# 6 billion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 1999, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312 "1999-10-13T00:02:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 1999, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/141 "1999-11-05T14:08:00Z")
**John John** : > [@](#): > > I would agree that one poster left upset and frustrated because his views were not adopted as gospel and in fact challenged as inaccurate. I think that is to be expected. Since I am the only poster who had declared an intent to leave, I believe that this calumny is directed at me. Go back (as you never do) and actually _ **READ** _ what I said. At the point where I bowed out you had dismissed a number of **factual** posts by at least four posters, simply claiming that the information was “wishful thinking” and presenting **no evidence** to challenge any single **fact** that had been presented. Since that time, (probably spurred by my accusation), you have at least begun providing quotes from various places. You still follow the ancient Cyberian54 method of 1) laying a quote on the table, 2) failing to analyze anything in it critically, and 3) claiming that the quote “proves” some conclusion that you appear to be incapable of drawing, yourself. I did not drop out because my word was not treated as gospel. (It never is, to begin with, and **Akutsami** and **dhanson** have been carrying the heavy water in this discussion, anyway; I was simply trying to get you to _look_ at the information rather than typing platitudes.) I have posted to numerous threads where both my facts and opinions have been challenged. I have never left a thread simply because my view was not accepted. If my facts are proven to be in error, I acknowledge that. If my opinions are held to be in error, I will discuss the situation until I change, my opponent changes, or we agree to disagree. I dropped out because I have been through this several times with you before (over the last two years), trying to use reason and discussion even when other posters were calling for your evisceration, and I now find that your techniques have not improved in any way in the several months since our last go around. If anyone joins this discussion on “your side” who appears to be capable of rational discourse, I may return. If God strikes you with the capacity for reasoned discussion, I may return. Until then, I’ll save my pearls. I type too slowly to justify extended conversations with walls. * * * Tom~ ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/142 "1999-11-06T01:02:00Z")
Drive}} > [@](#): > > Repeating from my first post on this topic: Birth rates have been declining ( **developing** countries: from over 6 children/couple in 1950 down to 3; **developed** countries: from 3.3 to 1.6). Source? Birht rates have not been decreasing in the developing, third world countries.Sierra Club is not of that opinion and I would suggest you check out what the Sierra Club says. * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/143 "1999-11-06T01:16:00Z")
John John spews: > [@](#): > > Birht rates have not been decreasing in the developing, third world countries.Sierra Club is not of that opinion and I would suggest you check out what the Sierra Club says JJ, the source is [the U.N. FAO](http://www.fao.org) Evidently: [list=1][li]You’re lying, or;[/li][li]The Sierra Club is lying, and you’re stupid enough to believe it.[/list=1][/li]I challenge you to provide the readership with data – not your WAG, not a propaganda handout from the Sierra Club – but **data** – that backs up your assertion. Otherwise, you’re a fraud. ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/144 "1999-11-06T01:17:00Z")
Tom > [@](#): > > …You still follow the ancient Cyberian54 method… You labor under many delusions, it seems, and it’s too much fun to stop you. You arrived at that conclusion the way you arrive at the ones in this discussion, **you suppose you’re right, ergo you are right.** Sorry What you have said in this thread runs contrary to the Sierra Club and ZPD, two organizations I have more respect for than you. I strongly suggest that you unplug your head from the sand and learn the facts. The SC & ZPD know more about this than you. * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/145 "1999-11-06T01:35:00Z")
I’ve been lurking this thing for 143 posts, and I finally can’t stand it! Please refer to [The BBQ Pit](http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000361.html) for my take on this. * * * Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/146 "1999-11-06T01:56:00Z")
Akats rants > [@](#): > > I challenge you to provide the readership with data – not your WAG, not a propaganda handout from the Sierra Club – but data – that backs up your assertion. > > Otherwise, you’re a fraud. ## All you have to do is look at the steadily growing population of India to relize that you are mistaken. You need to learn the real facts. “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/147 "1999-11-06T02:16:00Z")
Akatsukami wrote: > [@](#): > > salmon are anadromous, i.e., they spawn in fresh water, and the fry make their way to the ocean to mature. Not _all_ salmon are this way. Ocean salmon do indeed live as adults in seawater and spawn in fresh water. Their adult bodies are not equipped to handle salt-free water, though, so the trip into the freshwater spawning grounds kills them within a few hours after spawning. (You can _see_ the skins of these fish change from pink to gray as they venture into freshwater streams – it’s an eerie sight.) There are, however, other salmon breeds than _can_ live their entire lives in fresh water. These are the kind of salmon grown by salmon farmers. Most American consumers prefer the freshwater salmon, as it has a milder flavor. * * * Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/148 "1999-11-06T03:18:00Z")
Ok, this is finally about it for me. I quote **John John** : > [@](#): > > Birht rates have not been decreasing in the developing, third world countries.Sierra Club is not of that opinion and I would suggest you check out what the Sierra Club says. He makes this statement about 12 hours after I posted a LONG, attributed article snipped right off of the U.N. Population Project’s web site, which has as a headline: > [@](#): > > BROADENING AND DEEPENING OF FERTILITY DECLINES IN LESS DEVELOPED REGIONS Which goes on to document the drastic declines in fertility in the less-developed nations, far in excess of what was believed to be the case just two years previously. Some examples: [li]Fertility in Cote d’Ivoire was previously estimated to remain at 7.4[/li]births per woman through 1995, while in fact it begun to decline in 1985-1990 and by 1990-1995 decreased by almost one quarter, to 5.7. [li]In Kenya, where fertility until the late 1970s had remained at over 8 births per woman, it is now estimated to have declined to 5.4 births per woman in 1990-1995 rather than 6.3 births as it has been anticipated in the 1994 Revision.[/li] [li]New data also indicate that in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey fertility has also decreased faster than[/li]previously estimated. For example, fertility declined in Bangladesh from 6.2 births per woman in 1980-1985 to 3.4 births in 1990-1995 which is one birth less than it was anticipated for the same period two years ago. [li]In the Syrian Arab Republic fertility was reduced from 7.4 births per woman in 1980-1985 to the current 4.7 which is 1.2 lower than the previous estimate for 1990-1995.[/li] [li]Over the last 20 years, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and Northern Africa underwent a broad and fast fertility transition: in less than a the length of just one generation the reproductive behaviour changed so deeply that the number of children born to an average woman was reduced from more than 5 in 1970-1975 to less than 3 in 1990-1995 (see figure).[/li] John John: THESE ARE 3rd WORLD COUNTRIES. In the case of India and China, they were two of the biggest contributors to the population explosion, and both countries have seen drastic reductions in fertility in the last 20 years, and fertility rates are STILL decreasing in those areas. Once again, for the factually challenged, here is where this information comes from (lest ye think it’s a meat-eating baby-whale killing right-wing plot): SOURCE:\* Source: Population Division, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 1996 Revision (annex tables), United Nations, New York, 1996.\* ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/149 "1999-11-06T03:20:00Z")
Sorry… Forgot a trailing /B at the top of the last message. It wasn’t all supposed to be in bold. On the other hand, maybe that will help pound some of this information into John John’s thick skull. ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/150 "1999-11-06T13:30:00Z")
tracer]] > [@](#): > > There are, however, other salmon breeds than can live their entire lives in fresh water. These are the kind of salmon grown by salmon farmers. > > Most American consumers prefer the freshwater salmon, as it has a milder flavor. Would that be walleye or sockeye salmon? * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/151 "1999-11-06T14:17:00Z")
Akats, dhanson and Tom, please stop misstating the facts. The c&p below should help you understand what is in store for the World if nothing is done, or your view is believed to be accurate, which of course is not. I’m trying to be patient with you chaps. \*\*World Population Profile: 1996 – Highlights * * * In 1994, the governments of 180 nations came together at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt, to seek agreement on how to cope with the task of integrating population and development issues and programs. One of the most difficult elements of the task is that of stabilizing world population growth. The latest projections of the Bureau of the Census indicate that world population will increase from its present level of 5.8 billion persons to pass the 6 billion milestone by the year 2000. These projections also show world population reaching a level of 7.6 billion persons over the next quarter century, an increase over 1996 roughly equivalent to adding three more Sub-Saharan Africas to the present world total. \*In 1996, 95 out of every 100 persons added to world population live in less developed countries (LDC’s). \* Between now and the year 2000, population increase will be concentrated in Asia because its present population is so much larger than that of any other region. Also, interregional differences in growth rates – the second key determinant of shifting population distribution – have a relatively limited effect in the short term. Developing countries of Asia will contribute 176 million persons to world population increase during the next 4 years, with a fourth of this increase, or 44 million persons, to be added in China. The Asian increment to world population is about 25 percent greater than the net addition attributable to all other countries combined. Other developing countries will contribute about 126 million persons; the United States and other more developed countries, about 18 million persons. Sub-Saharan Africa’s growth rates will be the highest of all major world regions for the next 25 years. In spite of rising mortality in some countries due to the HIV/ AIDS pandemic, total population for the Sub-Saharan Africa region as a whole will double within 32 years if present trends continue. India and Nigeria are emerging as two countries making disproportionate contributions to world population growth during the 1996-2020 period because of their continued high fertility and already massive populations. India presently contributes about 19 percent of total world population increase, more than any other country. If Nigeria’s rapid growth continues, its population will nearly double during the coming quarter century, boosting Nigeria past Bangladesh, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and Brazil among the world’s most populous nations. The elderly population is the fastest growing age group worldwide. Persons ages 65 and over will increase more than twice as fast as total population between 1996 and 2020. The growth rate of this age group in less developed countries will be double that in more developed countries. By 2020, two-thirds of the world’s elderly will live in LDC’s. Even with the rapid growth of the elderly, however, most of the dependent population (ages 0 to 14 and 65 and over) in developing countries is, and will remain, children. Nearly 9 in every 10 persons making up the combined dependent age groups in less developed countries are under age 15 in 1996. This fraction declines, but is still 8 children in 10 dependents, in 2020. At least 132 million births will occur every year for the next 25 years despite falling fertility. The continued high level of births in the face of declining birth rates largely reflects the still increasing numbers of women of reproductive age (the result of past high fertility) in less developed countries. About 8 million infant deaths will occur in 1996. More than 90 percent of these will be in the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. If present trends continue, however, the total number of infant deaths worldwide will drop by nearly half, to 4.5 million, by year 2020 as a result of a leveling off in number of births (and, hence, number of infants at risk) and decreases in infant mortality rates. Of 100 babies born this year in Sub-Saharan Africa, 9 will die within 1 year. In the world’s more developed countries, it will take about 60 years for these 9 deaths to occur. The difference reflects a continuing gap in mortality levels faced by the populations of the world’s more and less developed countries. A child born this year in Sub-Saharan Africa can expect to live only about 50 years, while a child born in one of the more developed countries of the world may expect to survive to age 74, or about 50 percent longer. Over the course of the coming 25 years, life expectancy at birth in more developed countries is projected to increase by 5 years; that of less developed countries, including Sub-Saharan Africa, by about 6 years; only slightly reducing the gap in life expectancy between more developed and less developed countries. The world community adopted an agenda for action at the ICPD and the regional preparatory conferences which emphasizes demographic goals, economic growth within the context of sustainable development, improved access to reproductive health care, and the empowerment of women. Projections of the Bureau of the Census indicate that only 50 to 60 percent of the developing nations are likely to achieve the ICPD mortality reduction goals set for the year 2015 in spite of ongoing improvements in child survivorship in the developing world. Few countries, whether developing or more developed, will meet the goals adopted for the year 2000. Fewer than half of the developing countries of Asia are likely to achieve the regional goal of replacement level fertility by year 2010. China already has. India probably will not. The African regional goal of an annual natural growth rate of 2.5 percent by the year 2000 appears attainable; however, the follow-on goal of 2.0 percent by the year 2010 will be difficult to achieve if present trends continue. Access to reproductive health care, including family planning, is a key goal adopted in Cairo. Women are, in fact, using family planning in increasing numbers in every world region. In developing countries today, five times as many couples are using contraception as in the 1960’s.Nevertheless, the full range of modern methods is unavailable to as many as 350 million couples worldwide. Improved availability of family planning services would carry important maternal and child health benefits, particularly in less developed countries. In addition, more widespread use of contraception could reduce unwanted fertility, which may be as high as 15 to 20 percent of all fertility in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, and as high as 30 percent in Latin America and North Africa. Fifteen million high-risk births occur each year to adolescent mothers, and 8 of every 10 of these take place in the developing nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. A substantial proportion of these births are unwanted, yet the young women involved are not using any means of contraception to delay or prevent them. * * * Source: U.S.Bureau of the Census, World Population Profile: 1996, pp. 1-2. Last Revised: 16 Mar 1999 22:34:13 EST \*\* * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/152 "1999-11-06T15:00:00Z")
Some state, correctly, that most developed countries have, and will, stabilize population growth into the early part of the next century, but what you fail to add to the equation is population growth due to immigration. Example, if we achieve zero increase from births in the United States but have a million per year added from immigration, which is our current quota, the net effect is MORE POPULATION. Sadly, the Sierra Club has not addressed this problem, chosing instead to see it in political terms rather than as a environmental issue. * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![edward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/90db22/32.png) [@edward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edward)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/153 "1999-11-06T15:25:00Z")
John John said: \ The impact on the envirnoment of a world population of technologically Americanized people, using resources and dispelling waste, is very frightening indeed. \ But you don’t state what the impact will be. I posted originally to ask a question, which, over reading this thread for the past month or so, doesn’t seem to have been answered: how would the environment be affected if everyone had the same first world standard of living? Not at all? Irreversibly changed for the worst? Sure, people have mentioned such things as fisheries and clean water, but the average U.S. citizen (or European citizen) consumes much more than fish and water. I guess I’m trying to retrieve this thread from the shouting match it’s become. I’ve learned a lot from reading this, and the posters appear to have a lot of info at their fingertips. The original thread started with the question of (more or less) what is the human carrying capacity for the planet? My question asks what is the carrying capacity for the planet for a western lifestyle? So far I really haven’t seen anything to answer that (although I could be wrong, since I’ve read the thread as it’s come up, and could have forgotten/missed something). ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/154 "1999-11-06T16:17:00Z")
Edward]]]quote]But you don’t state what the impact will be. I posted originally to ask a question, which, over reading this thread for the past month or so, doesn’t seem to have been answered: how would the environment be affected if everyone had the same first world standard of living? Not at all? Irreversibly changed for the worst? Sure, people have mentioned such things as fisheries and clean water, but the average U.S. citizen (or European citizen) consumes much more than fish and water. [/quote] I’ve found nothing that addresses that specific question exactly in the terms you phrased it but it is not hard to imagine. I will continue to search for an answer though. [Anyone else know the answer?] But, let us reasonably conjecture. EXAMPLES: Just think of the packaging of goods we use and their resultant disposal, extra water use, cost of desalination to make up for scarcity of potable water, extra demands on energy and energy sources, use of resources, buildings, loss of open space, strain on environment, longer life span, to name just a few. In short, the more we develope the more waste we produce, resulting in more pollution. Timber would be used at a faster rate, or some synthetic product would be invented to replace it, perhaps causing more of an invironmental problem. Does that seem like a reasonable scenario? * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 1999, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/155 "1999-11-07T06:57:00Z")
John John, please stop misstating the facts. The [U.N. 1998 Revision of the World Population Estimates and Projections](http://www.popin.org/pop1998/) shows that your favored organization is playing with data that are, at best, outdated and misunderstood. * * * “Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/156 "1999-11-06T19:45:00Z")
John John, it’s becoming clear to me that you don’t read, don’t think, or both. You accuse me of misstating the facts, then as proof of this post a message that doesn’t refute anything I said. It’s always easy to discern ‘press releases’ that have a political agenda. They tend to selectively choose how to represent data. For instance, if the fertility rate is dropping rapidly in India, choose instead to say something like, “India will continue to be one of the biggest contributers to population growth”. True, but irrelevant. You can also mislead by posting ‘facts’ out of context when they contain scary large numbers. Whenever I see some screed that tells me how many more people will be born as I read it, my critical faculties engage. Since it’s a meaningless statistic, it must have been included for some reason, which indicates the writers are not impartial. Your sources continually mix short-range and long-range numbers, whichever suit their purposes. If a country has high population growth now but a drastically reduced rate of growth in the future, your sources print the current numbers. If the country has a fertility rate that is not declining much, your sources use THAT number, implying that this trend exists for most or all countries. It’s clear that your mind is closed, if the only information you are willing to read are the political tracts from the organizations you already agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Himself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a698b9/32.png) [@Himself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Himself)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 1999, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/157 "1999-11-06T23:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > For example, due to agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Delta, the Gulf of Mexico has a biological dead zone the size of New Jersey. There is an “anoxic” area in the Gulf. Low oxygen content. But it’s scarier to give it a Steven King name. Such anoxic areas occur from time to time and from place to place and are due to a variety of causes. That the spot in the Gulf is “due to agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Delta,” is a stretch, since the “dead zone” is in the western part of the Gulf and Mississippi runoff is carried eastward by the currents, ultimately into the Gulf Stream. - - - The birth rate in the USA has been declining _linearly_ (with the usual fluctuations) since at least 1820, as published by the STATISITCAL ABSTRACTS OF THE US. ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 1999, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/158 "1999-11-07T03:34:00Z")
Akatsukami and dhanson now accuse the US Census Bureau, the Sierra Club, ZPG and National Geographic with playing hard and fast with the facts. These informed groups predictions, based on current population figures and present trends, are accurate. Your head in the sand outlook would be truly laughable, if it weren’t so sad. It is near-sighted people such as yourselves that thought the Titanic could never sink, that Hitler wanted peace, the levy would hold and thalidomide was safe for pregnant mothers. It really doesn’t seem to matter to people like you that informed sources have shown that current trends indicate severe problems from overpopulation. I advise you not to depend solely on the UN figures and safe predictions but, rather, heed the warnings of organizations who’s job it is to know these things. Think, who are the majority members of the UN and what countries do they come from? What political mindset drives the UN? If you do not believe the US Census Bureau then who will you believe? You are fiddling while Rome is ablaze. * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 1999, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/159 "1999-11-07T10:12:00Z")
I don’t disagree with the U.S. Census, I disagree with the way its numbers have been abused by ZPG and the Sierra Club. Zero Population Growth is a militant organization with an agenda. They START looking at the data with a bias in that they want the results to come out a certain way to justify their extreme bias. The Sierra Club never used to be that bad, but in the last few years has grown increasingly militant. And BTW, ZPG has a history of being wildly, spectacularly WRONG with its predictions of doom. So no, I don’t trust a single thing I read from those two organizations. And if they quote respectable data from the U.N. or the U.S. Census, I try to go back to the original data to see if their conclusions are warranted. I have, and they’re not. ZPG and the Sierra Club are playing fast and loose with the numbers, data-mining the data for isolated figures that support their position while ignoring others, and presenting other information out of context. You should be skeptical when you read ANY ‘scientific’ data that comes from an organization with an agenda. If the NRA puts out a press release saying guns are good, don’t trust the data until you’ve verified it yourself. If Handgun Control Inc. puts out a press release saying guns are bad, CHECK THE DATA. This only makes sense to anyone with half a brain. You are unlikely to get the whole picture from any organization who’s mandate is win you over to their side. ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 1999, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312/160 "1999-11-07T13:23:00Z")
Hanson, do you have any reservations about the information that is collected by the UN on population predictions? The consequence of the predicted overopulation disaster, as stated by the valid organizations I’ve named, is very real and impending ? Would you agree that the UN is Third World oriented in thinking on population issues? You have asked me to ignore the respectable, unbiased organizations I’ve provided informaton from but YOU seem unusually comfortable quoting an oranization that is comprised of the very offenders of the population problem. Curious. Below are the countries. Andorra United Arab Emirates Afghanastan Antigua and Barbuda Anguilla Albania Armenia Netherlands Antilles Angola Antarctica Argentina Ascension Island American Samoa Austria Australia Aruba Azerbajan bosnia Barbados Bangladesh Belgium Burkina Faso Bulgaria Bahrain Burundi Benin Bermuda Brunei Brunei Darussalam Bolivia Brazil Bahamas Bhutan Belarus Bouvet Island Botswana Byelorussian SSR Belize Canada Cocos (Keeling) Islands Central African Republic Congo Cantons of Helvetia Confederation Helvetique Switzerland Cote D’Ivoire Cook Islands Chile Cameroon China Colombia Commercial Organization Costa Rica Czechoslovakia Cuba Cape Verde Christmas Island Cyprus Czech Republic Deutschland Germany Djibouti Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Algeria Ecuador Educational Institution Eslovaquia Estonia Egypt Western Sahara Spain Ethiopia Finland Fiji Falkland Islands Malvinas Micronesia Faroe Islands France Gabon Great Britain Grenada Georgia French Guiana Guernsey Islands (inc Alderney, Sark and Brethou Islands) Ghana Gibraltar Greenland Gambia Guinea Government Guadeloupe Equatorial Guniea Greece Guatemala Guam Guinea Bissau Gyana Hong Kong Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Croatia Hrvatska Haiti Hungary Indonesia Ireland Israel The Isle of Man India British Indian Ocean Territory Iraq Iran Iceland Italy Jersey Island Jamaica Jordan Japan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Cambodia Kiribati Comoros Saint Kitts and Nevis Korea - Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea Korea - Republic of South Korea Kuwait Cayman Islands Kazakhstan Lao Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic Laos Lebanon Saint Lucia Liechtenstein Sri Lanka Liberia Lesotho Letonia Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Lybia Morocco Monaco Moldova Madagascar Marshall Islands Military Macedonia Mali Myanmar Mongolia Macau Northern Mariana Islands Martinique Mauritania Montserrat Malta Maldives Mauritius Malawi Mexico Malaysia Mozambique Namibia New Caledonia Niger Networking Organisation Norfolk Island Nigeria Nicaragua Netherlands Norway Nepal Nauru Neutral Zone Niue New Zealand om org Oman Non-profit Organization Panama Peru French Polynesia New Guinea Papua Papua New Guinea Philippines Pakistan Poland Saint Pierre and Miquelon Pitcairn Puerto Rico Portugal Palau Paraguay Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saudi Arabia Solomon Islands Seychelles Sudan Sweden Singapore Saint Helena Slovenia Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Slovakia Sierra Leone San Marino Senegal Somalia Suriname Sao Tome and Principe Soviet Union U.S.S.R. El Salvador Syria Syrian Arab Republic Swaziland Turks and Caicos Islands Chad French Southern Territories Togo Thailand Tajikistan Tokelau Turkmenistan Tunisia Tonga East Timor Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Taiwan Tanzania uz Ukraine Uganda United Kingdom United States Minor Outlying Islands United States United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan vu Vatican Vatican City State Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Venezuela Virgin Islands (UK) Virgin Islands (US) Vietnam Vanuatu Wallis and Futuna Islands Samoa Yemen Yugoslavia Zuid Africa/South Africa Zambia Zaire/Democratic Republic of Conga Zimbabwe * * * “All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon Brille [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/6-billion/17312.md?page=9)