Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Population to Top 300 Million

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the won't-just-one-of-them-be-my-bff dept.

792

An anonymous reader writes "The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially. The US census bureau says the 300 million mark will be reached 39 years after US population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million. That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india. It is noteworthy that sheer number of human beings do not necessarily have the heaviest impact on the environment. Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology. The US consumes nearly 25% of the world's energy though it has only 5% of the world's population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each American produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, a rate about 5 times that in developing countries."

cancel ×

792 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who'd have thunk it? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303501)

All the virgins on here are really practicing population control. I salute you all!

Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303503)

Leave it to Taco to start a flame war at 8:30 am.

Re:Flamebait (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303563)

Neat double-entendre use of the word "taco" in an article mentioning burgeoning overpopulation in the US. I like the way you think, sir.

Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303725)

The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."

The linked article says nothing about concerns over Americans energy usage or anything of the sort. Why did the submitter have to add this when the article itself doesn't mention it. In fact, no articles I've read about US hitting 300 million are really concerned about energy consumption. The US will manage it just fine.

The last point of the slashdot writeup is pure flamebait designed to generate the typical flamewar on here. CmdrTaco, instead of being a responsible editor, let this piece of gratuitious US-bashing through.

Shame on you submitter and CmdrTaco.

Re:Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (1, Interesting)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303809)

And with it's roughly 25% usage of the world's energy supplies (including oil) what does the US do with it? Create an even greater percentage of the world's goods. So my question is: why is the rest of the world less efficient than the US?

Re:Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (1)

borrible (888869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16304003)

Huh? Why the "world's" goods? You do know that the USofA import more goods than they export...?

Grammar Nazi Time (0, Offtopic)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303513)

This one has the worst grammar ever.

Re:Grammar Nazi Time (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303611)

I is blaym are Amercan publik skool sisdum.

Re:Grammar Nazi Time (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303677)

Here is one I love.

Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.

Does this mean the current trash production rate in the developing world is ~.45 kg of trash per person per day or does it mean that the current trash production rate in the developing world is ~11.5 kg of trash per person per day?

Re:Grammar Nazi Time (1)

it0 (567968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303803)

And that is why computers have a hard time understanding human written text, spoken text is even worse.

Humans know the context, so I would know that in a third world country when that person lives in the dessert and is lucky if he can eat some bugs cannot produce 11 kg worth of trash.

Whooooooa! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303515)

If they all jumped at once they could send the earth out of orbit!

Plenty of Room (4, Informative)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303517)

The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas. The "Rust Belt" - cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh - continues to shrink. Pittsburgh alone has lost over HALF of its population from nearly 700,000 in the 1960s to barely over 300,000 today (and not just due to people leaving for the suburbs). If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!

Re:Plenty of Room (4, Insightful)

paranode (671698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303657)

The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas.


So the hispanics, whose population growth rate was over triple that of the general population last I checked, are all living in desirable areas?

Re:Plenty of Room (0)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303805)

Well, desirable for them. Not too many lawns in Montana.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303841)

Yes. California, Texas, and even some cold-weather big cities like Chicago. I don't see too many hispanics here in Pittsburgh!

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

a55clown (723455) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303903)

i quite agree. sierra vista, az, has more hispanics than i care to count. i'm moving back to pgh (or philly) as soon as i can.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303793)

Maybe you should buy as much as you can in those areas as a saving for your old days.
When the global warming would have caused the sea level to rise a few meters, the rust belt will be far more attractive than Florida or Mississipi.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303873)

When the global warming would have caused the sea level to rise a few meters, the rust belt will be far more attractive than Florida or Mississipi.

You'll be waiting awhile for that. Oceans rose at a constant 0.3mm per year from 1901 - 2000. So, 3 cm over 100 years. I think you should be able to figure out the rest.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303795)

Indeed, I'm from the UK, and we have a population of about 60 million. we're not even the size of America's smallest state. And despite some claims to the contrary, we're not particularly overcrowded, and still have plenty of green and plesant land. The USA could have a population of 600 million, and still not reach the population density we have here; you're far larger than ten times our size.

Re:Plenty of Room (2, Insightful)

winnabago (949419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303881)

But don't forget about the environmental footprint, as mentioned in the summary above. It's not about open space, but instead about the necessary area each of us requires for running water and agriculture. We will be out of resources long before the US is "full".

Re:Plenty of Room (2, Informative)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303919)

Just to be pedantic...

The smallest state in the US is Rhode Island, at 1,045 square miles.
The UK is 152,124 square miles. So no, you're not the size of the Rhode Island, you're larger.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303857)

The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas. The "Rust Belt" - cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh - continues to shrink. Pittsburgh alone has lost over HALF of its population from nearly 700,000 in the 1960s to barely over 300,000 today (and not just due to people leaving for the suburbs). If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!

Yeah, but then I'd have to live in Pittsburgh. The problem with the rust belt cities is that, to varying degrees, they just haven't figured out how to attract brain-heavy industries to replace the muscle-heavy industries they lost in hte last 40 years. Nothing draws people to places like Pittsburgh. But man, do I see a lot of Steeler fans living all along the east coast. Presumably they're among the 400,000 who left for jobs elsewhere.

Now don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh's still no Detroit.

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303887)

Now don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh's still no Detroit.

I can live with that. :-)

Re:Plenty of Room (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303863)

I don't know about the rest of the rust belt, but there is a reason why upstate New York is shrinking that might not be obvious to the rest of the country. We have the most corrupt state government and the highest state taxes in the country.

The politicians don't seem to understand that if they keep raising taxes to provide services, the employers are going to leave. The people don't seem to understand that if they keep voting for these politicians, their employers are going to leave.

AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (2, Insightful)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303531)

Re: The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."

Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"

They just dont get it.

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (4, Funny)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303687)

Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"

Yeah, they probably will. But would you rather have it any other way?

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (1)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303783)

Yes actually. I would.

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (1)

BGraves (790688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303749)

Framing your opposition with a deragatory name is always a constructive way to being intelligent discourse. Anyway, what is the production of the US versus consumption? I agree that we should be looking at ways to become more efficient and decrease our consumption, but why do we measure consumption versus population as opposed to consumption versus production? Isn't that a better measure of our efficiency? If we are more efficient, doesn't it make sense to have the United States consuming more resources and exporting our production to other countries? Isn't that the point of globilization? Production shifts to where it is more efficient on a relative basis without regards to national borders?

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (3, Interesting)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303877)

You make the presumptions that A) what the US is producing is also what it is consuming, and B) globalization is a benefit to all. Neither are knowns.

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (1, Insightful)

NoseBag (243097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303893)

The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population...

Our overall productivity is roughly twice that of the rest of the world, so the real question is "why does it take the rest of the world 3x the energy to produce half what the US does?"

Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303917)

Define productivity.

Producing all sorts of sh*t that nobody really needs?

Trashy Americans? (3, Insightful)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303975)

America has a disposable culture. Even things that are made to last for more than one use have a limited lifespan. Things are not engineered to last, and are cheap enough to replace rather than repair. Durable goods used to be things that were expected to be last for at least 10 years. This included cars and refrigerators. Over time the definition of durable goods has changed so that they are only good for 3 years, and only includes cars.

Even our cars are pretty much designed to fall apart after 3 years of regular use. How can American's not be leaders in producing trash in this kind of environment. Only good note is my mother in the law is a packrat and has not thrown hardly anything away for the last 30+ years. But I guess she is just a minor rounding error on the average.

huh (1, Insightful)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303533)

Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.

I wonder what would happen if China decided to relax those controls, I'm relatively sure the population would explode and almost double within a decade.

Re:huh (5, Insightful)

tdemark (512406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303601)

Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.

Except, according to TFA, a full 40% of the US population growth is due to immigration (legal and illegal).

- Tony

Re:huh (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303609)

I'll give you a few minutes to look up the relevant section of Article I that allows the government to do that. Go ahead, we'll wait right here.

Re:huh (-1, Troll)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303641)

Yes, because our government so obviously cares about the Constitution.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303617)

Doubtful, with most Chinese living in cities with skyrocketing housing costs I would expect that even without the stringent controls, the Chinese birth rate would probably follow that of places like Japan and South Korea: ie would still remain low. All the aforementioned economies went through exactly what China is going through now, they both had population booms followed by mass urbanization followed by plummetting birth rates. In fact, the Japanese government is trying to encourage people to have babies(including things such as forcing fathers to go home on certain "no overtime days") and while I am not aware of a similar program in Korea, I bet that the government isn't happy with the very low birth rates when it comes to long term economic prospects.

Re:huh (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303647)

forcing fathers to go home on certain "no overtime days"

Fathers, or husbands? Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to go home is because he already has a kid and knows better than to start that shit again.

Invasion of The Straw Men!! Aaaahh!!! (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303631)

Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.

Maybe if China was more like the US, they'd be better off.

Of course, China *HAS* to adopt strict population controls, because of all those people from the neighboring companies constantly crashing their borders to sneak into China for the better life it offers them there.

Oh, wait...

Re:Invasion of The Straw Men!! Aaaahh!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303709)

You mean from North Korea?

The US Consumes More Because It Does More (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303535)

The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."

This is just crap. Who else is going to be consuming that energy, when most other people do not have the wealth and products that Americans? You think Ethiopians have a need for the energy we have? It's logical that the richest country on the planet will be doing a greater share of consumption as well as production compared to the rest of the world.

I predict this will be another US bash-fest thats so typical on slashdot.

Re:The US Consumes More Because It Does More (3, Informative)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303741)

Uh, if nobody uses the energy then the power companies will simply generate less. Thus less usage of natural resources (fossil fuels, etc) and pollution.

Re:The US Consumes More Because It Does More (5, Insightful)

Stoertebeker (1005619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303757)

It's logical that the richest country on the planet will be doing a greater share of consumption as well as production compared to the rest of the world.
Only the resources they are consuming are limited on a global scale, leaving less to anyone else. And the trash/pollution they produce destroys the environment on a global scale. Are you surprised that less wealthy people aren't exactly happy with this arrangement?

It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...

Re:The US Consumes More Because It Does More (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303921)

It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...

I think we've been playing the same game as everyone else has been for the last 100-150 years. We've just been better at it. We've bent the rules at times, but so has every other country. Where, exactly, do you propose that the US has been getting this unfair advantage from?

Re:The US Consumes More Because It Does More (3)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303895)

You think Ethiopians have a need for the energy we have?

Yes.

KFG

It's all the immigrants (5, Insightful)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303551)

Americans aren't pumping out puppies, it's that we welcome people looking for a better life. So lay off the environmental left wing crap, those people would be somewhere creating pollution.

Re:It's all the immigrants (5, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303597)

we welcome people looking for a better life
...which is rather cruelly misleading on your part. Unsporting, I say.

Re:It's all the immigrants (4, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303835)

They wouldn't be producing so much pollution though, would they? I would be that on average, most 1st generation immigrants consume below the national average. Either through habits developed in their birth culture, or because immigrant's tend to be poorer (yes, I'm a highly paid immigrant, but immigration is costly and leaves you without networking to find jobs. BTW, I'm not an economic migrant as I came from a country with comparable standards of living and salaries).

Re:It's all the immigrants (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303837)

Americans aren't pumping out puppies

Hey now, that's a discussion for a whole other type of website.

America is doing something right... (4, Interesting)

SniperClops (776236) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303553)

Asia has too many, Europe has a decreasing population, America is just right. Whats your secret?

Re:America is doing something right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303595)

If we told you we'd have to shoot you.

Re:America is doing something right... (0)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303671)

European population massively increased over the last few years, of course, including 10 new countries in the EU helped a lot.

Re:America is doing something right... (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303811)

Um, those countries were already part of Europe. This might come as a shock to you, but there is Europe outside EU as well.

Re:America is doing something right... (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303899)

Lots of space.

I can't speak for the US, but north of the border, immigration is the only thing that causes population growth because ferility rates for those born in Canada has dropped below the level needed to maintain the current population (same as in Europe).

Already??? (5, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303557)

Shit! Quick, go to a school and start a killing spree! It's the only way to keep this thing under control.

Re:Already??? (1)

CnlPepper (140772) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303679)

Talk about bad taste.

Re:Already??? (-1, Troll)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303699)

I live about 30 minutes from the latest shooting site in Lancaster, PA.

I can assure you, modders of the parent, that it was anything but "funny".

See you in metamod purgatory.

Re:Already??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303941)

Get off the Internet and get back to work, before I tell the rest of the Amish on you!

Major Industrial Nation??? (1)

DisprinDirect (755967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303573)

And what is China, a minor industrial nation? Yeah right!

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (1, Interesting)

PrayingWolf (818869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303581)

If you make our over 6 billion people live in the state of Texas, you'll have roughly 100 square meters for every person...
and the rest of the world for everything else!

Re:Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (1)

ruckc (111190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303765)

Hey now watch it. Don't mess with Texas!

Come on... lets rally and beat this number (5, Funny)

GfxGeek (994243) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303605)

"The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population..." We can do better than that. Thanks to ATI / nVidia and their 1.21 gigawatt next gen GPUs, I'm confident we can shatter this number by next year.

Re:Come on... lets rally and beat this number (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303851)

I wonder what percent of the world's energy is used for video games, taking into account motherboard overclocking, graphics cards that are 100 times overkill for anything but gaming and the additional air conditioning needed to cool the gamer's house. Pretty hard to justify the answer, whatever it is, even on slashdot.

What's with India? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303621)

The population is going to increase 42% till 2050, and there is still no birth control initiatives from the government. Oh yes, IT personnel, there is always a demand.

Re:What's with India? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303693)

What usually happens... famine.

offsets (1)

symes (835608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303625)

So, if the US signed up to the Koyoto Protocol could they offset reproduction by getting children in the third world to plant trees? Or even better, plant trees while reproducing... there's a whole carbon-neutral fetish thing here just waiting to be tapped.

Re:offsets (2, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303773)

"You need 50 more units of WOOD to finish constructing this BABY."

120 Million Added By 2050 (2, Funny)

CycleFreak (99646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303635)

From TFA:
By 2050, the United States is projected to have about 420 million people.

Holy super-freaking-crowded roadways Batman! Where the hell will 120 MILLION additional people go? Probably straight out on the roads to turn my 30-minute commute into 1-1/2 hours.

Re:120 Million Added By 2050 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303759)

Where the hell will 120 MILLION additional people go?


Texas, California, Arizona... pretty much the border states. Then they'll move up north. Once our pandering politicians allow amnesty for immigration law-breakers, the gates will open and our crummy social welfare system will collapse on us.

Not so bad (3, Interesting)

halivar (535827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303655)

You'd think, that as the third-most populated country and first in consumerism that we'd be sucking up everyone else's resources. For oil, yes. But not for everything. According to the Foreign Agricultural Service:

How much of its agricultural products does the United States export?
American farmers export 45 percent of their wheat, 34 percent of their soybeans, 71 percent of their almonds, and more than 60 percent of their sunflower oil.

For many food products, U.S. producers are among the lowest cost producers in the world.

So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.

Re:Not so bad (5, Insightful)

Ruliz Galaxor (568498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303839)

But do you also know where the American agricultural products are exported to? Do you know how many Africans cant sell their agricultural products, because of the low priced (with subsidies!) American products?

Re:Not so bad (5, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303889)

Jesus, all the numbers and none of the context.

How much of that low-cost is due to subsidising? How does the US stack up against developing countries pre-subsidy? I'd like a figure please.

More to the point, do you have any idea what impact subsidising your food exports has on the global economy? Specifically, have you got a clue just how badly fucked the third-world, agriculture-based economies are thanks to your heroic efforts to get rid of this food that your farmers are overproducing so they can reap the benefits of such a heavily manipulated market?

You may not be sucking up other nations' resources in this regard, but you are destroying their ability to be economically profitable and competitive. The thing is, economically speaking it doesn't make much difference to the US - just a few less wasted fields here or there, a marginally improved national deficit figure - but to the countries who rely on food export to maintain any kind of currency in the global market, it is everything. Still, as long as nothing inconveniences the honest 'Merkin, yes?

Re:Not so bad (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303925)

So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.
Using just the exports tells you what the US can produce efficently, it doesn't measure in general how much is "contributed back". The US does export more agricultural products than it uses but the export surplus is worth about 3.5 billion USD (about 12 dollars per capita). (Graphics: http://www.fas.usda.gov/cmp/outlook/2006/Aug-06/08 -06b.jpg [usda.gov]

Then you have the issue with agricultural subsidies in all the major industrialized markets (EU, Japan, USA) which skews the market as whole.

First World Birthrates to LOW? WRONG. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303661)

Actually, US population is growing too slowly to keep up with the baby boomers' retirement demands. It's far worse in Europe, which will be basically Muslim within a generation, its entire culture and history pushed into slavery (dhimmitude). So please take this whining somewhere else. It's this attitude that lead to our culture's potential extinction in the first place.

Kennedy Shot! (1)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303669)

This is old news. We're talking cover story on news magazines two weeks ago old.

Population of America? (0, Troll)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303681)

Actually, the population of America is more like 858,000,000 [wikipedia.org] . The population of the USA, however...

Re:Population of America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303729)

There is no continent nor set of continents nor any geographical region named "America". Try again.

Re:Population of America? (0, Offtopic)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303909)

I love the people who always get into a hissy fit about the US of A being called America.

As another poster stated, there is no continent named America. Furthermore, the common understanding around the world is that "America" refers to the United States. People who bitch about it are just begging for attention, in a pedantic sort of way: Look at me!! I'm so smart and you're all so stupid! It's the USA, not America!!

Duly noted, fuckheads. Now go form an opinion that actually matters.

Re:Population of America? (1)

Will_Malverson (105796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303927)

The United States of America is the only country in the world with the word 'America' in its official name, and therefore referring to it as 'America' and its inhabitants as 'Americans' is reasonable. Other constructs, such as 'United Statesian' run into the problem of name-collisions with countries like Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

No one gets mad when you refer to people from that big island in the South Pacific as 'Australians', despite the fact that people from New Guinea also live on the continent of Australia.

Immigration anyone? (4, Insightful)

Demon-Xanth (100910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303711)

A large part of the growth of the US population is from the large amount of immigration the US has, both legal and not legal. Also, the OP stated that they compared the per capita usage to developing countries, not industrialized countries. It sounds like someone's cherry picking stats to make it sound bigger than it is.

Projected Growth? (1)

ruckc (111190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303731)

By simply plugging this data into an XY chart and creating a trendline we should hit 400 million right around year 2050 and 600 million by 2100. And we are trying to solve everyone else's problems.

Re:Projected Growth? (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16304005)

And we'll still have plenty of room and resources to spare. What's your point, exactly?

US isn't the only one growing (5, Interesting)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303737)

"The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone [...] for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially"

Wrong! Canada (member of the G8, so technically a major industrial nation, even though a little over a tenth the size of the US) is increasing in size faster. More new immigrants settle in Greater Toronto Area every year than any other N. American city, including LA and Miami. Since I first came to Canada 10 years ago, I've seem the population grow from 28 million to 32. The last government was trying to increase the inflow of immigrants. Yes, it's easier to have a higher growth rates on lower numbers, but the impact on things like services (medical, roads, education, etc) and the enviroment are still proportionally higher.

Before we can (3, Funny)

refriedchicken (961967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303739)

go to war with China (those bastages are taking all the oil we need), we need to increase population to catch up to them...It is all part of the administration's master plan for when Jeb becomes president.

What is the real "breaking point"? (5, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303743)

I found this US Census page [census.gov] , but I can't find the "live" moving clock. It seems, to me at least, that a 1% yearly growth in population isn't really anything to be alarmed about. In fact, if you look at population density [wikipedia.org] , our population density is less than average: 31 people per km compared to the world average of 48 km. That's less than 10% of the density in Japan or India. Some European countries are way up there as well. Germany and the UK both have more than 200 people per km. Even without Alaska, we're still only at about 37 people per km.

If we had Germany's population density, the US would have 2.2 billion people (and still only about 400 interested in the World Cup).

The question isn't about density, as it is about resources and the ecological footprint that Americans have. We're terribly, awfully wasteful. If we all became more conscious about resource use, in twenty years, even with 360 million people, we could use less resources then than we use today. At that point, the economic benefits of population (and immigration) outweigh the other costs.

I'd be a lot more worried if we've maxed out our resource use efficiency and there was simply no way to improve. No, we've got a lot of improvements we can do. If we follow through with them, US population growth won't be a problem in the next century.

Would you like Mexicans with that? (0, Troll)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303879)

Is this 300 million with or without undocumented, er, illegal, er, visiting, um, whoever they are.

In a less trollish tone, maybe we have 300 million residents because, since the 1970s, 50 million people from all around the world decided the US was a cool place to live, and practically climbed over one another to get here.

Anyway, once China gets serious about ridding the world of fossil fuel, we in the US will seem like a nation of effete greenies.

yay america bashing! (0, Troll)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303747)

"Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day"

Smart move. Use a unit that almost no one in america is familair with. Next you can talk about the gas "mileage" of american cars in meters. Yeah, say bob gets 16,093 meters off a gallon of gas. 16 fucking 093 meters, thats some eco-friendly car bob has isnt it?

Re:yay america bashing! (3, Funny)

saider (177166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303913)

People in America are plenty familiar with a kilo. They are smallish bricks that are relatively easy to stash in vehicle cutouts and can be used to negotiate for cash with shady characters at the local strip club.

At least that's what the movies tell me.

Re:yay america bashing! (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303923)

I know your post is a joke, but I thought I'd point out the problem with the quotation you listed: "Each American" does *not* produce 2.3 kg of trash. 2.3 kg is the result of dividing daily trash output by people. If you look at any household, they most certainly do *not* use that much trash on average. What's bringing up the figure is heavy industrial processes. It's fun to blame individual Americans and all, but most of that trash is due to the decisions of a relatively small number of people, so even if households cut their trash back by ~50%, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Just wanted to let everyone know what policies are pointless.

Re:yay america bashing! (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16304025)

1kg is 2.2lbs, thus 2.3kg is 5lbs.

This is supposedly a techy site; even if you aren't familiar with SI units, google is over thataway ->.

Slashdot: Still Editorially Challenged (1)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303785)

Is there any class of people other than Slashdot editors that doesn't recognize "buereau" as a mispelling? I mean, misspelling.

Comparing energy consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303797)

The consumption of energy (or oil...or other resources) when compared to developing countries is not that interesting (no electric lights, computers, TV's...lower energy consumption...who would have thought?).

It would be more interesting to see how USA compares to other industrialised countries...

Perspective (4, Interesting)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303801)

The 5-25% phrase bugs me. It's designed to make the US look wasteful while that's definitely not the case.

According to Angus Maddison's [url=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Stati stics/horizontal-file_2006.xls]world population and GDP .xls[/url], the US GDP is 8.2 billion and the world's 38.9 billion. So the US accounts for 21% of global economical output using 25% of energy resources. That's below average and something to think about, but it definitely puts a different perspective on matters.

Oh, boo hoo! (1)

sanermind (512885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303827)

%25 of worlds energy, %5 of population. Awesome! Energy use is strongly equated to wealth, you know. And who's to say we don't use the energy here more efficently in many cases (of course, towards our own selfish ends, (damn freedom!.. my neighbor buying a jetski when he could be subsidizing space elevator research! (which whould be preferable to giving money to the poor)).. Argh. I'm ranting. Too tired for this right now... but, I suppose I should sum up by saying that, although there are many critiques I could make of modern american society.. it's consumption and enjoyment of a large share of earth's wealth (assuming a zero-sum game without innovation) is a pretty awesome thing to me. Go america! Just don't expect it to last with the recent hi-tech modernization of many other competitors in the world. May the best, and most technologically sucessfull and productive culture win!

American (1)

skroz (7870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303897)

Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.


I ask that you use the proper capitalization of American when slamming my nation's environmental record, sir.

I think: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303915)

People should need a lisence to reproduce. One that will specify the number of offspring the couple are approved for, and reason.

It should be based on occupation -Primary producers and primary thinkers are the most needed. It should also be based on income to proffesion, IQ, and education.

Countered with things that will lower the number of offspring allowed: Sex offence, religion, violent crime, and the like.

All men and wonen should have some form of reversable surgical birth-control implanted at birth, removed when they are lisenced, and put back once they reach the maximum. Overproduction should be a crime.

And your point is? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16303937)

1. Immigration, both legal and illegal. The US still has one of the least-irritating systems of harassment toward people looking to flee into the country. I'd love to see population percentages based on sheer land mass. Keep in mind, we're a bit more temperate than Russia, as well.

2. Energy use: I'd love to know how much 'energy' is taken up via cars. Again, see large population plus vast swaths of land. Same for oil.

3. Waste: Damned if it's my fault that Newegg just sent me a laptop hard drive and ram chip in a small box, encased by an absolutely huge god damned box filled with about a cubic meter of packaging peanuts.

The environazis can complain about trash all they want; I'll wholeheartedly agree with 'em that it's bad. But I'll laugh in their faces when they start whining about population and energy use. For the love of god, the majority of the country is still very sparesely populated. Oh noes! We have a large population!

Guess what? We've got plenty of room for many times what we've got now. And surprise! As population increases, energy use will decrease - if only because some poor fool out in the middle of one of those lovely flat, boring square states that make up the majority of our land mass won't have to hop in their car and drive an hour to the nearest store. :P

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16303999)

That is odd the current projections by the UN's Population Division, based on the 2004 revision of the World Population Prospects database shows that the population of the world is decreasing and this one claims that the US population is increasing.

Seems that while we have fewer people in the world, those that are born head to the US.

Source [wikipedia.org]

You may also note the US population growth rate @ 0.91% [cia.gov]

Oh and as to the oil usage, So what! Look at what we give the world back for the oil we use.

agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn), industrial supplies (organic chemicals), capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment), and consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) (In order of quantity)

This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16304009)

Population on Earth shouldn't be something we want to grow for ever.
With life expectances going up, maybe anti aging drugs in the next century, this is a good thing.
The population predictions for the developing countries don't take into account that as they develop women want careers too, which reduces the number having kids. If you want to slow population growth, educate the women. So population growth might slow more then shown here. I'm all for it. As the developed countries population growth slows and reverses, they import people from else where. Ideally it should be from some where they have too many people. It could all work out quite nicely. Think how much easier it would be to control population and reach world agreements if they where only say a billion people.

Let the killing begin! Oh wait, got carried away, but I think you see my point. ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>