Billions more, yes. Crowd, no.
Billions more? No thanks! Crowd? Yes!
World Population Data sheet
That is using the low variant and we can still see that the world will double in 53 years. Keep in mind that the mid variant, 2.5, or high variant,3.5, was not used.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
“Immigration is of increasing importance and impact on our annual population growth. Immigration plays a significant role in ZPG’s goal of stabilizing U.S. population. Immigration goals must be set within a larger framework of a U.S. population policy which aims at stopping U.S. and world population growth and promoting a balance between U.S. population and the environment through increased energy efficiency, conservation of natural resources, and sustainable environmental practices. It is ZPG’s view that immigration pressures on the U.S. population are best relieved by addressing factors which compel people to leave their homes and families and emigrate to the United States. Foremost among these are population growth, economic stagnation, environmental degradation, poverty and political repression. ZPG believes unless these problems are successfully addressed in the developing nations of the world, no forcible exclusion policy will successfully prevent people from seeking to relocate to the United States. ZPG, therefore, calls on the United States to focus its foreign aid on population, environmental, social, education, and sustainable development programs, and look for ways to address the root causes of international migration. In order to preserve our country’s ability to absorb reasonable numbers of refugees and legal immigrants, the United States needs to maintain control over illegal immigration in ways that are consistent with basic human and civil rights. Assuming these conditions, ZPG believes that the U.S. should adopt an overall goal for immigration as part of its national population policy. The goal should be set in the context of a federal commitment to plan for demographic change and stop population growth.”
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
On 3-Dec-1999, John John wrote:
Now I am going to ask you directly.
How do you reconcile this figure with the data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base – data which you yourself posted on 25-Nov-1999 – which predicts that the world population growth rate will go down to 0.46% by 2049.
And this time, John John, just saying “But that’s still a lot of people!” will not cut it. How do you reconcile the 1.31% figure with the 0.46% figure?
That figure was a very low variant and based on the hope that birth rates will decline. It is somewhat unrealistic, but we can hope. This might surprise you, I hope they, and I are wrong, with the 2.5 mid range figure, or the low 1,3 figure, and YOU are right. I don’t think so.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Keep in mind, folks, as I said in another thread, from the dawn of mankind till the turn of the 19th century, the world population was only 1 billion people. We are now increasing world popuolation the same amount in one decade -10 years. That is a problem.
US CENSUS BUREAU STATES- WORLD POPULATION WILL BE 9.3 BILLION BY 2050 THAT’S A HALf CENTURY.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
The world population was 1 billion people at the dawn of mankind? Man, we were prolific little apes, weren’t we?
We are more prolific now and we must slow down.
World Population (Estimate)
6,013,865,283
U.S. Population (Estimate)
273,967,056
Um, John John? W H O O O O O S H ! !
Um, Tracer, back at ya, WHOOOOOSH
Immigration Hastens Environmental Damage
THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT
"Environmentalists have long held that environmental
problems come down to one issue: population. All our
environmental woes, from species extinction to global
warming, can ultimately be traced back to human
population pressures."
John Baden & Douglas Noonan, “Migrating Species,” National Review, June 16, 1997
In the article cited above by Baden, who is chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), and Noonan, who is a research assistant at FREE and the Gallatin Institute, appears the following quotation, attributed to a 1996 report of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development:
“This is a sensitive issue, but reducing immigration
levels is a necessary part of population stabilization
and the drive toward sustainability.”
The question is raised by Baden and Noonan as to why, if immigration is a key component of dealing with population stabilization, and population stabilization is key to improving the prospect for slowing and reversing environmental damage, then why are environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club, and even population organizations, such as Zero Population Growth, reluctant to take a stand on reduced immigration. Their answer is that the politics of the issue complicate a dispassionate focus on the merits of reduced immigration. The authors suggest that both environmental groups and open-door immigrationists are composed of modern-day elitist liberals. There is, therefore, a natural reluctance to adopt policy positions that would antagonize members of groups who might otherwise be considered natural allies.
In fact the Sierra Club has engaged in lengthy debate over whether and how to deal with the issue of immigration. In the 1970’s the organization adopted a policy in support of zero population growth for the United States. Yet in 1996, the leadership sidestepped the issue of whether immigration would be addressed as part of that policy. In 1998 the Club was forced by dissident members to hold a referrendum vote on restoring immigration policy as an issue of concern. The measure was furiously opposed by the Club leadership, and a countermeasure was added by the leaders that confused the issue at stake. In the end, the initiative failed by a three-fifths to two- fifths margin. The debate nevertheless helped many environmentalists learn more about immigration and the environment. Answers to the questions that were most often asked during the Sierra Club debate are summarized here: Qs&As.
The only national environmental organization which has taken a stand on bringing immigration policy into accord with a stabilized U.S. population is the Wilderness Society. What it says in its statement of principles is: “To bring population levels to ecologically sustainable levels, both birth rates and immigration rates need to be reduced.”
THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Most immigrants to the United States come from less technologically advanced countries. Because of the low technology lifestyles of those countries, their people tend to deplete and damage the earth’s resources more slowly; that is, they have a lower rate of environmental degradation than U.S. consumers.
Immigrants tend to adopt the lifestyle of their new country. As they do, they become greater consumers and damagers of natural resources; their individual rate of environment degradation increases. For example, the rate at which the average immigrant uses freshwater is sixty-three percent higher than the rate at which he would have been using it up at home. [see: “The Environmental Impact of Immigration into the United States”, J. DinAlt, FOCUS, Vol. 4, No.l2, 1994].
HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT FROM OVERPOPULATION
It is not just that immigrants’ individual rates of environment degradation goes up after they get here (although that is obviously a serious problem in itself). The worst effect of immigration for the environment is as a cause of overpopulation. Environmental degradation is not simply about the rate at which individuals degrade the environment; it is also a factor of how many people there are. The more people there are in the United States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment. This is the problem of population growth, and why immigration contributes significantly to U.S. environmental problems. Immigration is responsible for over forty percent of the U.S. population growth since 1970, and the number of new immigrants has continued to increase. The United States needs to brake population growth in order to level off or reduce the amount of overall damage it does to the environment. But the size of our population can never level off as long as we continue to have the heavy immigration we have now. For the sake of our environment, we need a moratorium on immigration.
WHAT ARE ENVIRONMENTAL “DEGRADATION FACTORS?”
Methane Production. Production of the gas methane, which has increased with population growth, contributes to the greenhouse effect, causing dangerous rises in the world temperature. The consequences of resulting changes in climate may be extreme and perhaps impossible to manage.
Freshwater Consumption. In most regions, because of population growth, we are removing freshwater from aquifers–underground natural reservoirs–much faster than it is being replaced. We are in some cases poisoning these resources through pollution
Industrial CO2 Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst and most immediate environmental danger. Immigrants from Third World countries tend to double their CO2 production by coming to the United States.
Energy Consumption. The rate of energy consumption is related to the rate of degradation of the environment. The average person who immigrates here doubles his energy consumption.
Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit methane, increase erosion rates, and occasion the destruction of forest for range land. The average immigrant’s consumption of cattle-based food tends to quadruple after arrival.
Fertilizer Use. Although fertilizer increases short-term crop yields, in the long-term, it harmfully salts the earth, ultimately jeopardizing land and water systems. By coming to the United States, the average immigrant’s use of fertilizer increases by a factor of five.
Fish Production. Over-fishing and pollution are serious threats to the world’s fish populations. Many of the world’s major fisheries are no longer productive. On average, immigrants to the United States consume over five times more fish products than they would if they had remained home.
FAIR, 5/98.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
On 12 October 1999, 6 billion people will be alive in the world, an addition of a billion in only 12 years. Nearly half will be under 25; over a billion will be young people between 15 and 24, the parents of the next generation.
World population is growing at 78 million a year, a little less than the total population of Germany. It has doubled since 1960. Over 95 per cent of population growth is in developing countries. Meanwhile, population growth has slowed or stopped in Europe, North America and Japan. The United States is the only industrial country where large population increases are still projected, largely as the result of immigration.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
I’m very glad we have established that a World Population in excess of 6 billion, and counting, is harmful to the planet. It took me a while to convince you all of that. Thank you.
Wrong, John John, on two counts:
[list=1][li]A population in excess of 6 billion is not “harmful to the planet”.[/li][li]You haven’t convinced anyone of anything. You have ranted at mind-numbing length, adding interminable cut-and-pastes of watermelon propaganda based on outdated, misunderstood, and simply incorrect statistics, dismissing any evidence that contradicts your position as inspired by Third World chauvinism.[/list=1][/li]
Sorry, but if you actually expect to touch the hearts and minds of those not already stupified by the false maundering of these false idols, you’ll have to do a lot better.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Akats
Totally wrong! It has already been shown to you that we would have water shortages, food shortages, over fishing, not enough energy, much more pollution, less open space, less rainforests. Sorry, you are wrong.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Sorry, John John, but it has already been shown to you that these problems will occur only if we lie around and whine that Mother Nature isn’t doing all of the heavy lifting.
You’re not totally wrong; merely 99.44% wrong.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Thank you for the 56/100 of correctness but I’m afraid I cannot be as generous with your score. You get 0, a goose egg.
We are polluting ourselves to death now, with 6 billion people. Another 1 to 3 billion more people will drown us in a miasma of pollution that most species will not survive.
IT’S NOT NICE TO DIS MOTHER NATURE
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Actually, John John. all the evidence shows exactly the opposite.
When Luddites and nomenklaturists such as the watermelon hierarchy impose their limits to technological and economic growth, certainly people die horribly and live miserably. So? The same can be said for those who were unfortunate enough to be under the thumb of such notable thugs as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. The proper response is not to buy into their propaganda, but to overthrow them and deprive them of the opportunity to treat people’s lives as mere playthings.
Those that you have quoted show an unlovely combination of historical blindness and lust for personal comfort at the expense of others. You, and they, whine of water pollution: do you, and they, imagine that the water drawn in the past from the Nile, the Indus, the Thames, and the Huang Ho was crystal clear and free of disease? You, and they, whine of food shortages: do you imagine that the famines of the past were fictional accounts? Did food donations by guilt-tripping Westerners, that rotted on the Eritrean docks whilst Mengistu and his thugs confiscated the transport to forcibly relocate peasants, teach you nothing? Are you attributing the increase in the food supply in the last thirty years, despite the wild claims of Paul “Butterfly Boy” Ehrlich that starvation would take the lives of hundreds of millions, to divine intervention? Where do you get your claims of insufficient energy; from anything more significant than the successions of plots that have gone to deny the U.S. the use of nuclear power, coal, and now hydropower?
Certainly, when the priests and priestesses of the Green religion are given power, they show themselves willing to sacrifice the lives and welfare of billions on the altar of theur own comfort. That theocracy, however, is no more lovely than any other, nor has its preachings any more to do with what must be, than those of any other band of inquisitors.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Darn. I thought if I ignored John John long enough he would realize he was preaching to an empty room and go away.