1,000,000,000 Americans by 2100?

[tdawg]

Saw this in USAToday this morning. Anyone else find this prediction a bit of a stretch?

Expert: U.S. population to hit 1 billion by 2100

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY
If the USA seems too crowded and its roads too congested now, imagine future generations: The nation's population could more than triple to 1 billion as early as 2100.

That's the eye-popping projection that urban and rural planners, gathered today for their annual meeting in Las Vegas, are hearing from a land-use expert.

"What do we do now to start preparing for that?" asks Arthur Nelson, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, whose analysis projects that the USA will hit the 1 billion mark sometime between 2100 and 2120. "It's a realistic long-term challenge."

The nation currently has almost 304 million people and is the world's third most populous, behind China (1.3 billion) and India (1.1 billion). China passed the 1 billion mark in the early 1980s.

Jeff Soule, director of outreach for the American Planning Association, hopes it will be provocative enough to inspire planners who anticipate development patterns and infrastructure needs to look beyond their lifetimes and localities. "We have to be more aggressive about looking out at the long term," Soule says. "It may get people thinking beyond their jurisdictions. … It's clear we have to think about such issues as food, water and basic transportation infrastructure."

Nelson says China and India are accommodating billion-plus populations on less land area than the USA occupies.

"We have a surprising amount of space in existing urban areas," he says. "We can easily triple the population in our urbanized areas with much of that growth occurring on, of all things, parking lots."

Nelson advocates converting parking lots into commercial and residential buildings and extending light-rail lines and rapid transit to reduce dependence on cars.

"We could accommodate half or more of the new population (on parking lots)," he says. "For the other half, we need to figure out which parts of urban areas need to be redeveloped. We should start asking these larger questions now."

The population projection is provoking some skepticism.

Robert Lang, Nelson's co-director at the Virginia Tech institute, says he expects immigration to decline, largely because birth rates in other countries are declining.

"People are not going to have as many children, and their children won't have as many children, and there'll be (fewer) people to immigrate to the U.S.," Lang says. "I would rather focus on the near certainty that we will gain 100 million people by 2043. … No one plans for 100 years from now except to preserve a national park."

Population projections for most countries do not extend much beyond 2050. Carl Haub, senior demographer at the non-profit Population Reference Bureau, has estimated that India's population could reach 2 billion around 2075. That won't happen, however, if India's fertility rates decline at a faster rate than they have been, he says.

Nelson, who will become the founding director of the Center for the New Metropolis at the University of Utah this fall, says many events from disease to famine could throw his projections off course.

"We could certainly have a comet hit the planet and pulverize the atmosphere," he says. "But what if none of these things happen? … Do we plan on a calamity, do we assume that half the population's planet might be wiped out? I don't think that's very responsible."

[urbanactivist]

:haha: Too crowded.... yeah, those houses that are 1/2 an acre apart are really crowding me in :haha:

[lfc4life]

if the USA had the same population density as england its population would be more than 4 billion

and it would be 12 billion if it had malta's population density of 1272 people per km²

there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population

[M II A II R II K]

Yea that's what I was thinking, there's plenty and plenty of room.

In terms of resources hopefully they will have tapped the sun for all energy needs by then.

[10023]

This isn't unreasonable. Especially if by that time, most of the coastal third world is under water and the resource wars have led a few hundred million East Asians to mass migrate to North America.

The U.S. would have 1 billion people and be about 30% white, of course.

[mhays]

That's not a mainstream prediction. Other experts have predicted much lower numbers.

Not an expert, but so would I. The first two reasons that come to mind:

1. Birth rates are plummeting in key countries, like Mexico, as they already did in countries like China, and as they'll do in other countries as they develop.

2. The US will not remain the economic valhalla it might be currently in immigrants' eyes. Globalization of labor is causing wages to migrate toward the middle everywhere -- rising in cheap countries, falling or stagnating in expensive countries. The grass won't be much greener here.

[JackStraw]

One hundred years from now is to far to project anything. Hell, there is suppose to be an apocalypse in 6 and a half years. It could be 0.

Lets hope that the skeptics are right, and fewer people are having babies, and the world population and immigration starts going down. More population is anything but good.

[M II A II R II K]

I think the US will always remain as one of the top economic powerhouses, even if that status is shared or even surpassed.

But even if it is surpassed by the likes of China, it certainly wouldn't be per capita, so the US will probably always be #1 per capita.

[lfc4life]

I think the US will always remain as one of the top economic powerhouses, even if that status is shared or even surpassed.

But even if it is surpassed by the likes of China, it certainly wouldn't be per capita, so the US will probably always be #1 per capita.

per capita the US has been surpassed a while ago though https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

The USA will still remain a superpower but the strength of the dollar against the euro is the big worry over the next 20 years, if it continues to fall the developments in world markets will be interesting

[emathias]

per capita the US has been surpassed a while ago though https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

The USA will still remain a superpower but the strength of the dollar against the euro is the big worry over the next 20 years, if it continues to fall the developments in world markets will be interesting

If you drop the "island" states (by which I mean both literal and figurative) and the oil states, we're still #1, although the fall of the dollar will likely shake that up more if it continues or even just remains where it is. The values on that list are all done with PPP calculations, though, instead of market exchange rates, so the impact of a weak dollar will be lesser and take time to be represented in lists like that one.

The biggest issue for the U.S. won't be per-capital GDP, though, it will be stagnation of working-class wages. It doesn't much matter if the average share of GDP is $46k, if that share is split in such a way that is sharply disadvantageous to lower class earnings. With economic distribution in the U.S. getting stretched, people will simply decide that if they have to work hard and still be poor, they might as well stay in their own country.

[mello]

if the USA had the same population density as england its population would be more than 4 billion

and it would be 12 billion if it had malta's population density of 1272 people per km²

there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population


Wow didn't realize that Montana had 8 million people. When did Billings become the size of DFW :haha: As far as the article goes, totally bogus, predicting that far in to the future is not credible and I don't see the US being such a big draw for immigrants far in to the future to push the population that high.

[krudmonk]

900,000,000 in McMansions

[M II A II R II K]

And I wonder how these people will be distributed...

Maybe there would be more NYC or L.A. metropolitan areas throughout the country.

[vid]

100 years ago, only a few people had cars.

100 years from now, that will probably be true again. We'll find a new way to commute. We'll have to.

[M II A II R II K]

There would also have to be more water. Maybe they would be able to manufacture water from the air by then or soemthing. Atmospheric condensers perhaps.

[Marcu]

As far as the article goes, totally bogus, predicting that far in to the future is not credible and I don't see the US being such a big draw for immigrants far in to the future to push the population that high.

Agreed with the first part but not the second part. US will remain as big of a draw as any country over the next 50 years. In spite of all of the growth in India and places like Ukraine, much of the world's population remains remarkeably poor. Hopefully though it will come in the form of higher skilled workers through programs like the H1B. That is if Congress ever gets off its ass and decides to mondernize our immigration laws to resemble a point-type system they have in Canada. Until then, we'll have a free for all like we do now since most people do not see any hope of ever clearing the horrible visa backlogs.

[urbanfan89]

Large parts of Europe are already seeing negative growth rates. This will definitely spread to other parts of the world as birth rates continue to drop.

In 50 years most industrialized countries will be facing problems what Japan faces now: social security payments soaring, the tax base shrinking, infrastructure downsizing, and so on.

[10023]

Germany is already facing that problem. The elderly are too politically powerful. And this is a problem that will grow in the United States as baby boomers age as well. European countries with negative growth, in particular, are in danger of becoming societies where elderly pensioners squeeze the young and destroy the economy.

[urbanactivist]

I think that the current economic slump is helping to regulate the US in a lot of ways... it has made people aware of global warming, and the absolute necessity for sustainable energies. Oil conservation is now a must for people who couldn't have cared less in the 90s. Global food concerns have made the US more vulnerable, but also will help us to improve how we use the vast resources that we are blessed with. I don't see 1 billion anytime soon, as the population is also continuing to diversify... with large families being less of a priority, couples waiting longer and longer to have kids, and the ever-increasing gay and lesbian population. Astronomical growth is unlikely, but smart growth will soon be the norm.

[JDRCRASH]

Considering future technologies, this doesn't suprise me, quite frankly.

What many don't realize is that China's population will have aged considerably by that time; so they're economy will likely collapse, sending extra amounts of people to the United States. This is the same thing that will happen in the United States in the next decade.

[JDRCRASH]

One hundred years from now is to far to project anything. Hell, there is suppose to be an apocalypse in 6 and a half years. It could be 0.

Lets hope that the skeptics are right, and fewer people are having babies, and the world population and immigration starts going down. More population is anything but good.

People thought that 06/6/2006 would be the end of the world; on what basis do you believe that 2014 will be the end?:sly:

[nomarandlee]

there is basically nobody living in the likes of montana, idaho, wyoming, the dakotas. Montana is bigger than germany but yet has only 11% of its population


If Montana had 11% of Germany's population it would have around 8 million people. It doesn't even have close to that and off the top of my head I want to say it has around perhaps 1 million. Much of the interior west is greatly devoid of people which I like though I would like to see a few more large urban centers in the future places in stretches.

People thought that 06/6/2006 would be the end of the world; on what basis do you believe that 2014 will be the end?

Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?

[JDRCRASH]

Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?

If i'm correct, your right.

However, do I believe it?:lmao:

[SHiRO]

Really demographic projections over a 100 years now?...:rolleyes:

[mind field]

It is foolish to make predictions that far in advance. Completely absurd. We would laugh at predictions made of the future even 50 years ago. In 100 years time, we will have gotten our act together and have advanced considerably, or we will have destroyed ourselves and the planet. Hopefully the latter is not the case, but there is great cause for concern.

[liat91]

That article is ludicrious. If East Asia loses coast line, then that means the U.S. will lose it also, so neither will be in a good place. If hordes of East Asians come in so will hordes of Africans(who will have a huge population by then) and Europeans. Fertility is on the downward slope, just check the latest numbers, every country had a declining fertility between this year and last barring China and the U.S.. Alot of countries also have big problems with the male/female ratio which will affect births in India and China (especially) even further. Having driven across the country last summer between Seattle and New York, I can tell you the country is getting alot more crowded. It was nice to have some open areas in Montana and Wyoming. I would advocate increased population until we reach the point of stabilization, where the different parts of the country reach equilibrium with the other parts. Maybe 350 million for that and that's enough!

[Nutterbug]

Large parts of Europe are already seeing negative growth rates. This will definitely spread to other parts of the world as birth rates continue to drop.

In 50 years most industrialized countries will be facing problems what Japan faces now: social security payments soaring, the tax base shrinking, infrastructure downsizing, and so on.

Any reverse sprawl and return of wild lands?

Raise retirement to 90. And stop prolonging life expectancy without prolonging youth.

[JDRCRASH]

Any reverse sprawl and return of wild lands?

Raise retirement to 90. And stop prolonging life expectancy without prolonging youth.

Much of Japanese pop. is aging, which is what we are going to be experiencing through the next 2 decades.

But retirement at 90? Give me a break; the fact remains that the average of people don't make it to that age, even in Japan.

[sogod]

Much of Japanese pop. is aging, which is what we are going to be experiencing through the next 2 decades.

We will experience something similar, but much less pronounced. Our birthrate is significantly higher.

[weatherguru18]

Here's an interesting thought...1 billion sounds like a lot of people. The current planet population is about 6 billion. If you were to put all those people together, how much land would you need? According to Dr. George Carter, Geography professor at Texas A&M University says you would only need the size of an average county...Brazos County for lack of a better example. That's stacking people shoulder to shoulder stomach to back. So are we really over crowded or are there just really dense areas? 90% of land in the U.S is still rural and undeveloped...and that's just in the U.S.

[Matty]

Awesome. Here's to two billion!

:cheers:

[dollaztx]

If Montana had 11% of Germany's population it would have around 8 million people. It doesn't even have close to that and off the top of my head I want to say it has around perhaps 1 million. Much of the interior west is greatly devoid of people which I like though I would like to see a few more large urban centers in the future places in stretches.



Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?

You are right about the year but they didnt predict the world would come to an end. Thats just when their calendar will come to an end. After this a new age will begin. It is people that tie it to everything from flooding, alien encounter, major catastrophies, global enlightment.... Maybe its overpopulation?

[babybackribs2314]

1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.

[kcexpress69]

I'll be dead!! I won't care!!

[weatherguru18]

1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.


Actually studies show that people are gravitating toward desert areas or places with insufficient water needs. Take a look at the Sahara for example. The stress on the land is hastening the pace of desertification as millions apon millions continue to poor into the desert countries Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and Moracco.

As far as the U.S...I believe the NE is the slowest growing area in the country and many of the major cities have a stagnant population...same as in the Midwest. It's clear that the majority of the U.S. population will be centered in the Southeast and the West...Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. Cities such as Houston and Atlanta will have over 10 million in the metro by 2050. That's huge!

[JDRCRASH]

1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.



Northeast? :lmao: I don't think so. Not only is it too overpopulated, but rising sea levels will make it impossible anyway.

I mostly agree with WeatherGuru; I predict most influxes of people will occur in Midwest, Northwest, Southeast and the Southwest, including California. I say that because i'm predicting that people will be supporting more Desalinization Plants and Water Recycling in the near future as Mountain water resources become increasingly scarce.

By 2020: (these are just guesses on city pop.)

New York City: 9 Million

Los Angeles: 6.5 Million

Chicago: 4.0 Million

Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas: 3 Million

[PittPenn 03]

Didn't another so called expert say we would top out at 450,000,000? That sounds more reasonable to me.

1,000,000,000 is unreasonable... I'm not qualified to guess, but I'd say that something in between 500,000,000 and 700,000,000 is definitely possible. Roughly doubling our current population would definitely be feasible, with the biggest increases occurring in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, where water is plentiful. I'm not sure about how much food we produce but I'd imagine we could easily provide for over a billion people.

Things going for doubling the population include our relatively high birth rates here (overall it's around 2.1, which is replacement rate, but it's increasing), and immigration... I'm guessing there won't be the kind of mass migration of today in 2100 because more countries will be wealthy, but through 2050 we'll probably recieve another hundred million immigrants, at least.

Even with 600,000,000 people, the US still won't be that crowded... unless everyone wants to live in the suburbs, which is probably unlikely.

[murdoc9]

I say bring it on, this country and this world can handle a great deal many more people, it just requires adjustments - that can be planned for. Food, housing, land, energy, these aren't problems. What is the problem is the cost. As costs increase so does the incentive to produce, as more production comes on line, costs settle down - basic economic theory. We have the ability to feed our cities, without anything from the outside (excluding, of course, materials needed for construction), by building gardenscrapers, for example - but the costs are way too high to justify it right now, so nobody will invest in developing that technology. If the population projections mentioned here are accurate then the incentives will present themselves to people wanting to make a profit when that time comes. Unfortunately there is a time lag in these types of ventures. If planners or the appropriate authorities are actually serious about this possibility (planners yes, authorities don't usually think past next november, let alone 100 years from now) then we should see some incentives provided to the markets to speed up the process.

[sprtsluvr8]

I say bring it on, this country and this world can handle a great deal many more people, it just requires adjustments - that can be planned for. Food, housing, land, energy, these aren't problems. What is the problem is the cost. As costs increase so does the incentive to produce, as more production comes on line, costs settle down - basic economic theory. We have the ability to feed our cities, without anything from the outside (excluding, of course, materials needed for construction), by building gardenscrapers, for example - but the costs are way too high to justify it right now, so nobody will invest in developing that technology. If the population projections mentioned here are accurate then the incentives will present themselves to people wanting to make a profit when that time comes. Unfortunately there is a time lag in these types of ventures. If planners or the appropriate authorities are actually serious about this possibility (planners yes, authorities don't usually think past next november, let alone 100 years from now) then we should see some incentives provided to the markets to speed up the process.

OR MAYBE...people can stop breeding constantly and stop producing children that they can't provide for. This seems like the real solution - rather than continuing to overpopulate the Earth, then scrambling to find new technology to sustain our needs.

[murdoc9]

OR MAYBE...people can stop breeding constantly and stop producing children that they can't provide for. This seems like the real solution - rather than continuing to overpopulate the Earth, then scrambling to find new technology to sustain our needs.

hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child :sly: Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density. Incidentally, building and construction engineering is an evolving science requiring new breakthroughs in TECHNOLOGY ;) but I guess it sucks that we as a society are forced to pay people to find new technology to sustain our needs...

[sprtsluvr8]

hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child :sly: Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density. Incidentally, building and construction engineering is an evolving science requiring new breakthroughs in TECHNOLOGY ;) but I guess it sucks that we as a society are forced to pay people to find new technology to sustain our needs...

Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want! That sounds like an excellent plan...talk about simplemindedness.

Scientific research and advances in technology are excellent and often improve our quality of life. I'm all for advances in science, but I'm also for keeping the world's population at a sustainable number. It's insane to advocate continuing reproduction at the current pace and attempting to support the huge population with new technology.

[Nutterbug]

hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child :sly: Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density.
And density itself is a solution to the problem of overpopulation. If that can be controlled, even better.

[Nutterbug]

Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want!
That's where war comes in, to control the numbers and distribution of scarce resources.

That is the way God intended it, right?

[murdoc9]

overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.

[weatherguru18]

overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.

Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!

[Nutterbug]

overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.
How about leaving some room for the wildlife and the oxygen producing and soil retaining trees?

[murdoc9]

Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!

If people could live to 150 years of age, then it makes sense that accompanying quality of life improvements would be made as well, enabling productivity for most of that time. Also, who is "we" that you are referring to? The people receiving social security now are the ones who paid for it.

[dante2308]

Is no one even considering space travel here?

Anyway, I think the world doesn't really need that many more Americans. Perhaps 700 million more environmentally conscience people would be okay, but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.

[murdoc9]

Here's an interesting article if anyone is so inclined. Basically, it talks about Europe and some Asian countries and how they are dealing with lower birth rates and falling populations. As we have had population control proposals on this page I think that this is an interesting read on how some countries are handling their lack of population growth. It certainly won't have everyone agreeing with me that growth is good, but an interesting read for sure.
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=1

[IFtowner]

:previous:

I agree!

[dempsey hillman]

If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000 and a city like Las vegas and the other desert cities with a population of 38,000,000 . American payrolls may not keep up with the euro and people will try an avoid the weak dollar .chicago and its suronding area population might expand 70 miles out side the loop. Saint Louis and Detroit will ballon in size because of the low median home price and the large imagrant groups that will call them home.The south will rise to meet a massive call and food production will rise to meet the great plains . CharlestonNC, AtlantaGA ,and Jackson mississippi could see a large growth in population that could collectively reach the 30,000,000 mark but this is all speculation and my dad tells me I will be dead by then so why should I care!

[murdoc9]

:previous:
Not entirely understanding that last post, but luckily with increased energy costs, the American public is getting the kick in the pants it needed to start to develop communities that are more responsibly planned. Here's for a gas tax to put toward mass transportation solutions!

[JDRCRASH]

If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000

7 Million in L.A. County? Are you trying to start trouble?(btw, i'm not trying to attack you)

In less than 2 decades (if not much earlier), the city of L.A. ITSELF will be that number. As for the county, i'd say 20 Million is a better estimate. Why? I'd say that because such a huge leap in growth will likely come from simultaneous Gargantuan high-rise booms that should occur throughout the county due to a mass influx of people(both American and foreign) who realize that Inner City life is much more sustainable than the already failed life of Suburbia.

but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.

Which is why I think the world won't survive having over 1.5 Billion Chinese living the same quality of lifestyle by midcentury as Americans do.

[Dream'n]

The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.

[JDRCRASH]

The Soviet Union broke up because of its government, not because of its population.

[kcexpress69]

The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.

:uhh: OK.......

[crazyjoeda]

I hope not. The USA can not support that kind of growth and still maintain what is call the "American way of life". Especially since "the America way of life" is not sustainable. China and India have populations that large but the people there consume far less resources. If the USA grows to be 1,000,000,000 people and nothing changes expect to run out of food and water and expect a very sick population with a high mortality rate due to uncontrollable pollution.

Fortunately it is unlikely that the USA population will ever get close to 1,000,000,000, because birth rates are falling and fewer people are moving to the USA.

[kenc]

That statement simply is not true. Everything I have read about population growth in this country is that it is on the rise...more than any other nation in the "developed" world.

[JDRCRASH]

Thats right; in fact, there was a report that we may be experiencing the largest baby boom since the 50's.

[buildup]

If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?

[kcexpress69]

If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?

What's even crazier is that the population is expected to take off after 2050 which means that we would be adding about 100 million each decade. There's no way we can accomodate that kind of growth in a short amount of time. But as I posted earlier on this thread, I might live to 2050, so I really won't care what the population is by the year 2100. :frog:

[bhammer]

:haha: Too crowded.... yeah, those houses that are 1/2 an acre apart are really crowding me in :haha:

This, this, and only this.

[KnoxfordGuy]

If you get too many people you can alaways send some up to Canada. Our population is only going to be something like 41 million by 2050. LOTS OF ROOM! :P

[SLC Projects]

2100?, I'll be dead by then.

[Nyssa sylvatica]

Considering the low lying areas along the coast will be both flooded and bombarded with augmented hurricane activity, and the southwest running out of fresh water, there will be a large migration back to regions where most people lived a century ago.

Floating cities near the coasts may become feasible, as well as arcologies. The hollowed out urban centers will need to redensified. Job opportunities in the declining smaller cities and small towns (especially in the rust belt) would provide a setting for those wanting a more suburban lifestyle while preserving open space in the larger metro areas. The great lakes region will see a rebirth as the climate becomes more tropical and a reliable fresh water supply is needed.

:drowning::titanic::tumbleweed

[Guiltyspark]

Considering the low lying areas along the coast will be both flooded and bombarded with augmented hurricane activity, and the southwest running out of fresh water, there will be a large migration back to regions where most people lived a century ago.

Floating cities near the coasts may become feasible, as well as arcologies. The hollowed out urban centers will need to redensified. Job opportunities in the declining smaller cities and small towns (especially in the rust belt) would provide a setting for those wanting a more suburban lifestyle while preserving open space in the larger metro areas. The great lakes region will see a rebirth as the climate becomes more tropical and a reliable fresh water supply is needed.

:drowning::titanic::tumbleweed

I hope this is all sarcasm.

[Tosin007]

Northeast? :lmao: I don't think so. Not only is it too overpopulated, but rising sea levels will make it impossible anyway.

I mostly agree with WeatherGuru; I predict most influxes of people will occur in Midwest, Northwest, Southeast and the Southwest, including California. I say that because i'm predicting that people will be supporting more Desalinization Plants and Water Recycling in the near future as Mountain water resources become increasingly scarce.

By 2020: (these are just guesses on city pop.)

New York City: 9 Million

Los Angeles: 6.5 Million

Chicago: 4.0 Million

Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas: 3 Million

The way things are going Los Angeles will be lucky to even get to 5 Million by then.. :shrug:

[Tosin007]

If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?

It already tripled in the last 90 years, this is probably why people think it might do it again.

[Spocket]

This sort of statement about sky-high population projections comes up from time to time and basically it's all at odds with statistical trends.

The developed world is losing people. The developing world is seeing major drops in fertility rates and in some cases while the population is still rising decline is inevitable over a longer period.

Africa is the only continent where the majority of the nations are predicted to see fertility rates remain stable and high. However, Africa is also finally starting to stabilize politically and social and education systems are in their nascent stages. It's a reasonable bet that while Africa will see a major rise in population, growth will slow there too.

As for the U.S. hitting a billion...well, unless there are a few huge changes between now and then, it's not going to happen. It's obviously possible but there are only two ways it can happen.

1- Immigration. There's just no way that the U.S. government is going to increase immigration to levels so high that the economy is destroyed. The reach a billion under present economic realities, there's no way to do it without catastrophically damaging the economy. That's suicide and who's going to vote for that ?

2- Birth rates. Well, while they may rise dramatically, they'd have to do so to such a degree that something else radical would have to be at play. Like Mormon's suddenly having a hundred babies each and all of them surviving and reproducing at the same rate. Without a collapse of the education system there's pretty much no way that the birth rates will rise that much. In fact, the biggest predictor of population growth is education. Ignorant people tend to have more children because without an education the children are meant to act as their retirement savings plan.

Obviously religion plays a role but again, education affects the religious too. Even if they believe in having hordes of children as part of their religious practices they know that they won't be able to keep them without the money to support the kids. No education plus the reality of modern economics rules that out too.

So, in summary, not gonna happen.

[JosefHall]

Considering future technologies, this doesn't suprise me, quite frankly.

What many don't realize is that China's population will have aged considerably by that time; so their economy will likely collapse, sending extra amounts of people to the United States. This is the same thing that will happen in the United States in the next decade.

I just watched a documentary about this...I think it was called the Demographic Winter. If that is not the name of the actual documentary, it is at least the term that economists and sociologists use to refer to what you are talking about. It is very odd to explain this to people because the population is rising, but that is just because people are living longer. There is almost no developed nation who has a population which is reproducing at replacement rates.

There is a lot of talk about how this is also the cause of our declining crime rates. The book Freakonomics talks about his theory about legalized abortion and easy access to birth control being a leading factor in the crime decrease. That seems like too simple of an answer to me, I think there are more factors to consider. But I digress. It is just that those crime declining stats were put in an article talking about the rise of single elderly living and I made the connection. The article mentions some short term repercussions that will affect and are affecting our lives. And this is before the collapse of two of the largest world economies. With the elderly living and people not reproducing, there is no one to take care of them and that puts them at great risk. You can read the whole article here: http://united-locksmith.net/blog/living-alone-23-security-tips-for-single-living

I really think that the pertinent information is in the Statistics section and "The Rise of Living Alone" section. The short term effects of this whole population crisis is a lot of unhappiness and even death. Then we will finally get the economic collapse, but it will be a rough ride for individuals before we get there.