How low will the natural growth rate go?

[DINGO Joe]

Births minus deaths that is.  As the boomers age and the birth rate falls, the natural growth numbers have been steadily shrinking.  From about 1.5 million in 2010 to 900,000 last year.  With the pandemic, it looks like it'll drop below 500,000 this year and possibly down to 400,000 by the end of the 1Q in 2021.  After that, any potential rebound will depend on whether the birth rate will be impacted by the pandemic and economic conditions or whether people who survived the COVID start having shortened life spans due to impact of the virus and death rates remain elevated.

The CDC/NCHS keep track of all this.  The most recent data that they keep is included in Provisional Count reports

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm

I would assume the pandemic has had an impact on immigration too, but haven't seen any data or projections on that.   

Does seem that 2020 is a lock for the lowest population growth rate since the Great Depression.

[Hope For A New Era]

Good. The world is overpopulated.

[Xeuma]

Good. The world is overpopulated.

This isn’t the true whatsoever

[ultraviolet]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Hahahahah imagine having positive natural growth (Italian)

[Idaho Conservative]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

Infinite growth simply doesn't work

[ultraviolet]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

Infinite growth simply doesn't work

Who said infinite growth

[Annatar]

Probably will not go below 400k in the short run, in the longer term deaths will rise each year due to the population getting older and births will continue to fall if TFR remains low and will fall even faster if it declines, my estimation is America will likely enter natural population decline in the early 2030's as deaths rise and births fall.

[Idaho Conservative]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

Infinite growth simply doesn't work

Who said infinite growth

well what's the limit then?  When are we full?  Already we have tons of traffic and housing crises. 

[ultraviolet]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

Infinite growth simply doesn't work

Who said infinite growth

well what's the limit then?  When are we full?  Already we have tons of traffic and housing crises. 

Traffic does not mean overcrowding. And housing crises can be solved by building more houses, the government just needs to step in and change some laws to allow people to do that easier

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

In our most prosperous times, the growth of the country was the highest. Hopefully we will do more to encourage having kids and immigration. There’s plenty of space for everyone

Infinite growth simply doesn't work

Who said infinite growth

well what's the limit then?  When are we full?  Already we have tons of traffic and housing crises. 

Presumably somewhere around 2 billion people. Not that we should ever grt that high, but America is so far from overpopulated that concerns over are completely unwarranted. Global population, by contast, is an issue albeit one with a generally workable trajectory.

[Frodo]

What is the natural population limit for the United States anyway?  I am aware there are those on the extreme right and left who claim we are already over-populated, but they obviously have their own agendas.  For everyone else, the floor is open.... 

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What is the natural population limit for the United States anyway?  I am aware there are those on the extreme right and left who claim we are already over-populated, but they obviously have their own agendas.  For everyone else, the floor is open.... 

I mean, there isn't a hard limit. It depends on lifestyle and what the rest of the world is doing. Regardless, I'd guess somewhere from 800m-1.2 billion or so--but only with immigration. The world can't handle a doubled-quadrupled America without proportional decreases in population elsewhere. Get too far above that and you start running low on water/energy/encroaching on wilderness areas.

[Skill and Chance]

What is the natural population limit for the United States anyway?  I am aware there are those on the extreme right and left who claim we are already over-populated, but they obviously have their own agendas.  For everyone else, the floor is open.... 

Probably 3-4X where we are now, but much of the West is clearly within 2X of an ecological problem and the Gulf Coast is from Louisiana east is really iffy long term.  For a 900M to 1.2B US population to be stable with current living standards/environmental quality, we would probably have to get there with 5-10X as many people living in the Great Lakes states and the Northeast and maybe Texas pending hurricane (Houston) and drought (I-35 cities) issues. 

[Tender Branson]

Good. The world is overpopulated.

True.

The fewer people there are, the better.

High population growth leads to excess capitalism and destruction of the planet.

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

[Tender Branson]

Based on the numbers from Jan.-Sept., Austria will have a massive birth deficit this year after a surplus last year.

In the first 9 months, births are down by 1.4% vs. last year and deaths up by 0.7%

But the biggest increase in deaths will come in Q4.

If births are down by 1-2%, this would result in 83-84.000 births (down from 85.000 in 2019). It is unclear if the first lockdown in March will lead to a babyboom. But this will likely only show up in the January 2021 numbers, not in the December numbers because the lockdown went into April.

Deaths are going to be up by 6-7% compared to 2019 because of a huge increase in COVID-deaths in the final quarter (ca. 89.000, up from 83.000 in 2019).

The birth rate will be 0.9%, the death rate 1.0% - for a birth deficit of ca. 5.500 people.

Still, Austria's population will grow by 40.000 this year, mostly because of EU-immigration.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Wut?

I mean, you can reasonably argue for a smaller global population but those numbers are crazy. Not to mention that it would take centuries of cruel population control and/or mass murder right now to get there. You think the entire global population of humans should be the same number of people who currently live in the State of Salzburg? Or who live within a ~40 minute walk of my home? I mean, come on.

[Tender Branson]

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Wut?

I mean, you can reasonably argue for a smaller global population but those numbers are crazy. Not to mention that it would take centuries of cruel population control and/or mass murder right now to get there. You think the entire global population of humans should be the same number of people who currently live in the State of Salzburg? Or who live within a ~40 minute walk of my home? I mean, come on.

It's not that bad to have a global population of only 1 million.

Think about it.

It's much healthier for the planet and people would live in small tribes/cities.

There could be one advanced city on each continent with 200.000 people - who are living a green, non-capitalist lifestyle and who commit to rigorous population control so that the population remains stable at one million globally forever.

Also, it would not need "cruel population control and/or mass murder" to decimate the current 8 billion to 1 million:

There could be a powerful, nature-made virus infecting men & women and making 99.99% of them infertile - with no vaccine against it.

Even if 99.99% of humans would become infertile suddenly because of a powerful virus created by mother Earth (she could eventually want to decimate humans ...), the human species would still live on in considerable but declining numbers for about 130 years until only a million or so is left.

The million people remaining would be very resilient and would likely engage in a green lifestyle full of arts and science instead of capitalist consumerism ...

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Wut?

I mean, you can reasonably argue for a smaller global population but those numbers are crazy. Not to mention that it would take centuries of cruel population control and/or mass murder right now to get there. You think the entire global population of humans should be the same number of people who currently live in the State of Salzburg? Or who live within a ~40 minute walk of my home? I mean, come on.

It's not that bad to have a global population of only 1 million.

Think about it.

It's much healthier for the planet and people would live in small tribes/cities.

There could be one advanced city on each continent with 200.000 people - who are living a green, non-capitalist lifestyle and who commit to rigorous population control so that the population remains stable at one million globally forever.

That sounds horrible. And you evidently want to force everyone to relocate into such a lifestyle because? And why so low? What's the benefit? Would twenty cities on each continent be so much worse? It would only be 1/1000th of the current number after all. But I guess we're going to tear down Paris and London and Vienna because Tender Branson doesn't like that people like them.

Also, it would not need "cruel population control and/or mass murder" to decimate the current 8 billion to 1 million:

There could be a powerful, nature-made virus infecting men & women and making 99.99% of them infertile - with no vaccine against it.

Even if 99.99% of humans would become infertile suddenly because of a powerful virus created by mother Earth (she could eventually want to decimate humans ...), the human species would still live on in considerable but declining numbers for about 130 years until only a million or so is left.

The million people remaining would be very resilient and would likely engage in a green lifestyle full of arts and science instead of capitalist consumerism ...

So your big idea is that a devastating virus that probably doesn't exist in nature somehow comes into being and kills almost everyone's chance of ever having children to kill capitalism even though most people like capitalism. Seems a bit far-fetched to plan a future around. It isn't like virus manufacturing happens by intelligent design.

I mean, are you interested in serious policy ideas, like promoting birth control and women's rights and economic development around the globe so that the human population in 2100 is 7 billion instead of 10 billion, or are you just going to pray for a f**king plague because you don't like how people choose to live.

Remember, even before the modern population boom, the human population hovered around 1 billion without any serious impact on the environment. Setting a target population below that isn't about environmental preservation--it's about being a misanthrope.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Love the way you think Tender. 1 million seems absurdly tiny but a good colleague of mine routinely argues for the same. I try to fight 'im up to 1-3 billion (with general decline being a more realistic goal), but Go Green or Go Home!

[Tender Branson]

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Wut?

I mean, you can reasonably argue for a smaller global population but those numbers are crazy. Not to mention that it would take centuries of cruel population control and/or mass murder right now to get there. You think the entire global population of humans should be the same number of people who currently live in the State of Salzburg? Or who live within a ~40 minute walk of my home? I mean, come on.

It's not that bad to have a global population of only 1 million.

Think about it.

It's much healthier for the planet and people would live in small tribes/cities.

There could be one advanced city on each continent with 200.000 people - who are living a green, non-capitalist lifestyle and who commit to rigorous population control so that the population remains stable at one million globally forever.

That sounds horrible. And you evidently want to force everyone to relocate into such a lifestyle because? And why so low? What's the benefit? Would twenty cities on each continent be so much worse? It would only be 1/1000th of the current number after all. But I guess we're going to tear down Paris and London and Vienna because Tender Branson doesn't like that people like them.

Also, it would not need "cruel population control and/or mass murder" to decimate the current 8 billion to 1 million:

There could be a powerful, nature-made virus infecting men & women and making 99.99% of them infertile - with no vaccine against it.

Even if 99.99% of humans would become infertile suddenly because of a powerful virus created by mother Earth (she could eventually want to decimate humans ...), the human species would still live on in considerable but declining numbers for about 130 years until only a million or so is left.

The million people remaining would be very resilient and would likely engage in a green lifestyle full of arts and science instead of capitalist consumerism ...

So your big idea is that a devastating virus that probably doesn't exist in nature somehow comes into being and kills almost everyone's chance of ever having children to kill capitalism even though most people like capitalism. Seems a bit far-fetched to plan a future around. It isn't like virus manufacturing happens by intelligent design.

I mean, are you interested in serious policy ideas, like promoting birth control and women's rights and economic development around the globe so that the human population in 2100 is 7 billion instead of 10 billion, or are you just going to pray for a f**king plague because you don't like how people choose to live.

Remember, even before the modern population boom, the human population hovered around 1 billion without any serious impact on the environment. Setting a target population below that isn't about environmental preservation--it's about being a misanthrope.

1 billion worldwide a thousand years ago is completely different to 1 billion today.

A thousand years ago, humans largely impacted the environment by deforesting large parts of Europe and Asia.

Today, it would A) take a very long time to naturally decline from 8 billion to 1 billion again and B) during that time the world would largely be destroyed by our current way of living.

Therefore, the nature-made infertility virus would reduce the population very quickly from 8 billion to 1 million within 5 generations (130 years) and like it or not, 1 million sounds like common-sense and not misanthropic.

It would allow Earth to regenerate from the damages of the human species, but it would definitely need vigorous future population control and a Green lifestyle from the remaining 1 million people as well. Otherwise, humans would reproduce again to 8 billion within a few hundred years ...

[Former President tack50]

Good. The world is overpopulated.

True.

The fewer people there are, the better.

High population growth leads to excess capitalism and destruction of the planet.

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Ok Thanos

[Tender Branson]

Do you guys not believe that high population growth (+80 million per year) leads to excess capitalism and the destruction of the environment and biosphere ?

Why do you guys again have red (= leftwing) avatars ?

Please switch to R/blue avatars instead. Thanks.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Do you guys not believe that high population growth (+80 million per year) leads to excess capitalism and the destruction of the environment and biosphere ?

Why do you guys again have red (= leftwing) avatars ?

Please switch to R/blue avatars instead. Thanks.

THERE IS NO HAY LEFT IN THE ENTIRE AUSTRIA ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU USED IT ALL TO MAKE THIS STRAWMAN

Show the logical link between "too high population growth leads to environmental destruction" (which is true) to "we need 99.99% of the population to just disappear".



Also YOU ask red avatars to switch to blue (intending that they are actually right-wingers)? THE PROJECTION!

[ultraviolet]

Good. The world is overpopulated.

True.

The fewer people there are, the better.

High population growth leads to excess capitalism and destruction of the planet.

A human population of 100.000 to 1 million globally would be much better.

99.99% of the current world population needs to disappear.

Looks like we found the Avengers’ next villain