# Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 18, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909 "2011-06-18T04:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/81 "2011-06-20T05:33:38Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Please read my comments above at # 9. I have said from the outset on this thread that I agree with the other measures suggested by **GIGO Buster**. > > What is harder to explain is the reluctance to address US population growth when it is clearly a major issue. The reasons for this appear to be due to political expediency. > > [Session Verification](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) Feel free to continue quoting Lester Brown if you wish, but you’ll have to remember that he’s not a greenwasher, so he’s not always going to say the things you want to hear. I can quote him as well: [QUOTE=Lester Brown in Plan B 4.0] In addition to 33 countries with essentially stable or declining populations, another group of countries, including China and the United States, have reduced fertility to replacement level or just below. But because of inordinately large numbers of young people moving into their reproductive years, their populations are still expanding. Once this group of young people moves through their high-fertility years, however, these countries too will be reaching population stability. The 29 countries in this category contain some 2.5 billion people. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/82 "2011-06-20T05:39:28Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Feel free to continue quoting Lester Brown if you wish, but you’ll have to remember that he’s not a greenwasher, so he’s not always going to say the things you want to hear. I can quote him as well: Great, so what? The US has the highest level of growth amongst the industrialised countries. Look at the Pew data. Of course, that could be ameliorated by revising immigration levels. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/83 "2011-06-20T07:06:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Great, so what? The US has the highest level of growth amongst the industrialised countries. Of course it has. Except for Australia, all the other industrialized countries in the world are **ancient** by comparison. America is the one that has never yet gotten near to full-up. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/84 "2011-06-20T08:48:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course it has. > > Except for Australia, all the other industrialized countries in the world are **ancient** by comparison. America is the one that has never yet gotten near to full-up. Except for the minor business of [running out of water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water) 😛 Of course it will be great once the US has a population similar to that of China or India. That will be a great day for environmentalists. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/85 "2011-06-20T10:41:13Z")
I don’t really care about either US environmentalism or immigration. I don’t live in the USA (or even North America) anymore, so if you all want to keep building cities in deserts or diverting scarce water resources to subsidize agribusiness, knock yourself out. No skin off my ass. However, as alluded to by **elbows** above, Americans use a hell of a lot of energy. It’s my understanding that the question of AGW is closely linked with energy usage patterns. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita) cites a 2003 study that shows the US with one of the world’s highest per capita energy consumption rates (7794.8 kgoe/a). By contrast, the current top four countries which contribute to US immigration ([Wiki cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Origin)), Mexico, China, the Philippines, and India, have rates of 1533.2, 1138.3, 1524.9, and 512.4, respectively. It would seem, therefore, that looking ONLY at the issue of AGW, that the _global_ situation is made worse by every immigrant who moves from a low-energy consumption country to the USA. A similar dynamic would apply within Europe, where I now live, in the case of - for example - immigrants moving from sunny Greece (2698.6) or Italy (3127.2) to snowy Sweden (5764.8) or Finland (7218.1). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/86 "2011-06-20T12:43:16Z")
I asked for a cogent (i.e., fallacy-free) summary of the argument, rebutting the initial impression that one side was calmly presenting facts and the other side was lashing out with personal attacks. I recognized that this is the Pit, and the side using personal attacks is well within the scope of the forum’s purpose, but I was curious. My own intuitive sense is the the claim that immigration is (or should be) a major factor of concern for environmentalists is a weak claim, but I hadn’t given it an in-depth analysis. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I thought the OP had this: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.” > > Point being that what Chen019 tries to avoid, is that the nativist cites he is using, are attempting to make immigration a priority for environmentalists. The ones that make the numbers add also the descendants of the immigrants to make the connection, unfortunately that would include people like you and your sons and daughters, grandsons, etc. This is not an argument remarkable for its cogency. It uses argumentum ad hominem (we cannot rely on the “nativist” citations), ad misericordiam (“…it attacks people who are suffering…”) and ad populum (“… it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.”) I remain unconvinced by Chen019’s arguments, but this is the most pathetic response I can remember to a request for a cogent rebuttal. Try to internalize this point: it’s utterly irrelevant to the truth of your claim if the opposing side is championed by Casey Anthony, David Duke, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Pointing out how evil your opponents’ motives are is not proper argument. Stop doing that. (At least, stop doing it in response to a request for a real argument – I recognize that your collection of fallacies finds a ready home here in the Pit.) Is there a GD thread on this topic? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/87 "2011-06-20T12:48:42Z")
**Chen** – question for you: Let’s assume I agree with your plan – we impose a reasonably strict set of immigration controls. What is the scope of enviromental impact we should expect to see, both within the US and abroad? That is, presumably the people not immigrating have some measurable deleterious effects on the environment where they remain, and presumably that should be counted as well, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/88 "2011-06-20T13:02:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is there a GD thread on this topic? First line of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/89 "2011-06-20T13:40:26Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > First line of the OP. Thanks. Not sure how I missed that, seeing as how it was so cunningly hidden. That is one long-ass thread. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/90 "2011-06-20T14:10:03Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > First line of the OP. Yep. > [@Bricker](#): > > I asked for a cogent (i.e., fallacy-free) summary of the argument, rebutting the initial impression that one side was calmly presenting facts and the other side was lashing out with personal attacks. I recognized that this is the Pit, and the side using personal attacks is well within the scope of the forum’s purpose, but I was curious. My own intuitive sense is the the claim that immigration is (or should be) a major factor of concern for environmentalists is a weak claim, but I hadn’t given it an in-depth analysis. Now, Bricker, you already know that the pit is precisely to roast people that have no cogent ideas, as the link shows, there are times when pig headness and the history and the background of a guy like Chen has to be taken into account. > [@Bricker](#): > > This is not an argument remarkable for its cogency. It uses argumentum ad hominem (we cannot rely on the “nativist” citations), ad misericordiam (“…it attacks people who are suffering…”) and ad populum (“… it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.”) As there was already a link to the GD thread, you are protesting too much. And even when this is the pit what you are doing there is cherry picking. Perspective is the biggest failure from Chen, scientists involved in climate change and sustainability do not include immigration as an issue to deal with the ecological footprint of people. And it is because it is beyond the scope of what they are doing. Other experts already noticed that dealing with the immigrants would not make a dent (again by taking the big picture into account). > **[On the Inside](https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/inside/)** > > Early this year, a Klan group known as the Knight Riders closed up shop after one of its members who was allegedly planning racist violence pleaded guilty to weapons charges. The former Klan member and FBI informant who made the case discusses his... > [@](#): > > The group’s latest campaign relies on outdated numbers, since the ads’ projection of 600 million Americans by 2100 is based on the 1990 Census. (The Census has published more up-to-date projections based on the 2000 Census, but they only go up to 2050.) The ads also cite statistics without fully explaining them: the Pew Hispanic Research Center does predict that 82% of the increase in U.S. population from 2005 to 2050 will result from immigration, but that figure includes the U.S.-born descendants of immigrants. And it doesn’t represent a departure from recent decades, during which immigrants have accounted for most of the country’s population growth. > > Of course, the real message of the ads is that immigrants are bad for the environment, and therefore bad for America. According to the ad that appeared in Wednesday’s Times, “For every four new U.S. residents whether from births or immigration, approximately three more cars are added to our roads, increasing gridlock, energy use and greenhouse emissions.” > > But this premise is flawed because the transportation habits of immigrants are different from those of native-born Americans, according to professors at the University of California, Los Angeles. > > David Hayes-Bautista, a professor of medicine and health services, co-authored a 2005 study that found recent Latino immigrants in California—and to a lesser extent long-term Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos—are much more likely to carpool or use public transportation than non-Hispanic whites. “If everyone (in California) went to work the way recently arrived immigrants did—by carpooling or using public transportation—that would reduce the number of cars on the road by nearly half,” he told the Intelligence Report. > > “Recent immigrants are in fact substantially less responsible for sprawl (they live in the highest density communities) and traffic (they disproportionately take transit and walk), as they are poor,” UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane E-mailed the Report. “Eventually, they better assimilate into the population and will be more like everyone else, which is to say they are no worse than anyone else.” It should be noticed that and the link to the global warming people and sustainability experts was also already linked here. Even when Chen gets sources that are not from the nativists there are perfect examples of cherry picking. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/91 "2011-06-20T14:10:13Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > It would seem, therefore, that looking ONLY at the issue of AGW, that the _global_ situation is made worse by every immigrant who moves from a low-energy consumption country to the USA. Not if those immigrants act to lower the US average by consuming less than the average (which it seems they do). Yes, they are no longer counted in the even lower home country’s numbers, but the US numbers are so overwhelmingly out of whack that lowering them should take priority over maintaining the home countries’ status quo (which is all removing them does - it certainly doesn’t change the HC’s percapita numbers, but can change America’s). And there’s the knock-on effect of the rest of the world often following US trends in lifestyle. If sustainable living were the new American Dream, the rising Chinese and Indian middle classes might have a reduced impact. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/92 "2011-06-20T14:21:45Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > However, as alluded to by **elbows** above, Americans use a hell of a lot of energy. N.B.: You, as an individual American, cannot help much there by changing your “lifestyle.” You can recycle, you can get around by foot/bike/carpool/bus – but you’re still consuming a lot more goods than you realize, and their production and, more importantly, their **distribution** (almost certainly by truck) uses a lot more energy than you realize. And there’s just so **much** of this country (my own Florida, to start with) that is barely habitable without electric-powered climate control! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/93 "2011-06-20T15:06:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now, Bricker, you already know that the pit is precisely to roast people that have no cogent ideas, as the link shows, there are times when pig headness and the history and the background of a guy like Chen has to be taken into account. I acknowledged that in my request and again in my subsequent responses. > [@](#): > > As there was already a link to the GD thread, you are protesting too much. And even when this is the pit what you are doing there is cherry picking. Also acknowledged in the next post that I missed the link – which I have now found. But I don’t agree that my examples above were cherry-picked. > [@](#): > > Perspective is the biggest failure from Chen, scientists involved in climate change and sustainability do not include immigration as an issue to deal with the ecological footprint of people. And it is because it is beyond the scope of what they are doing. As **magellen** ’s post 312 in the GD thread mentioned, this claim is not particularly relevant; you yourself acknowledged that studying other things besides climate change, particularly local issues, was a valid approach. > [@](#): > > Other experts already noticed that dealing with the immigrants would not make a dent (again by taking the big picture into account). This observation, on the other hand, is highly relevant. It points to a flaw in Chen’s reasoning – he (so far as I can tell) derives one “average use” figure for Americans, and then uses that figure to extrapolate increased consumption as a result of new immigrants… when the fact may be that the new immigrants don’t use resources at the average rate, but far below it. Seems to me this is the point to state clearly and then seek a rebuttal, if one exists. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/94 "2011-06-20T16:14:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This observation, on the other hand, is highly relevant. It points to a flaw in Chen’s reasoning – he (so far as I can tell) derives one “average use” figure for Americans, and then uses that figure to extrapolate increased consumption as a result of new immigrants… when the fact may be that the new immigrants don’t use resources at the average rate, but far below it. > > Seems to me this is the point to state clearly and then seek a rebuttal, if one exists. I’m not sure if that is Chen’s reasoning (I’ll let him address that), but I just wanted to point out that there two things to keep in mind. One is that immigrants, whatever their initial behaviors, move toward being the average American in their wants, desires, consumption, etc. Second, even if immigrants were to somehow keep their carbon footprint low through out their lifetime, it is still a net increase to both the U. S. and globally. For the U.S., it’s the footprint of one extra person, how ever small their footprint. Globally, it’s the increase of someone who was living with a smaller footprint now living with a larger one. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/95 "2011-06-20T16:35:13Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not if those immigrants act to lower the US average by consuming less than the average ( **which it seems they do** ). I’m not sure where you’re getting that from (not going to ask for a cite in a pit thread), unless you’re just figuring that many of them arrive poor and thus have less to spend on HDTVs and Hummers. Even so, once they assimilate, that wouldn’t really apply anymore. Also, see **BrainGlutton** ’s point below. > [@](#): > > Yes, they are no longer counted in the even lower home country’s numbers, That’s kind of my point - they’ve moved from a low-consumption country to a high-consumption one. > [@](#): > > but the US numbers are so overwhelmingly out of whack that lowering them should take priority over maintaining the home countries’ status quo (which is all removing them does - it certainly doesn’t change the HC’s percapita numbers, but can change America’s). Yes, but the brutal math of the equation is still: per capita consumption x number of people = total consumption. Lowering US per capita energy consumption is certainly a worthwhile goal, but in the mean time, as the US population grows, so does its total energy consumption - more or less linearly. > [@](#): > > And there’s the knock-on effect of the rest of the world often following US trends in lifestyle. If sustainable living were the new American Dream, the rising Chinese and Indian middle classes might have a reduced impact. No argument from me on that point, though given how low those countries (especially India’s) per capita rates currently are, even if their citizens were satified at only consuming energy at, say, half the US rate, that would still entail a _massive_ increase in overall global energy consumption. **BrainGlutton** makes an excellent point: “You, as an individual American, cannot help much there by changing your “lifestyle.” You can recycle, you can get around by foot/bike/carpool/bus – but you’re still consuming a lot more goods than you realize, and their production and, more importantly, their distribution (almost certainly by truck) uses a lot more energy than you realize. And there’s just so much of this country (my own Florida, to start with) that is barely habitable without electric-powered climate control!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/96 "2011-06-20T16:48:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Are environmentalists cowards on immigration? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612003) > Our resident fool just can not notice when his mild evil schemes are being hijacked by someone more evil. > > [http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2010-06-01-deathmerchants01\_ST\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2010-06-01-deathmerchants01_ST_N.htm) > > Before, a cite was posted that showed how groups that claimed that they would do something about the environment by dealing with immigration actually are only helping elect climate change deniers. > > It is actually very likely that if nothing is done against what the main issue, global warming gases, that then immigration will actually get worse in the future. > > So, after once again he JAQs off again, I just finish with “Meh :p” > > Then the Chen returns all butthurt: > Of course the mods had already warned him that that accusation was attacking the poster, and it was still a lie as I had pointed at reasons already mentioned by environmentalists. So he just loves to pile up infractions. > > I don’t worry at all that he is following fools, but it needs to be pointed out that others are using the organizations that he follows to help climate change deniers get elected. So, sorry Chump Chen if you think that you are scaring anyone, you can not hold a candle to the ones that are playing you like a fiddle, they do not give a damn about your fake environmentalism. If **GIGO** has the Straight Dope here sussed, then **Chen** is the sort of person for whom the label [“useful idiot”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) **should** have been invented. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/97 "2011-06-20T23:06:42Z")
> [@](#): > > And there’s just so much of this country (my own Florida, to start with) that is barely habitable without electric-powered climate control That would explain why it was sitting completely empty before the onset of electricity…no, wait. If you could change this one, single, deeply cherished belief, in America, you wouldn’t have to worry about immigration, or one child policies, in my opinion. You’d think, when you hear this, all the countries clustered near the equator would be virtually empty, like other unlivable areas, like deserts and mountain tops, and yet, somehow, some of the poorest nations, and millions of people, manage to muddle through, working, living, raising families. How do they do it, I wonder? “Yeah, well I’m not giving up my air conditioner!”, ranks right up there with, driving a Hummer in my books. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/98 "2011-06-20T23:18:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Chen** – question for you: > > Let’s assume I agree with your plan – we impose a reasonably strict set of immigration controls. What is the scope of enviromental impact we should expect to see, both within the US and abroad? That is, presumably the people not immigrating have some measurable deleterious effects on the environment where they remain, and presumably that should be counted as well, yes? Of course. My point is that in terms of the environment and sustainability in the US, population stabilization is a sensible option. This is something suggested in the Clinton sustainability taskforce report. [Lester Brown makes a similar point in relation to the US population reaching 300 million and the prospect of it increasing to 400 million](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) and beyond. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/99 "2011-06-20T23:25:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This observation, on the other hand, is highly relevant. It points to a flaw in Chen’s reasoning – he (so far as I can tell) derives one “average use” figure for Americans, and then uses that figure to extrapolate increased consumption as a result of new immigrants… when the fact may be that the new immigrants don’t use resources at the average rate, but far below it. > > Seems to me this is the point to state clearly and then seek a rebuttal, if one exists. I’ve acknowledged that low wage migrants are unlikely to consume as much as higher earning citizens. However, over time & subsequent generations are they going to adjust to american norms? Are they going to remain static in their consumption? Also, in terms of consuming things like [water](http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111186/the-ten-biggest-american-cities-that-are-running-out-of-water) that is something you can’t avoid regardless of SES. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/100 "2011-06-20T23:27:50Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > That would explain why it was sitting completely empty before the onset of electricity…no, wait. Florida? It practically **was.** [Florida’s population in 1940 was 1.8 million](http://www.npg.org/states/fl.htm) – that sounds like a lot, but this state is bigger than **England** – and it’s more then ten times that now. Pre-AC, most of the population lived well north of Orlando. Back in the 1950s, my Mom went to Hillsborough High School, the only one in the county then, and the bus went all around the county north of the incorporated City of Tampa, all farms and orange groves as it was, and picked up a total of six students. Today northern Hillsborough County is all burbsprawl and there are at least three public high schools there alone. Without AC, that didn’t happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=6)