the production of two children.  That means you and your wife can only have two between you.  If you only have one kid in your first marriage, only have one in your second, but then only if your second wife has only had none previously.  The Idea here people, is that if we only "replace" our self and our spouse on this planet, the population shouldn't grow.  In other words: "This child is mine.  He replaces me on the planet.  This child over here is my wifes.  She replaces her on this planet.  Two in, two out.  We're even steven, thanks for playing."

[3imo]

First, look at the statistics of who's having the kids...  People that REALLY think about having kids aren't having many...  Rich, educated people aren't having many...  

 People that DON'T think about it are having lots of kids...   Poor, uneducated people are having as many as they happen to have...  One... Twelve...  You know, whatever happens.

Where'd you get your stats?  Worldwide you may have a bit of a point. just a bit. Poorer nations tend to have cultures that have a lot of children.
These "stupid" poor people still live in a society where you are more likely to survive if you have a large household.

the Idea that they are ALL not thinking about their future and just having kids whenever they just happen to get pregnant is "STUPID".

We are all so absorbed in our own lives that we all just don't even try to consider why those different from us live the way they do. It is so much easier to label them "stupid " and take the high road.

So much easier to just let them die for being "stupid".
-----

Then there are the "smart" rich peolple who know how to think and plan for the future. They have it all figured out. Don't they?

In my humble opinion, I believe that some people in our society choose to not have children because they want a good life for themselves. I have actually met and served in Iraq with a guy who choose this path in life. He can afford the 32' rims on his Escalade and his trips to Spain or Australia.
To him that is the definition of wealth.

To me My children define my wealth in life.  I do not mean to say this guy is wrong. I believe choosing to procreate is not something to take lightly.

I think RV is mistaken. Not for calling us "baby makers" Stupid. I will cry about that later.  I mean It isn't hard to witness social trends and come to a twisted conclusion.

Many rich and poor families choose not to have children. Many Rich and poor people choose to have multiple children.  The Social trend in the U.S. for the last ....say 50 years, is to have less children.

Is that because we Americans are smarter now? Did my being more educated than my Grandparents, cause me to have only 4 kids instead of 8?
NO. I grew up in a society that tends to have less children.

you know your my Boy, RV.  Don't get your feelings hurt if I disagree with ya..

[3imo]

Sub 2 treats problem, not symptom.  Hey, wait.  So do sub 1 and sub 3.  Wooopsies!!

The only "problem" they treat is people having babies.  The problem isn't people having babies.

[Jake D]

I personally have seen a woman have the State, aka DFS or Division of Family Services, take 8 kids away.  8 terminations of parental rights.  The kids get taken away because of neglect and because mom is a drugged out.  Then the kids go into foster care, up for adoption.  But some, if not most of them, were pretty screwed up by their natural parents.  That is one of my concerns.  There are so many kids that are wards of the state because they are unwanted, or worse, they parents have them just so they can get an increase in their subsidies from the state.  Unwanted children and using children to get state money are two problems, whether you know about it or not, and whether you want to believe it or not. 

I think your problem is, you have no idea what the problem is.

[BaoQingTian]

So the solution is there should be no agricultural societies? 

Not quite what I was driving at, but I suspect you knew that.  Although the United States is definately an industrialized nation, it actually produces a surplus of food.  Through technology we've been able to minimize human labor and produce more food as a result.  

In other words, the amount of food that used to take villages of 50 families with 15 people per family to produce can now be produced by a couple of guys and a tractor.  

[pandy]

Have you ever been outside the country and seen how other people live in these 3rd world countries? 

Many times. 

I see your point about basic medical care, although I disagree with you slightly about it's availability here in the U.S.-there are a number of sliding scale or free clinics to help the poor, as well as government programs.  However, isolationalism until we fix our own problems is a pipe dream.  Historically, isolationism is a dead end both economically and politically.

I don't think anyone is suggesting isolationism. My point was that if we can't manage something successfully in our own country, how are we going to "teach" or help the rest of the world to do what we haven't accomplished? If we don't have a universal health-care system here, should we go up to Canada and teach them how to do it? Their system might not be perfect, but folks aren't going bankrupt due to catastrophic illness.

Too many people in our country are too close to losing everything in order to get treatment. If you have no money, then you can get Medicaid for medical treatment. If you're rich, you can afford to pay for your own. If you're in the middle class, you can suffer tremendously even if you have medical insurance.

I know one lady who recently became disabled, and she's going through the process of being authorized for Social Security Disability. She cannot work. She owns a home. She lost her job due to her medical problems. SSD can take up to a year or more to be approved. This lady has no income, and she cannot get any sort of assistance. She's spent her retirement on medical bills....all of it.... She'll likely lose her home before she's able to get any assistance. She's worked hard all of her life, and her health problems will now likely cause her to lose everything. She's unable to get medical treatment right now, because she's "house rich." Ok. She can sell her home! How will she pay for food and medical treatment during the time it takes her to sell her house and for SSD to start coming in?

I agree that Cal shared some excellent points. I'm not a particular fan of any politician at the moment; I think too many of them are too short-sighted, plus, they're worried more about the partyline right now than what's good for our country and its citizens. I was raised by ditto-head Republicans, but I can see the benefits of some of the things Cal listed from Clinton's speech being applied here at home, too. Imagine how much better off we as a society would be if everyone had access to higher education. Yes, I believe that we can all raise ourselves by our bootstraps and put ourselves through college (yup, I did it), but how about advanced education for all? We can't afford it? Well, how much have we spent in Iraq? How many weapons are now missing? How much government money is simply squandered and wasted?

Perhaps if some of this money was spent on the basic infrastructure here, we'd be in a much better position to help the rest of the world. Teach a man to fish.....

That doesn't mean that I believe we shouldn't invest in the infrastructures of other countries, too. One could argue that that's what we're doing in Iraq, but did we go about it the right way? Could we have done better? Have we learned from our experience? Is Iraq another Vietnam, or is this a different learning experience?

There are many things we can do to help other countries that help us that don't involve giving foreign aid. Bush's guest worker program is a good example of this.  It would potentially help Mexico economically, the U.S. economy, and both Mexican and U.S. citizens individually.

We have at least two guest-worker programs: the H-1(b) Temporary Guest Worker Program and the L-1 "Intra-Company" Transfer Visa. The H-1(b)  program has a cap and a rule that companies must pay the prevailing wage for the workers they sponser. That cap has a number of exemptions. The L-1 program has no cap and no prevailing-wage rule. These programs purport to fill jobs that can't be filled by U.S. citizens, but last time I checked, we had a number of fine candidates for employment here. Do we really need yet another guest-worker program?

I have absolutely no objection to forming another mutually-beneficial partnership with Mexico, but I do disagree with slapping all the folks who've patiently waited and jumped through the numerous hoops in order to become citizens legally. Hospitals are in desperate financial states due to the federal dictate that they must treat anyone who presents with an emergency. This problem is being particularly felt by those states/counties who've had large influxes of illegals.

Here's an idea for controlling the U.S. population: when our nation was first born, its founders wanted to increase its population. They declared that anyone born here would automatically be considered a citizen of the U.S. Well, I don't think we're in desperate need of more citizens to populate the land, so how about changing that rule? How about a new rule: a child's parents must be citizens in order for a baby born here to be a citizen upon birth. This eliminates any incentive for citizens of other countries to illegally enter the U.S. to bear their children, and it saves hospitals from the burdens of financing the births of these new little citizens.

Obviously, no one thing is going to solve the world's population-growth problem (if there is a problem), but there can be small steps both locally and globally that can help. 

[3imo]

I think your problem is, you have no idea what the problem is.

Sure, drugg addicted mommas are a problem.  I believe in that. 
Sure mommas having children to get money is a problem. I can see that. 

I think your problem is, you have no Idea what problem I am talking about.  The Problem of the World's Overpopulation.
(coincidentally mentioned in the title of this thread)

Overpopulation causes strains on societies. The problem is not people having babies (even crack whores).

A symptom of Overpopulation is the belief that it is caused by future births, instead of the way we treat the world and communicate with our neighbors.

[pandy]

Ok....I'm a little confused here..... overpopulation isn't caused by people having babies?   

[3imo]

I know right.  Iv'e repeated the same statement over and over.

Am I really that wrong?

[BaoQingTian]

Right pandy, at least not necessarily.  Overpopulation is inherently related to carrying capacity-it's meaningless to talk about 'over'-population unless you know what the max population is (carrying capacity).  

I think what 3imo may be talking about is distribution of resources.  If you are able to continually increase the carrying capacity of the environment, then continued population growth (having more babies) is not a problem whatsoever.  Unfortunately, since we are currently confined to just one planet, there will be eventually be a maximum amount that we can increase our carrying capacity.  

Of course, 3imo is free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what he's getting at.

[3imo]

yeah, what he said!!

Don't hold it against me that I cannot convey my message intelligently.

Thanks BaoQingTian.  just don't poke me with a stick.

[pandy]

Don't hold it against me that I cannot convey my message intelligently.

It was I who didn't understand it intelligently!   Thanks for clarifying for me, BaoQingTian! 

This seems like an extremely difficult formula to come up with. You have people being born, people dying, and technology advancing. So how does one determine what's too much or what's sustainable? And who decides? Is this a political issue or a scientific one...or both!?

I love discussions that raise as many or more questions than they answer! 

[Jake D]

I know right.  Iv'e repeated the same statement over and over.

Am I really that wrong?

Since you asked. 

Yep!

What your saying is, we don't need fewer people.  We just need more stuff to give to them.  The QVC theory.  Ah, so.

Novel.  When you see the Bladrunner, tell him I said, "sup?".

[BaoQingTian]

pandy-
Unfortunately, carrying capacity concepts pertaining to humans are currently impossible to calculate.  There are so many variables involved when you're dealing with an intelligent, sentient species like humans.  The current ecological models don't apply.  Also, you start having to make pesky value judgements.  For example, letting the weaker die off due to famine would probably be frowned on as a way to bring human population to sustainable levels (not that I'm saying they are currently unsustainable).  And what's the quality of life for people crammed into apartments like sardines in a can, eating overly processed foods as they put on their masks to emerge into their polluted city. 

Offhand, I wonder if the obesity epidemic will be a natural population limiter, resulting in dramatically dropping population rate due to decreased fertility, earlier death, more disease, in combination with the general trend to births later in life. 

Regarding your question about people dying, being born, etc.  According to the CIA factbook, the fertility rate for women in the U.S. for 2006 is 2.09 children per women.  From what I understand this is just barely enough to keep a level population and prevent population implosion (a problem much of Europe is facing).  Hence my earlier statements about the U.S. population growth being almost entirely due to immigration.

The big unknown is simply determining carrying capacity for humans.  I've seen everything from 1 billion to 15 billion thrown around.

[RVertigo]

Where'd you get your stats?

I don't recall my source (it was several years back), so I'll just have to site "Out of My Ass."


And...  The Rich, Smart thing was supposed to be two groups...  Meaning...  Rich people don't have 12 kids and Smart people don't have 12 kids...  Then...  Stupid people do have 12 kids and poor people do have 12 kids...

It's NOT a RULE, it's a general statistic...   Just like the statistic that "Conservative" states have a higher divorce rate.


I don't make this shaZam! up...  I'm just too lazy to look it up.

[BaoQingTian]

It's NOT a RULE, it's a general statistic...   Just like the statistic that "Conservative" states have a higher divorce rate.

I've always been interested in seeing what the divorce rates would be if adjusted against the marriage rates.  Let me know if you come across it, cause so far no luck for me.

[RVertigo]

The info I saw on that one had all kinds of statistics that basically came down to:  People in Red States are less likely to stay married...

It was one of those "Liberal Media Propaganda" stories "Attacking the 'Perfect' Republican Party."