1,000,000,000 Americans by 2100?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Row_Jimmy

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?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by lfc4life

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]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Didn't the Aztecs predict sometime in 2012?

If i'm correct, your right.

However, do I believe it?

[SHiRO]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Any reverse sprawl and return of wild lands?

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

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

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]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

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!

[dollaztx]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Northeast? 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

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 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...