Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Hard SF] World population expected to increase by 40% by 2050

Expand Messages
  • raybell_scot
    ... Nigeria, Congo, ... are likely to ... said. ... Some exceptions though Brandon. Utah has very low immigration (in fact I ve been told it s the whitest
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 1, 2005
      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon
      <jchance@a...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > derhexer@a... wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > Between 2005 and 2050, eight countries â€" India, Pakistan,
      Nigeria, Congo,
      > > Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States, Ethiopia and China â€"
      are likely to
      > > contribute half of the world’s population increase, the report
      said."
      >
      >
      > The list is a little misleading. The fertility rate in the
      > U.S. is 2.07 children born per woman, which is slightly
      > below the replacement rate. The only reason U.S. population
      > continues to grow is immigration.
      >
      > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

      Some exceptions though Brandon. Utah has very low immigration (in
      fact I've been told it's the "whitest" state), but a high birthrate,
      partly due to religious reasons.
    • Brandon
      ... But Utah isn t on the list. The United States is.
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2005
        raybell_scot wrote:
        >
        > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon
        > <jchance@a...> wrote:

        >>The list is a little misleading. The fertility rate in the
        >>U.S. is 2.07 children born per woman, which is slightly
        >>below the replacement rate. The only reason U.S. population
        >>continues to grow is immigration.
        >>
        >>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
        >
        >
        > Some exceptions though Brandon. Utah has very low immigration (in
        > fact I've been told it's the "whitest" state), but a high birthrate,
        > partly due to religious reasons.
        >

        But "Utah" isn't on the list. The United States is.
      • raybell_scot
        ... Therefore Utah is part of the figures. National figures are often highly misleading or mask other factors. You can t really compare Uighurstan or Tibet
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 2, 2005
          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon
          <jchance@a...> wrote:
          > But "Utah" isn't on the list. The United States is.

          Therefore Utah is part of the figures.

          National figures are often highly misleading or mask other factors.
          You can't really compare Uighurstan or Tibet with Shanghai or
          Beijing, nor can you compare properly Utah or Alaska with California
          or New Jersey. Large countries need some kind of breakdowns on them,
          for that reason.
        • Brandon
          ... No, you re clouding the issue. Pulling out one locality within the U.S. that has a high population growth rate makes no more sense than pulling out one
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 3, 2005
            raybell_scot wrote:
            >
            > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon
            > <jchance@a...> wrote:
            >
            >>But "Utah" isn't on the list. The United States is.
            >
            >
            > Therefore Utah is part of the figures.
            >
            > National figures are often highly misleading or mask other factors.
            > You can't really compare Uighurstan or Tibet with Shanghai or
            > Beijing, nor can you compare properly Utah or Alaska with California
            > or New Jersey. Large countries need some kind of breakdowns on them,
            > for that reason.


            No, you're clouding the issue. Pulling out one locality
            within the U.S. that has a high population growth rate makes
            no more sense than pulling out one locality that is rapidly
            losing population. The only important fact is that the
            U.S., as a whole, is not contributing to world population
            problems. Neither is Europe or, if you can trust their
            official figures (I don't, but what the hell) the PRC. The
            major real growth is in third world countries, which are the
            ones who can least afford having more mouths to feed. If you
            ignore that, you sabotage any effort to solve the actual
            problem.
          • derhexer@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/3/2005 10:34:06 PM Central Standard Time, ... Another issue that this doesn t address is the low birth rate among the native populations
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 3, 2005
              In a message dated 3/3/2005 10:34:06 PM Central Standard Time,
              jchance@... writes:

              > No, you're clouding the issue. Pulling out one locality
              > within the U.S. that has a high population growth rate makes
              > no more sense than pulling out one locality that is rapidly
              > losing population. The only important fact is that the
              > U.S., as a whole, is not contributing to world population
              > problems. Neither is Europe or, if you can trust their
              > official figures (I don't, but what the hell) the PRC. The
              > major real growth is in third world countries, which are the
              > ones who can least afford having more mouths to feed. If you
              > ignore that, you sabotage any effort to solve the actual
              > problem.
              >

              Another issue that this doesn't address is the low birth rate among the
              native populations of the US, Europe, Australia, and the high birth rate among
              immigrant populations. Our cities are becoming Third World enclaves. Its nice
              to think that Western Civilization is a soup pot of different cultures and
              ideals, but it is really a salad bowl and the pieces don't mix.

              I suspect that by 2105, the great cities of London, Chicago, Sydney,
              Montreal, Berlin will be indistinguishable from Karachi, Mexico City and Saigon.

              Chris


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • raybell_scot
              ... I m not clouding the issue at all. You mention the PRC, and say you can t trust their figures, but it s worth saying that I have already pointed out their
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 4, 2005
                --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon
                <jchance@a...> wrote:

                > No, you're clouding the issue. Pulling out one locality
                > within the U.S. that has a high population growth rate makes
                > no more sense than pulling out one locality that is rapidly
                > losing population. The only important fact is that the
                > U.S., as a whole, is not contributing to world population
                > problems. Neither is Europe or, if you can trust their
                > official figures (I don't, but what the hell) the PRC. The
                > major real growth is in third world countries, which are the
                > ones who can least afford having more mouths to feed. If you
                > ignore that, you sabotage any effort to solve the actual
                > problem.

                I'm not clouding the issue at all. You mention the PRC, and say you
                can't trust their figures, but it's worth saying that I have already
                pointed out their east west split. Their population control has been
                more successful in their more westernised east.

                This also ignores countries like Argentina and Brazil, which have
                great poverty, mixed rates of population growth, and at the same
                time are not Somalias or Bangladeshs.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.