MusicAdventurer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 268
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The U.S. population growth rate is slowing.
Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history.
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?
Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?
If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?
I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic
Why?
Population Profile of the United States
There doesn't seem to be a need to control U.S. population growth.
Studies have shown that when families are in times of hardship, they have more children. For example, countries that aren't developed have more children as do the poor in the U.S. and so on.
If things were to get worse financially speaking for the vast majority of the population, we may see a rise in birth rates again.
I disagree, but I'm not gonna debate that now. I wanted to comment on the below.Overpopulation is not a problem globally, and certainly not in the United States.
the solution is not direct population controls: It's to reduce poverty, reduce infant mortality, improve women's rights, make birth control widely available, and increase education. Virtually every society that has taken these actions has seen its birth rate fall dramatically.
Essentially there are two things that cause population growth: Births and immigration.
The birth rate in the US is just barely above the replacement level, so it's highly unlikely that we could achieve significant results by limiting births. Even in China, with its draconian one-child policy, the ACTUAL fertility rate is 1.54 whereas ours is 2.06. So even if we believed that our overall population growth was a problem and imposing extreme birth control measures was the correct way to go about it, China's example suggests that it really wouldn't give us that much bang for our buck. To put this in perspective, Canada's fertility rate is about the same as China's, but without the one-child policy. Furthermore, China's one-child policy has had horrendous consequences: There are far more males than females who are born in China, due to the abortion of females. This is going to cause huge problems because all of these extra men are not going to be able to get married, which will have negative effects on China's social stability and the health of its citizens.
The other way we might control our population is through immigration. Most of our population growth comes from immigration, rather than births, and I'm strongly opposed to reducing it. For one thing, the economic costs of doing so would greatly outweigh the economic benefits. As it relates to this issue, shutting off immigration wouldn't even solve the "problem" (if it were a problem) anyway, it would just push it somewhere else.
Finally, I question why the size of our population is a problem in the first place. The United States spans an entire continent and has a mere 300 million people; if anything we are underpopulated. A larger population would allow for more economies of scale in terms of providing human services, would make public transportation much more cost-effective, and would offer additional manpower to solving the world's most pressing issues.
Overpopulation is not a problem globally, and certainly not in the United States. There are certain PARTS of the world that are overpopulated like South Asia, but even there the solution is not direct population controls: It's to reduce poverty, reduce infant mortality, improve women's rights, make birth control widely available, and increase education. Virtually every society that has taken these actions has seen its birth rate fall dramatically.
Those have different causes though. In developing countries, there are several reasons that a family might choose to have more kids: 1) Infant mortality is higher. Families have additional children to hedge against the tragic reality that some of them will not survive into adulthood. 2) The opportunity cost is lower. If families aren't able to earn high incomes anyway, then their time simply isn't that valuable and they aren't missing out on much by spending their time raising kids. 3) Among subsistence farmers, children are a financial asset rather than a financial liability as they are here. An extra child means an extra worker to bring in income for the family, rather than an extra mouth to feed. 4) In some societies, birth control is unavailable, unaffordable, socially taboo, and/or completely unknown. Additionally, women may not have the same freedom that men do to pursue a career, and are expected to raise kids.
Among the poor in the US, #1 and #3 don't really apply. #2 does in a way...the opportunity cost is lower for low-income people to raise extra kids, but it's still a lot higher than it is for a poor person in the developing world. I think the big issue among America's poor is #4 as it relates to birth control. Many people don't have birth control, don't really understand how it works or how effective it is, or simply choose not to use it for whatever reason.
I think that's questionable, at least as it relates to the US. Merely putting people in a worse financial situation would not make them unlearn what they know about birth control, or cause it to no longer be available. That's more of a cultural thing then anything else, stemming from long-term poverty. From a global perspective, another economic downturn might or might not cause an increase in birth rates, depending on what policies the governments in question pursued. There is no reason that a recession should inevitably result in higher birth rates.
Yeah, I suppose you are right for now.
However, while it is currently slowing, it may not continue so. What about the future? Do you think there will be an equal (or close to equal) ratio of people dying to people being born? Studies have shown that when families are in times of hardship, they have more children. For example, countries that aren't developed have more children as do the poor in the U.S. and so on.
If things were to get worse financially speaking for the vast majority of the population, we may see a rise in birth rates again.
What would your position on it be if population proved to be a problem?
I agree with what Kandahar said. Population controls are never the answer. If you do that, you end up like China. The answer is reducing poverty and improving education. Anyway, we're nowhere near having a population problem in the US yet. We're up to our ears in food.
Were it to become a problem, though the reasons for families having more children in undeveloped countries has no application in the U.S., of course I couldn't sanction population control. Government control of who, when and how many children a U.S. couple could have, would and should be challenged in courts as an infringement on our rights. That's not even taking into account how such laws have a unintentional consequences, as in China. Their one-family, one-child law is a disaster.
Its more of a hypothetical question that I have found most people dodge by saying its not a problem now (which it may not be). However, I want to see what people actually think in terms of "what if" - what if it were to become a problem? What if immigration were to become a problem? We all know both are plausible .. so what would we do? There is nothing wrong with considering solutions to problems that have not already been realized. It shows good character to be able to face hard problems head on.
Well, I'll stick with my original answers as far as birthrates go. Education and eliminating poverty are always better than trying to legislate babies. If immigration were to become so high, it actually caused overpopulation? Well, it would have to get really high for that to happen. If we were really getting so many immigrants that we didn't have a place to put all of them, I guess we wouldn't have any option but to crack down on immigration. That would at least reduce it to somewhere around current levels. I don't think we'll ever be able to get much lower than current levels, though, not while the US-Mexico border is the most unequal in the world. We have a very long way to go before immigration becomes a problem in that way, though.
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?
Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?
If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?
I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic
Do you believe in the right to land/property (enough that one person could live off) at birth or do you believe we humans can claim land in our own name (for the sake of argument lest just keep this within the United States)?
You also did not address my concern regarding living wages ... ?
I must have missed that bit. I do believe in private property. Giving people enough land to live off of isn't really practical, and it implies that people should be farmers. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to work for a good wage, enough to support a family on. How much work that actually is depends on how much work is needed to keep society running, and how many other workers there are available.
OK, well there's no point in arguing more about population because we don't agree on that point and it is important in my mind. There should be enough land for all of us to live off .. this could mean through modern ways, no man/woman should be born without it. Ownership of land without allowing the government to own some chunk of it to pass on to new generations is immoral and only encourages hoarding. Similarly, I believe all people should have a right to equal education and equal wealth when they are born ... anything else would not be equal opportunity. This still allows for competition as whoever is the wisest with their wealth, does the best. I of course am also for social safety nets (which likely not be needed to the extent they are now if the above conditions were met).
I am sure you can see by now how this could affect one's view on population.
Well, I'll stick with my original answers as far as birthrates go. Education and eliminating poverty are always better than trying to legislate babies. If immigration were to become so high, it actually caused overpopulation? Well, it would have to get really high for that to happen. If we were really getting so many immigrants that we didn't have a place to put all of them, I guess we wouldn't have any option but to crack down on immigration.
The image that comes to mind when I read your comment is one of a lobster slowly being boiled to death and not realizing it. There is data online which can show you how much of our population today is the result of immigrants who've arrived in the last, say, 20 years plus their progeny.
There is also data online which shows how commute times are increasing for people. For instance, between 1990 and 2000 there was a 50% increase in the number of people who commuted more than 60 minutes to their job.
Stressed city infrastructure, water restrictions, overcrowded public schools, skyrocketing property taxes, are all related to increased population use of the social infrastructure. City boundaries extending into wildlife areas, increased forest fire risk to homes .
When you have a stable social foundation and you add more people to that foundation, the new additions have to be positive economic contributors in order to keep the systems functioning as they are or improving them via more funding. When the newcomers are not carrying their weight, then they have to be subsidized and that reduces the quality of the public sphere.
What exactly do you see as trigger points for there being too many people in the US? How about sprinkler bans for outdoor watering? They used to be unheard of in non-desert areas 40 years ago.
Should the U.S. start controlling our population?
Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?
If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?
I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic
Equal education, yes, absolutely. Health care should also be a guarantee. Wealth itself isn't going to be equal unless you either have an entirely communist state or you raise babies communally, neither of which I support. The thing with giving people land is that there isn't enough of it for what you have in mind. I'm a strong supporter of vertical urbanization as a solution to suburban sprawl, so that kind of makes giving people land impractical. In terms of social safety nets, I'm only in favor of traditional welfare for seniors and the disabled. We'll make sure you get a good job, but you actually need to work if you expect the government to support you. For people who manage to screw that up, I had an idea where people can basically voluntarily put themselves in prison, which would involved labor gangs, until they get their **** straightened out.
Actually, all babies could easily be only given a certain amount of money and be allowed the same level of education; they could easily be given some partition of land or something equivalent to it (in terms of value) in order to make up for our folly of not thinking about land/property rights sooner.
So under your form of safety net .. will that job be a paying wage?
If so, I believe we are on the same page (almost .. I don't think your on the property/land rights bandwagon)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?