Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

U.S. Population Hits 300 Million

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the conserving-most-of-our-planet's-resources-since-1776 dept.

492

ChrisK87 writes "The United States' population will hit 300 million on Tuesday morning, just 39 years after it reached 200 million, the US Census Bureau estimates. A 'population clock' will record the milestone at 0746 (1146 GMT) — a timing based on calculations that factor birth and death rates and migration." From the article: "But it is not possible to say if the 300-millionth American was a new-born or crossed one of the US borders. Correspondents say that there is not expected to be the same hullabaloo as when the figure of 100 million was reached in 1915, or the double century in 1967 when President Johnson gave a speech and newborn Robert Ken Woo Jr was hailed the 200-millionth American by Life magazine. Today, the population figure is mired in the divisive politics of immigration — a hot-button issue ahead of the 7 November mid-term elections, they say." The story has lots of interesting stats and graphs, for those of us so inclined.

cancel ×

492 comments

Hola (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467195)

My name ees Jose and I am dee tree hundred million person in dee Joonited Stace. I come from Chihuaha Mehico and my favorite color is jello.

One thing I would like to know... (1, Interesting)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467199)

One thing I would like to know is: How the hell are you going to support all those people when the oil runs out?

Re:One thing I would like to know... (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467281)

Too many people, not enough oil. People are somewhat flammable. I think I know of a way we can solve both of these problems at once.

Re:One thing I would like to know... (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467401)

All I have to do now is patent a car that can run off the wast from a liposuction clinic and I'll be rich.

Re:One thing I would like to know... (5, Funny)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467473)

How does that saying go?

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night; light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Re:One thing I would like to know... (0)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468007)

Come on baby, light my fire Come on baby, light my fire Try to set the night on fire Oh, the time to hesitate is through There's no time to wallow in the mire If I was to say to you That our love becomes a funeral pyre

Not a problem (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467361)

We just resort to cannibalism and man-powered industry.

Re:One thing I would like to know... (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467407)

Don't you know? Oil will never run out! Year after year we keep hearing talk about how we've reached our max ability to pump oil yet the amount of oil supply keeps rising.

This is the golden age of oil, one that will never end.

(If anyone thinks the above was serious you really need to get off the drugs. And yes, that was a Simpsons reference at the end.)

Re:One thing I would like to know... (1)

JonathanR (852748) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467935)

Global oil production/captia apparently peaked in 1979, with an average of 1.2% pa decline since. This means that more and more folk somewhere are using less and less oil.

Nuclear (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467439)

Simple: nuclear power plants. You know, like France does now...

Re:Nuclear (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468013)

Speaking of nuclear, what if North Korea bombs the hell out of the U.S. Do we drop the number back down below 300 mil?

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467459)

We use the Haliburton weather machine and program it to rain food from the sky. Then we eat babies and Democrats. Pssh.

Overpopulation: Overblown? (2, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467751)

I'm definitely onboard with sustainability theory, but I cringe when people talk as if the planet's just bursting at the seams with people. It isn't.

Furthermore, people are not hamsters. Each person who is born has a brain, and intelligence that can be applied to solving problems such as "overpopulation". I suspect inefficient resource allocation is a larger part of the poverty problem than raw "mouths to feed" numbers.

Re:Overpopulation: Overblown? (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467993)

Yea...that's why the oceans have huge dead areas with no fish in them any more... Why we are down from 3' of topsoil to 9" of topsoil and it has a fraction of the nutrients it really needs to produce nutritious food.

I'll grant we can probably figure out some way to "exist" with 9 billion people on the planet.

But only 1% of them will have a good life and the other 99% are going to live very constrained existances.

There's only so many beaches- so many ski mountains- and either only the rich or powerfull will have them- or they will be so grossly overcrowded you really won't want to be there. Truly rare stuff is starting to rise in value.

Re:One thing I would like to know... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468005)

I guess they'll have to migrate away from a frying-based cuisine.

All because of me ... (2, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467211)

... but for me it would have only been 299,999,997.

Re:All because of me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467749)

... but for me it would have been 300,000,001. Don't ask. Or look at me funny.

Brazil and Prostitutes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467213)

Brazil, stop sending prostitutes to Portugal. Fuck you all.

Re:Brazil and Prostitutes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467809)

How come? Aren't all prostitutes ugly portuguese gals?

400 million (2, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467219)

At the current rate of birth/death in the US, we'll hit 400 million in approx 2043 [csmonitor.com] , with the southern states gaining the most. It makes sense that the south would gain more, because I can't see how we can support that many more people in the bigger northern cities.

Re:400 million (2, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467267)

It makes sense that the south would gain more, because I can't see how we can support that many more people in the bigger northern cities.

Tokyo metropolitan area has 35 million people and is still growing. I'd say the risk of your cities getting full is not an argument.

Re:400 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467359)

Uhm , our 1 big city in the US isn't even in the top 10 in the world. I live in a city with about 250,000 people and it's like the 80th biggest! Land is not an issue, government resources are.

Re:400 million (3, Interesting)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467573)

Bigger northern cities? You mean Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, and many others that are a small fraction of the size they were 50 years ago? If people wanted to move up north, theres plenty of room for 'em.

Would this be with or without illegal aliens ... (3, Interesting)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467237)

Anyway, congratulations. I heard on the radio this morning the states are the worlds third most populous country, right after China and India. Surprised me.

Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467263)

I wonder how they could be sure of the number if they count illegal immigrants - I mean we only have a guesstimate figure for how many of them are in the country anyway. The number could easily be off by a couple mil.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (0, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467265)

One reason could be that there are more catholics in the US and the pope says that contraception is bad (is the contraceptive pill free in the US?)

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (2, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467617)

Oddly enough, most American Catholics don't really in practice give a damn about what the Pope says regarding contraception. They don't even care as much about abortion as you might think; the two most Catholic states (by far) are Rhode Island and Maryland, both of whom have decently liberal laws regarding abortion, and while the institution of the Catholic Church bitches constantly about it (I live in one of those two states) the parishioners kindly and gently ignore them. No, most of the religiously-based conservatism in the US comes out of Dominionist churches and sources in the south and midwest.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468141)

And exactly what religion do you think all these Joses and Marias are? Hindu?

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1, Interesting)

paranode (671698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467283)

Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
The US is still growing significantly because there is a more family-oriented mindset here than in Europe. The European birthrates are declining in many places while the US continues to rise. This is catalysed by immigrants who are mostly Catholic and very pro-family (and often not into birth control).

The demographics producing the most children are hispanics, around 3 times the general population last I checked.

The number of *legal* immigrants has little effect because it is hard to immigrate to the US legally. The number of illegal immigrants, however, has a very large impact on the growth rate, as per the answer to your second question.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (2, Interesting)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467739)

Let's not bundle the whole of Europe in one basket. There are large birth rate differences between European countries and religion (or catholicism as you mentionned) seems to have little to do with it: Italy very catholic, low birth rate, France, mostly atheist high birth rate. The main differences in Europe seems to come from different state/employer benefits for women and cultural attitudes. For instance in Germany or the Netherlands, a woman with a young child is frowned upon if she goes to work, whereas in France it's the reverse.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467847)

France has higher birth rate because of the large muslim contingent. Birthrate among native French women isn't higher than in other European countries.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (2, Insightful)

paranode (671698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467955)

Well, I am not speaking to the reasons for Europe's birthrates. You can't turn a corner here in the US without hearing about 'family values' and the 'baby culture'. Some people pop out kids for social acceptance, others do it for intrinsic cultural values that often come from religion (Catholicism being but one of them). A noticeable trend appears to be that child rearing is most often inversely proportional to income and intelligence, which is bad news. Of course there are always exceptions.

it's 3 per woman, not 3 times.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467933)

in the US, white women have 1.8 children on average (below the replacement rate)
hispanic women have 3 children, almost twice that number.

Re:it's 3 per woman, not 3 times.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467975)

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/population/005164.html [census.gov]

"Hispanics, who may be of any race, accounted for about one-half of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2004. The Hispanic growth rate of 3.6 percent over the 12-month period was more than three times that of the total population (1.0 percent)."

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (4, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467295)

Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries?

Higher birth and immigration rates.

Which demographics are producing most children?

Red states. I'm serious. Comapre Utah to California. (I'd give you the stats if I were less lazy.)

How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?

Don't know, but for comparison, I read that of all immigrants in the world (people who leave one country for another to live), 3/8 of them have the US as their destination.

Another stat I can't be bothered to check, but sounds reasonable.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467801)

>Higher birth and immigration rates.
Higher birth maybe but several European countries have higher immigration rates. Alas I'm at work so I don't have my info to hand but there was a chart of the various countries immigration stats and US was surprisingly far down the list, 4th or 5th ISTR.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467315)

Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?

Wider-spread religiosity and gender-equality are the factors according to this article [economist.com] .

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467321)

Rednecks.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467345)

Generally speaking, low income families are producing the most children. The grand ass, John [mediamatters.org] Gibson [mediamatters.org] , used this notion to incite his viewers to have more babies, lest the Hispanics become the racial majority in the US. John Gibson is really a terrible person.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (2, Informative)

rbf2000 (862211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467347)

Basically, the poorer you are, the more children you have. So inversely, the richer you are, the less children you have. Just think about it this way: People that are rich have time that is very valuable, so they can't afford to have many children, because they would waste too much of their own time.

Poor people, it seems, have nothing but free time, and can therefore have more children. Although the care they give per child is less than the care given by parents who have fewer children.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (3, Interesting)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467485)

A few reasons. Europe is mainly 'full' -- its landmass is less than that of the US IIRC, or darn near close...they have 700+ million, the US just hit 300. Alot of central Europe is mountain region remember, they just don't have the wide open plains like north america.

Also, Europe is comprised of very old, mature set of societies. Less social and economic mobility; all the land is owned and in use. The US still has large amounts space and sparsely populated cities. The rustbelt has a negative population growth for example.

Finally, I think the social objectives are a bit different. Speaking in very broad terms, most European societies are not as materalistic. There's alot of negatives to materialism as a motivator, but it does give your economy a very powerful engine. This creates oppportunity, which in turn attracts immigrants.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467629)

"Anyway, congratulations."

Why should the unstopping growth of population from one million to the next be a cause of congratulation?

What are the real advantages of continuing population growth, and how do these relate to the real disadvantages?

As a matter of policy, should population be allowed or tacitly encouraged to grow without limit?

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (0, Troll)

buckysphere (1011323) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467667)

That is an easy one to answer. Our southern borders are wide open. This allows thousands of illegal aliens to cross into this country every day. 99% of these illegals are completely uneducated and can do nothing but drain our welfare systems. You will hear in the news the bogus claims, "They are good people coming here to work.", and, "They are only doing the jobs that Americans won't do.". Both of those theories are ridiculously flawed. Because of this, our country is being slowly destroyed. It is amazing, really. It is amazing that we will destroy our own country just so we can tell ourselves (and others) that we are nice people. We are a society of PC-martyrs. We will get exactly what we deserve.

Re:Would this be with or without illegal aliens .. (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467669)

Teenage pregnancies might me a partial answer it. They've gone down a lot more in most european countries. According to this diagram http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/vol324/issue735 0/images/medium/16874.gif [bmjjournals.com] it looks like it would be something like half in europe compared to the US (BMJ -> British Medical Journal). So maybe "planning" for children is much more common in europe and leads to fewer children.

US politics mired by immigration - since 1000AD (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467241)

I blame the Vikings myself. Things were just fine till they came over, had a nice time, didn't take the hint and then told the rest of those pesky Europeans about the place. ;-)

Go Forth and Multiply (3, Informative)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467257)

America is the only developed nation which is still robustly growing. Our own average fertility rate is just above 2 kids per woman, which is enough to sustain population. The substantial immigration provides grows.

Economist [economist.com] thinks, religion has something to do with the fenomenon...

Re:Go Forth and Multiply (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467427)

Economist may have something there; last year I did a report on the Israeli educational system which showed an interesting trend of the ever proportionately increasing size of religiously-based education as opposed to the secular system, and the main causal agent was that the Orthodox and Haredim simply have more kids than the more secularized segments of the population. But, methinks in the US of A two other major factors are the still sizable agricultural sector (and the large families that traditionally entails) and poverty, which usually has a significant direct relationship with family size.

Re:Go Forth and Multiply (1)

Domstersch (737775) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467867)

America is the only developed nation which is still robustly growing.
Right. Sure. Because Australia, with a growth rate just 0.01% per annum below that of America, is obviously not 'developed'. Hell, do they even have electricity? Oh, and don't even get me started on Canada!

Just imagine... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467309)

How much larger the population would be if it weren't for things like birth control & abortion... it's a shame that we've essentially wiped out a whole generation of people through these acts.

"the divisive politics of immigration?" Nice Try. (4, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467319)

It's the divisive politics of Illegal immigration. I know and have read of no one who is against immigration in the U.S. We're all too closely descended from immigrants.

It's *Illegal* immigration that causes the rift.

Don't lose control of the words. Words mean something.

Re:"the divisive politics of immigration?" Nice Tr (2)

CrtxReavr (62039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467463)

I agree. . . the sprit and promise of Lady Liberty is still very much alive.

You know what though, you know what the immigrants who were welcomed by the Statue of Liberty did? They stopped at Ellis Island to register and apply for residency.

-CR

Re:"the divisive politics of immigration?" Nice Tr (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467611)


Yeah, because nobody got turned down back then.

You do realize that when all the European immigrants came over at the turn of last century, there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant?" Immigration was exceedingly simple. And everybody got to stay except for the Asians (Asian Exclusion Act, anyone?).

Now, you have "illegal" immigration which ignores the 50,000 or so illegal Irish immigrants in NYC, but focuses on Latinos. What we're gearing up for is another Operation Wetback (Wiki search it).

Didn't know about any of this? Well, maybe the "debate" you've been having has been narrow and uninformed, then.

Re:"the divisive politics of immigration?" Nice Tr (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467959)

Actually, lots of immigrants got turned away. That's what Ellis Island was for.

Re:"the divisive politics of immigration?" Nice Tr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468019)

"Now, you have "illegal" immigration which ignores the 50,000 or so illegal Irish immigrants in NYC"

I don't think they're being so much 'ignored', it's just that 50K pales in comparison to estimates of 10-20 MILLION.

Tarring with a heavy brush. (3, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467595)

Seriously -- mod parent up.

There's no "immigration debate," at least not in mainstream politics; the debate is over illegal immigration.

Immigration per se isn't a divisive issue at all. Except for the very far-right fringe, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we should stop legitimate immigration of people with skills that are in-demand, here in the United States. The disagreement is in how to deal with the large number of illegal immigrants, doing mostly low-value work, and the consequent social problems that having an effective sub-class of workers entails.

The only debate I can think of that involves legal immigration has to do with the way the U.S. grants refugee status, and the "anchor baby" phenomenon, but those are closely tied to the same issues that make illegal immigration important; they're not really fundamental questions about immigration.

Re:Tarring with a heavy brush. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467771)

Except for the very far-right fringe, I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we should stop legitimate immigration of people with skills that are in-demand, here in the United States


No, but the left would have you think that the right is against it by leaving out the word "illegal" whenever it comes up. Leave out "illegal", and boom, you have non-compassionate conservatives hating on all immigrants.

celebrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467375)

300 million fat spoiled Americans. yay

Whta is this whole immigration thing (0, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467379)

I mean the US is the 172nd most densely populated country, giving each citizen almost 8 acres of the country. India and Japan have 10 times the population density. Are a few extra immigrants really somethign to get worked up over?

Negative marginal GDP contribution (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467829)

Are a few extra immigrants really somethign to get worked up over?

It is when it's a few million, and if the immigrants in question consume more in services than they contribute in GDP; if that's the case, then they are a net economic loss, and decrease per-capita GDP and with it, the overall standard of living. While previous generations of working-class immigrants were basically self-sufficent and used little in the way of public-sector social services, this is not the case today with many people who are immigrating illegally.

Besides which, "eight acres for every person" is a mis-statement. Much of that land you're talking about isn't really habitable, or is already being used for other purposes (such as food production). There's lots of "empty" land in the badlands of Wyoming or up in Alaska, but you're going to have a hard time getting the people wading across the Rio Grande to go there.

Re:Whta is this whole immigration thing (1)

buckysphere (1011323) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467919)

Yes. Now, go back under your bridge, Troll.

Re:Whta is this whole immigration thing (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468001)

Yes, the USA has a lot of unused space, even if you don't count deserts & national parks and produce far enough food, and in most places, water is not a problem either.
I think the only potential problem would be energy, if they reduce their usage to west european level, they have the potential to grow even more. Anyway, I don't really worry, we'll simply all adapt to what is available, it might be less confortable, but it will be mostly OK with a couple of billion more people.

Meanwhile in El Paso... (5, Funny)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467383)

"Welcome to the U.S. Alejandro you are the 300 Millionth American. Your prize? Deportation. Have a nice day!"

Try again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467425)

The prize is welfare benefits, social security benefits, and a job where you pay no taxes.

The number does not count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467389)

overseas Americans like me, which account for at least 4 million or so people.

Just 300M? (2, Funny)

Honest Olaf (1011253) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467411)

Call me when we hit 3,141,592.

Re:Just 300M? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467489)

You mean 314,159,265?

Re:Just 300M? (1)

Honest Olaf (1011253) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467531)

Well, I did... but now that I think about it; 3,141,592 would be pretty nice.

Re:Just 300M? (1)

Adelbert (873575) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467569)

What about the ~0.3589793238462643383279502884197 of a person you left off?

Re:Just 300M? (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467719)

What about the ~0.3589793238462643383279502884197 of a person you left off?

~0.3589's of a person? sounds like grandparent post isn't the only one with "things left off"....

Obligatory Hot Shots Part Deux quote (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467453)

...my fellow Americans, and our millions of illegal aliens: It seems like just yesterday that I was strafing all your homes. Now. I'm standing here begging you not to make such good automobiles.

Too many people = the root of all evil (-1, Troll)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467479)

Every single problem we face has, at its core, the fact that there are too many people as a confounding factor. If the world had 1/10th the population, our problems could be easily solved or they wouldn't exist in the 1st place. Pollution, war for land, global warming, etc. Name me a problem and I can easily argue that it would be solvable (or not a problem at all) with 1/10th the population. The harsh reality is that the more people there are, the less valuable an individual life is and the less freedom that individual will have.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467575)

Name me a problem and I can easily argue that it would be solvable (or not a problem at all) with 1/10th the population.


Here are a few: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnsolvedProblems.html [wolfram.com]

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467675)

heh.
I could argue that, with less people, the focus on the education of the individual would be greater, thus there could be a better chance of developing the intelligence to solve these problems...

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

qwp (694253) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467679)

i vote we fix that starting with you. ;P

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467687)

Rewind to back when there was only 1/10th the population. Was there war? Yes, of course.

Man is still man, regardless of the world's population. We'll figure out something to kill each other over.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467755)

I didn't say that merely having 1/10th of the population would solve all of our problems, merely that they would be solvable.

Also - I disagree with the notion that humans are inherantly warlike. Sure, you could look back over all of our history and draw that conclusion, but history is written by the winners - and winning (used to) = superior force which drove warlike behavior. From a Darwin perspective, we evolved warlike tendancies, but the reality is that it has become a de-evolutionary trait and it is just a trait, not innate.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (5, Insightful)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467731)

Yeah, cuz back in the day when the population was much smaller, there were no such things as war (over land), famine, pollution. Sure humans made less of an impact on the Earth on a global scale (ie global warming), but I think your utopian view of a less populus world is inherently flawed. Cities from the early days of the industrial revolution were heavily polluted, and also had less people in them.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467741)

I'm not trolling here, but if you really do believe that then kill yourself. Obviously you don't think that you should have been born(or is it just the "other" people that don't deserve to be around). You will consume less resources when dead, so you think that a smaller population is a good thing so naturally you should kill yourself.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467961)

I am an only child, thus my birth was technically population reduction.

Very naive view (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467765)

The grass is always greener on the other side. Hence the wars and such would still exist as any condition that exist with current population can exist with smaller populations.

solve these just by reducing the population.

1. Religious difference.
2. Resource difference (from your land is more fertile, has more shiny rocks, is upwind, you name it)
3. Global Warming (as if its population based, we would just blame it on something else, lets see, the previous conditions work)

The harsh reality is that most of the world sucks but its far easier to blame Western countries, in paticular the US, for the world's problems that to actually admit the real problem. the real problem is that there are millions of people who needlessly die because no one will act. Why won't they act? Because of the same problems that would occur at 1/10th the population - they don't agree with you because of your religion, your country, you choice of house colors. The idea you propose would have been fine if SOMEONE ELSE proposed it, but coming from you... well... do you get the freaking idea?

We still won't do whats right in Dafur and similar because of these issues. Afraid we might upset group A if we intervene, so instead of hurting their feelings we let millions die.

We had WARS, famine, disease, and such back before we had as many people in the world as exist in the US alone. Whats changed? Just the fact we can add a comma or two to the number

Re:Very naive view (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467929)

"solve these just by reducing the population.

1. Religious difference.
2. Resource difference (from your land is more fertile, has more shiny rocks, is upwind, you name it)
3. Global Warming (as if its population based, we would just blame it on something else, lets see, the previous conditions work)"

Again, I didn't say that our problems could be solved by simply reducing the population, merely that they would be solvable.

Solutions (admittedly simplistic)
1. with 1/10th the population, there would be plenty of land for you wacky religious people to live far away from me :p
2. create an even distribution of resources across the whole freaking world - with 1/10th the population, it would be a cheap solution.
3. move population away from the coasts.

so by your logic, the crusades didn't happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468055)

traveling from Europe to the holy land was much harder in those days, but they still went and did it.

Face it, people want what they can't/don't have, and will kill to get it..regardless of how many people are there are to start with.

Re:Very naive view (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467949)

solve these just by reducing the population.

1. Religious difference.

Kill all the infidels. Problem solved. :-)

2. Resource difference (from your land is more fertile, has more shiny rocks, is upwind, you name it)

Kill all the infidels with the cool resources. Problem solved. :-)

3. Global Warming (as if its population based, we would just blame it on something else, lets see, the previous conditions work)

Kill all the infidels who dare disagree with our holy global models. Problem solved. :-)

And in case you think I'm *really* joking on that third one: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/19/11408/1 106 [grist.org]

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467773)

Uh huh. Humans had no problems when there were only 600 million of us, right? Civilizations never collapsed from war or famine.

Please tell us you're not contributing to the population growth.

Clarification from author of parent (1)

Sodade (650466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467827)

I didn't say that merely having 1/10th of the population would solve all of our problems, merely that they would be solvable.

reading comprehension FTW!

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467839)

Either that or all people could genetically modified to be 1/10th their size.

The issues you mentioned can be, in a simplistic way, rooted in excessive population; in reality the problems lie mainly on the distribution of the population.

Part of the solution to global warming/pollution will come from large cities being more efficient, especially on how people can use less resources for transportation. Such improvement can hardly be put into practice if instead of having large cities, people live scattered in a large area. In that sense, having higher population density is probably a better solution than being bitter about how large the total population is.

Re:Too many people = the root of all evil (1)

openglx (819573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468077)

OK, stop raising people everybody.
That's just the same as a Malthusian thinking, isn't it? Read Malthusian catastrophe [wikipedia.org] .
Even if we know that having only 1/10th of current world population would be beneficial to the world at all, how can we get ride of the "undesired" 9/10th ? Once you can answer that, maybe we could adopt your solution. I'd happily agree with you.

money money money (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467565)

I wouldn't mind having kids, and I mean a bunch of them instead of the average 1.4 ( http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?Indicato rID=138 [unu.edu] ). Trouble is that every single not-so-permanent job has to be enough to pay for the expensive and permanent loan to keep a roof over the kid's heads (see the last table on this document: http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm [finfacts.ie] )...

At some point there should be plenty of old people's houses vacant, but that just doesn't show on their price tags right now.

Baby #300million (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467599)

I wonder what "Baby #300 million's" Slahshdot ID will be when it logs in for the first time.

Re:Baby #300million (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468119)

300000000? Give or take a few million.

300 million... (3, Funny)

jtseng (4054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467631)

...And still not a girlfriend in sight. ;)

Re:300 million... (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468127)

You're ruining the myth that low ID get all the girls. What next, Santa is a chinese 8yo slave?

So it's true, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467717)

there's an idiot born every minute!

No, it's "sucker" (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#16467831)

The saying is "There's a sucker born every minute." It is often credited to P.T. Barnum, but that is disputed.

If you're going to be a anonymous coward bigot, at least do us the courtesy of using correct quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_a_sucker_bor n_every_minute [wikipedia.org]

Really sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467759)

Today, the population figure is mired in the divisive politics of immigration

No, it's the divisive politics of ILLEGAL immigration, and no amount of propaganda is ever going to change that, you disingenuous little cretin. It's the ILLEGALS that are coming in and refusing the melting pot, and creating a Blakinization of the Southwest. Many of their activists speak OPENLY about making the whole area hispanic only, and forcibly removing non-Hispanics or "eliminating" them. If you read their propaganda, you can almost call them Nazis without rvoking Godwin. The slogan of one of their activist groups is "For those in the race everything. For those outside the race nothing."

Some of you ideologues need to wake the hell up, put aside your precioussssss Party line politics, and see this invasion for what it is. Why the hell else would Mexico oficially and publically oppose the USA controlling its border? Where else in the world (other than disputed borders) would you see that?

Re:Really sick of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468139)

"Why the hell else would Mexico oficially and publically oppose the USA controlling its border?"

Money.
Remittances amount for a large portion of the Mexican GDP.
It is more profitable for Mexico to export it's citizens than it is to keep them.

Remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment," Fox told reporters after a meeting with Mexican-American businessmen.

"The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans in Mexico," Fox said, adding that his country has the ninth-largest economy in the world.

640,000 people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16467781)

...should be enough for anyone.

Pfft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16468085)

Sounds about right for a local crisis just before the presidential elections that would require for the president to stay in power for an unspecified amount of time. Bird flu anyone?

What is an "American"? A *citizen*, right? (3, Insightful)

massysett (910130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16468095)

I'm confused. A Washington Post story [washingtonpost.com] says that the 300 millionth American may have just walked across the Mexico border. Umm, doesn't American mean a citizen? Sure, illegal immigrants have children in the U.S. who are citizens, but last time I looked, newborns aren't walking across the border.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...