patrick.net

why go metric now??

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

America needs ObamaFuck, ObamaBaby, and ObamaMortgage to force youngsters to breed and for their progeny to buy overpriced shacks for 100x what their parents paid for them 25.4 years before.

If it wasn't for the Mexican population here in the US we would actually be seeing negative growth.

epitaph says

If it wasn't for the Mexican population here in the US we would actually be seeing negative growth.

That is true overall...but not since about 2006 when immigration ground to a halt. In fact, some reports I read this year show the Mexican jobs economy going so strong the US may see reverse immigration and even buyer's regret for those who chose citizenship here!

You are correct about the job opportunities in Mexico, but the 2012 birth rate was barley breaking positive ground. If you remove the Latino population from the equation, this country's birth rate was in negative territory. White people had the lowest birth rates, but Asians were also not very high.

John Bailo says

I read this year show the Mexican jobs economy going so strong the US may see
reverse immigration and even buyer's regret for those who chose citizenship
here!

With the draconian FATCA, this is certainly true for many folks. Obozo the clown again.

Even at that slow rate of growth, the country's population would double in 98 years (1.0071^98 = 2.00039)

marcus says

Even at that slow rate of growth, the country's population would double

True, but we're sitting on a big die off of baby boomers waiting to happen. Japan is estimating a population crash to 1/3rd of current for same reason. China too has 1/3rd of its population in retirement age already, and 1/3rd ready to enter retirement.

So you're saying the the .071 is not sustainable ? Yeah, that's probably true.

There's that well known Ted talk that predicts global population peaking out at 10 billion. It makes a lot of sense. Great lecture if you haven't seen it. As big as the baby boom is, its big compared to what came before it, not compared to what came after. But maybe "the great fill up" isn't as big here as elsewhere (see video). Or perhaps at this point we don't even have 2 children per woman in the US.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

I think we would tremendously benefit if we undergo population reduction over next 70 years (average 1 child per couple) and then we can proceed at a replacement rate of 2.1 child per couple afterwards. The world is getting too crowded.

epitaph says

You are correct about the job opportunities in Mexico, but the 2012 birth rate was barley breaking positive ground. If you remove the Latino population from the equation, this country's birth rate was in negative territory. White people had the lowest birth rates, but Asians were also not very high.

Generally, the more affluent people become the less incentive there is to have kids due to time constraints. I believe that poorer communities tend to have more children out of subconscious desire for their offspring to have a better life. However when one is well off, it is natural to focus on hobbies, perks and conveniences that money can provide instead of breeding.

dublin hillz says

I think we would tremendously benefit if we undergo population reduction over next 70 years (average 1 child per couple) and then we can proceed at a replacement rate of 2.1 child per couple afterwards. The world is getting too crowded.

I agree. We need to make the Earth's resources last and it would help solve poverty since we'd have more resources per person.

dublin hillz says

I think we would tremendously benefit if we undergo population reduction over next 70 years (average 1 child per couple) and then we can proceed at a replacement rate of 2.1 child per couple afterwards. The world is getting too crowded.

How about we start a war? We can cut out some of that excess population and also give the economy a shot in the arm.

epitaph says

dublin hillz says

I think we would tremendously benefit if we undergo population reduction over next 70 years (average 1 child per couple) and then we can proceed at a replacement rate of 2.1 child per couple afterwards. The world is getting too crowded.

How about we start a war? We can cut out some of that excess population and also give the economy a shot in the arm.

While it would accomplish the result in theory, it is a rather inhumane path...i prefer natural attrition....the least harmful approach kinda like birth control is superior to abortion from a humanistic perspective

We need less people here, not more.

John Bailo says

Japan is estimating a population crash to 1/3rd of current for same reason.

And the place will still be too fucking crowded then too.

dublin hillz says

I think we would tremendously benefit if we undergo population reduction over next 70 years (average 1 child per couple) and then we can proceed at a replacement rate of 2.1 child per couple afterwards. The world is getting too crowded.

Sure you may agree to do this with your cultural group, but other cultural/ethnic groups will not follow suit, and then their progeny will inherit the earth. Self-selecting for genetic die-off is antithetical to any species unless it's a panda or something.

zzyzzx says

We need less people here, not more.

Good luck growing an economy with that going on.

Like there is any shortage of people looking to move to the US from around the world. Immigration is a spigot to control the flow of people, we open it and close it as necessary to keep the population increasing at a pretty specific rate. People want to live here. There are people all over the world wishing they could get over here and work their asses off over here versus the paltry money they make in their native countries.

Many of those places are used to putting many people into a house, so when you end up with a household income with 5 or 6 or 7 moderate income earners, all pitching in, housing is nothing but a dirt cheap investment for them over here.

If the economy needs more people, we'll see the spigot open up. The government simply won't let the population go negative or stagnate. The baby boomers will live for a long time yet, and we'll just open up that spigot a tiny bit more to replace them all. No big deal.

Quigley says

zzyzzx says

We need less people here, not more.

Good luck growing an economy with that going on.

The primary reason we have been brainwashed into thinking we need to grow the economy is because of our debt-based currency system that requires it in order to stay solvent.

Apart from that minor wrench in the works, why can't we just enjoy the prosperity that we have now and not be so growth-focused? It would force us to return to a sound money system and allow us to focus more on renewable energy sources, cures for disease, advances in technology, etc. (i.e., things that actually matter)

In this day and age, we have more automation than ever that can do the job of thousands of people, and it's just going to keep going that way. So what you're left with is a decreasing number of real, value-add jobs that are needed and more unemployed.

The ugly truth is that the current world population is sustained by a cobbled-together international market that distributes food from places that make it to places that don't. If we had anything go wrong there, billions would starve within a year. We aren't local and sustainable; we're global and only making it because of the same GMO and chemical farming methods so denigrated by the media.

In the next five years we can expect further summer thawing of the arctic, which will greatly increase the flow of trapped methane there into the atmosphere. Considering that this gas is 100x as effective a greenhouse as as the much-maligned carbon dioxide, this is big trouble. One summer or two could result in a 50 gigaton "burp" of arctic methane that would be equivalent to the entire carbon output of the western world since the Industrial Revolution. A rise of 2 degrees Celsius is mandatory, with a four degree in the cards within ten years. Drought conditions would prevail in the American and Canadian breadbaskets that fees the world. In two years, without intervention, the grain reserves will be gone and billions will starve.
That's just the start.
Next come the wars and the chaos.
Sound fun?

Why do so many hate suicide? If you succeed tell me about the experience.