High Growth Rates

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

and i find it ironic that the "Earth-first" sustainability crowd is the one advocating for letting another 700 billion people into this country

That doesn't increase the world's total population. It just redistributes it. Indeed, immigrants here are less likely to have children then in their home country, so it actually could control global growth.

[Person Man]

and i find it ironic that the "Earth-first" sustainability crowd is the one advocating for letting another 700 billion people into this country

That doesn't increase the world's total population. It just redistributes it. Indeed, immigrants here are less likely to have children then in their home country, so it actually could control global growth.

You can make an argument that having relatively fluid immigration will do better to allocate natural resources than a more stifled system.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Many of the "earth-first" people like TenderBranson are really just watermelons.. green on the outside, but red, black, and white on the inside.  They want immigrants to stay away in their own impoverished land... but under the careful supervision of the know-betters in Europe or green organizations who will ensure they do not develop dirty sources of power to fuel their economy...

As for population growth... the vast majority of that will not be due to increased births (but decreased deaths)... human fertility rates are dropping rapidly the world over and has been negative in east Asia since the '80s, in the U.S. since the '70s, and in parts of Eurpe (Germany, Austria) for the majority of the time since World War I.  The number of births to ethnic Germans has dropped from 2 million at the turn of the 20th century to about 500,000-600,000 today.

Japan is also recording record low numbers of babies since statistics began in the 1880s!

You must realize that in places like Africa, population density is very low.  There's a reason there are still mass migrations of huge animals across large swaths of Africa.  Nobody lives there!  Of course we want to preserve this... but with investments in better agriculture practices and concentrated urbanization, Africa can grow without destroying their natural gems.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

and i find it ironic that the "Earth-first" sustainability crowd is the one advocating for letting another 700 billion people into this country

That doesn't increase the world's total population. It just redistributes it. Indeed, immigrants here are less likely to have children then in their home country, so it actually could control global growth.

You can make an argument that having relatively fluid immigration will do better to allocate natural resources than a more stifled system.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

There was actually a study done back in 2013 that examined what would happened if immigration increased to 10 million per year (up from the current 1.2 million annually). By 2100, the US would become the world's most populous country by far, with 1.6 billion people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

[Nyvin]

There was actually a study done back in 2013 that examined what would happened if immigration increased to 10 million per year (up from the current 1.2 million annually). By 2100, the US would become the world's most populous country by far, with 1.6 billion people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

If anything immigration is set to decline in the future since the youth bulges in latin america are mostly over.  20-30 years from now 10 million per year might not even be possible,  fertility rates everywhere are falling.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

There was actually a study done back in 2013 that examined what would happened if immigration increased to 10 million per year (up from the current 1.2 million annually). By 2100, the US would become the world's most populous country by far, with 1.6 billion people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

If anything immigration is set to decline in the future since the youth bulges in latin america are mostly over.  20-30 years from now 10 million per year might not even be possible,  fertility rates everywhere are falling.

Population growth will continue in Africa, which is projected to grow to more than 4 billion people by the end of this century. It's also is the place I've always predicted the next big wave of immigrants will come from. Right now most African immigrants are highly educated, but as the African nations develop more lower-middle class people will seek to come here, which will be...interesting.

Plus there will be plenty of climate refugees around the world to go around.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

There was actually a study done back in 2013 that examined what would happened if immigration increased to 10 million per year (up from the current 1.2 million annually). By 2100, the US would become the world's most populous country by far, with 1.6 billion people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

If anything immigration is set to decline in the future since the youth bulges in latin america are mostly over.  20-30 years from now 10 million per year might not even be possible,  fertility rates everywhere are falling.

Population growth will continue in Africa, which is projected to grow to more than 4 billion people by the end of this century. It's also is the place I've always predicted the next big wave of immigrants will come from. Right now most African immigrants are highly educated, but as the African nations develop more lower-middle class people will seek to come here, which will be...interesting.

Plus there will be plenty of climate refugees around the world to go around.

I agree with all the above. Don't forget about much of Asia too--Bangladesh, and Indonesia seems particularly likely to have high immigrant outflows that aren't yet showing up.

[Former President tack50]

Did you people ever think that most if us dont wanna live in high density areas teeming with condos and apartments? There are enough people in America as it is, and i find it ironic that the "Earth-first" sustainability crowd is the one advocating for letting another 700 billion people into this country

For all what's worth around 2/3 of Spaniards live in flats instead of houses and we manage just fine. Then again that's the highest in the EU, even post-Soviet states with tons of commieblocks have more house dwellers. The numbers for the entire EU are like this:



I guess if American cities became more dense like their european counterparts they could fit more people. According to this website, even the state with the most people living in appartments (New York) still has only 25% appartments, well below the EU average of 42%.

[Former President tack50]

Did you people ever think that most if us dont wanna live in high density areas teeming with condos and apartments? There are enough people in America as it is, and i find it ironic that the "Earth-first" sustainability crowd is the one advocating for letting another 700 billion people into this country

The US with a billion people would have about the same population density as Austria, and a lower density than France or the EU as a whole. Meanwhile, the effect of this would not be adding new people, but decreasing the human population longterm while increasing global wealth massively.

To be fair the US has a lot more inhospitable land than Austria or France. I doubt you could get high or even moderate population densities in places like say, rural Alaska.

[Torie]

Yes, I agree with Tender that in most cases high population growth rates are bad. It might make sense in place like Australia that is big, in order to create more economies of scale, leading to a higher per capita income.