Replies

I have read real souces, they and you both seem to agree that we are going to reach 9 billion long before the Earth’s population contracts, if it contracts.

I understand math, and realize that a slight decline in the birth rate of 7 billion people still adds population to the Earth faster than 6 billion people at a slightly higher birth rate.

Even you acknowledge the EXPANDING human population.

Do you now want to retract your statment?

Did you not read the books and articles you linked - because you just this morning opined that the “EXPANDING human population” I made reference to, the one that made you think I didn’t read your inane argument, was going to EXPAND to possibly 9 billion.

So we both seem in agreement that the human population of the Earth is increasing, and likely to keep increasing up to 9 billion or more.

Unless you are so incapble of a cogent argument that you are now going to retract your opinion that we have an expanding human population.

Still haven’t answerd a rather simple question about illegal immigration.

Do you think the excess population that illegal immigration provides to these United States is an economic boon or not?

Don’t be a coward and just cut and paste a bunch of irrelevant crap again - answer the question.

This should be amusing!!!! ;)

Do you think the excess population that illegal immigration provides to these United States is an economic boon or not?

Illegal immigrants are helping to prop up the Ponzi scheme of our social welfare programs. Since Americans are not reproducing in adequate numbers to prop it up, both parties understand that to close the border will bring insolvency to Social Security and Medicare that much faster.

That's the reason neither party is interested in closing the border, and both parties want to naturalize illegal immigrants - to get them paying into the coffers and prop up the failing system.

Short term illegal immigration is obviously an economic burden.

Long term, they can and do become contributing members (i.e., paying Social Security taxes, just like all immigrants and descendants of immigrants in our history) of society, and help forestall the economic collapse that will come as a result of decreasing fertility rates.

So we both seem in agreement that the human population of the Earth is increasing, and likely to keep increasing up to 9 billion or more.

And that is simply a result of the increasing life expectancy -- which has peaked) counterbalancing the rapidly declining fertility rate (which has not bottomed out, and is accelerating in Third World countries.

At some point, the scales are going to tip, and as those who benefited from the increased life expectancy die off, and global fertility rates continue to decline, global population will peak then rapidly contract.

It might peak at 8 or 9 billion, maybe less, but once it does, the aging population will die off rapidly and global population will decline.

Which part of this do you not understand?

I understand math, and realize that a slight decline in the birth rate of 7 billion people still adds population to the Earth faster than 6 billion people at a slightly higher birth rate.

Not after fertility rates drop below 2.1, and the elderly who benefited from increased life expectancy start dying off.

There will be no further increases in life expectancy, and the decreases in fertility rates are well documented and accelerating.

Which part of this simple equation do you not grasp?