Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alarm sounds on US population boom
The Boston Globe ^ | August 31, 2006 | John Donnelly

Posted on 08/31/2006 7:03:11 AM PDT by A. Pole

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last
To: A. Pole

I've been sounding this alarm for years. No one cares.


21 posted on 08/31/2006 7:20:45 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
It ain't due to births I'm sure.

It's a factor.....the illegals are reproducing as fast as they can.
22 posted on 08/31/2006 7:20:55 AM PDT by YellowRoseofTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
America's competitiveness is derived from its human capital. The fact that the rate of growth in our population has and will continue to exceed that of Europe is the precise reason why we have regularly outpaced them economically over the past 25 years.

I am convinced that we need a population approaching 500 million by 2050 if we hope to remain the global economic superpower given the expected growth of China and India. I'm also convinced we will reach that mark through a mix of our higher fertility rates (vis-a-vis Europe) and, like it or not, immigration.

23 posted on 08/31/2006 7:21:14 AM PDT by Lonely NY Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lovecraft

Since we now have nearly 20 million illegals in the US it's more like 2/3rds.......


24 posted on 08/31/2006 7:21:17 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vision
How do you figure? While there is a lot of land, the areas with infrastructure are filled. DC's traffic is almost a catastrophe.

Sure there are a few small areas that are densely populated, but as a country we are sparsely populated. Just look at our population per mile compared to a lot of other areas in the world.

A friend of mine moved to Atlanta 6 or 7 years ago when they had 2.5 million people. Now they have 4+ million. A 50 percent gain over 7 years makes a big mess, but it is a localilzed mess, not a national situation.

In most of the country everyone from the food growers to the grocery store managers would be orgasmic about the idea of 10 percent more food sales.

25 posted on 08/31/2006 7:22:32 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Actually, as I recall, 20 years ago the US still had only 5-percent of the world's population, but was consuming more than 30% of the world's energy. So, we're making some progress in energy use.

I think this is a made up story, but then it appears in "The Boston Globe." A newspaper not known for its affection for America.

I am so glad that I left Massachusetts 28 years ago. It's chock full of whiners and moaners and crooks and tax raisers.

For you Freepers still residing in the Commonwealth, I admire your pluck and you have my sympathy.


26 posted on 08/31/2006 7:22:42 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx
True. Redo:

It ain't due to legal citizens births I'm sure.

27 posted on 08/31/2006 7:23:24 AM PDT by b4its2late (There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
[The U.S. is] using three times the amount of water per capita than the world average

I assume that the per capita is brought down by the majority of Africa that doesn't have enough drinking water. That fact that we have and use drinking water and can water the lawn doesn't mean we are wasteful. It just means we are fortune enough (because of our amazing country and the people in it) to be able to do that.

Also, the worlds water usage per capita is brought down by the French who conserve water by showering very rarely.
28 posted on 08/31/2006 7:23:39 AM PDT by samson1097
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
For example, the four fastest-growing states -- Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah -- all have areas of acute water shortages.


In some areas, they don't even meter water. In most others, the rates are well below real market value for some major users.

There is NO water shortage, there is a non-market pricing problem.

(You price ice cream at 5 cents a gallon, and there will be a "shortage," too.)
29 posted on 08/31/2006 7:24:10 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

DH the farmer would say "They all gotta eat ..." :-)


30 posted on 08/31/2006 7:24:27 AM PDT by Cloverfarm (Children are a blessing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Americans consume like no other nation -- using three times the amount of water per capita than the world average

That reminds me, I have to take my car to the car wash.

31 posted on 08/31/2006 7:25:20 AM PDT by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 39-43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Let me guess, the liberals are going to begin a new round of "we're overpopulated, so concerned Americans should limit their families to 2 children".

That's about where the fertility rate is for U.S. women - 2.17 children on average in 2005. They will have to stop the illegals from overbreeding in order to have any effect. It'll be easier just to send them home.
32 posted on 08/31/2006 7:25:39 AM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
A booming population isn't the problem. Problem is it's booming in the desert.

In contrast, the South and the West were booming

33 posted on 08/31/2006 7:26:08 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar
We would have a population growth of less than replacement if we didn't have immigration, legal and illegal, which accounts for three-fourths of all U.S. population growth.

Huh?

34 posted on 08/31/2006 7:30:01 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lonely NY Conservative

There ARE things that are worth keeping and not selling.


35 posted on 08/31/2006 7:30:59 AM PDT by ruination
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
A population boom in th US is not a bad thing if you look at the way things are going in Europe and the rest of the world.

We need to defend and fight for our resources the only way is through direct competition with other growing populations (ie. Chinese, Indian, Arabic).
36 posted on 08/31/2006 7:31:01 AM PDT by roaddog727 (Bullsh## doesn't get bridges built.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonely NY Conservative
I am convinced that we need a population approaching 500 million by 2050 if we hope to remain the global economic superpower given the expected growth of China and India.

Perhaps we will have China's pollution riots too.

37 posted on 08/31/2006 7:32:23 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad

Exactly. The leftists always point out that we use such-and-such percent of the global fill-in-the-blank supply, while conveniently neglecting to mention how much of the world's GNP we produce using that oil, water, etc. Of course telling the whole truth makes Americans look efficient, not eeeevil. Can't have that.


38 posted on 08/31/2006 7:35:59 AM PDT by LadyNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
But people don't stay in the rural areas. They will come to the cities, which are situated around water. You can't just go out to the country and create one.

I don't care what the rest of the world is like, most of them are hellholes IMO.
39 posted on 08/31/2006 7:36:53 AM PDT by Vision (God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, love and self-discipline 2Timothy1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

>That's about where the fertility rate is for U.S. women - 2.17 children on average in 2005.<

That's not an accident. Back in the late 60's/early 70's, there was a concerted effort to modify behavior, to "save" the world from overpopulation. Students were told it was their responsibility, in order to save the planet, to have only 2 children. Many, many people bought into this. Coupled with birth control, the American family norm ratcheted down to 2.17.

Have you ever noticed the bias society has against people with large families? There is a not-so-subtle pressure to have the perfect family size.

Women today have less time for child raising, because it's very difficult to survive on only one breadwinner. This also factors into why fertility is at a low.


40 posted on 08/31/2006 7:36:59 AM PDT by Darnright (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson