How many people can this country absorb, before it IMPLODES?

Question

U.S. population to top 300 million this month
Mon Oct 2, 2006 10:58am ET

Top News
FBI looking into congressman Foley
Two Las Vegas schools locked down on gun report
Two U.S. scientists win Nobel for "gene silencing"
VIDEO: Latest headlines
More Top News... Email This Article | Print This Article | Reprints [-] Text [+] By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some time this month, the number of Americans will surpass 300 million, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts the 300 million mark will be reached in mid-October, 39 years after U.S. population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million.

This will make the United States No. 3 in population in the world, after China and India.


Most of the growth is taking place in the South and West, according to the Census Bureau. From 2004 to 2005, U.S. population had a natural increase -- births minus deaths -- of 1.7 million and international migration of 1 million.

Whether the 300 millionth U.S. person is added by immigration or by being born in the United States, the expected absolute number of Americans prompted a report by the non-profit Center for Environment and Population.

The report's author, Victoria Markham, noted that the United States is the only industrialized nation with significant population growth. The vast majority of the world's population rise -- about 98 percent -- is in poor countries, she said.

"In combination with our very high rates of natural resource consumption and the associated pollution, that results in America having the highest per capita environmental impact in the world," Markham said in a telephone interview.

NOTE: It says, "most of the growth is taking place in the SOUTH and WEST, i WONDER why??? Could it be,that THIS is where MOST of the ILLEGALS are???
"The U.S. is the ONLY industrialized nation with such significant growth (the OTHER 98% being in POOR countrys)"!!

PEOPLE!!!!! I'm NOT talking about LAND wise!!! I'm talking abour our RESOURCES!!!

Answer 1

Many.......

Answer 2

The US is a great nation with abundant natural resources. Physically the population of the US could probably double or even triple before we had serious population issues.
Most of the country is very sparsely populated. Also the US produces more food (the primary resource for any population) then we can even give away (ex dairy products). While energy resources are more in the limelight, we still pay less for our energy resource then almost any other (energy importing) industrial nation.
The issue is not how many people can live in the US, but rather who will live in the US. AND what common values we will all have. It is in our best interest as a nation to have people who value the American way of life come here and prevent people who do not value the American way of life from coming here.

Answer 3

First, the land could stand far, far more people, you could put the whole population of earth in normal suburban houses with a yard and fit them in Texas alone if you really wanted to.

As for the social pressures, that is a little bit different, yet places like Hong Kong and Singapore have a far greater population density than we do and with comparatively less crime. I suspect that drugs and a generally undisciplined sense of freedom, a sort of anarchy that anti-social sentiment that hip-hop entertainment seems symptomatic of, are a major part of the social maladjustments.

As for the moving of the population towards the west and east, the major business magazines like Businessweek, Fortune, and the Wall Street Journal have been telling us for a couple of years now that people are discovering that it is much nicer and cheaper to live in places like Iowa than in that big city that essentially stretches from Washington DC to Boston or the big cities that ooze far beyond the traditional confines of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. I lived in southern Arizona and had a boss who moved from the Los Angeles area for a contract the company took. He sold his middle class house and muttered about how he had to buy a veritable mansion in order to not have to pay a bunch in taxes because of the price differentials (his over a quarter-million dollar house was about the same as stuff then selling for around 70-80 thousand).

In short, we can still absorb more people if we had to, but, as you observed, we need to address our culture of crime pretty soon.

Answer 4

Since we are in the immigration site and this question warrants an answer. This is what I mean by an educated view of immigration. This person is obviously reading, studying, and not using a horrid set of emotions to form their opinion. First I would like to thank you for a question which truly makes one think...... I for one am Pro Immigration Reform. The lovely people of Mexico if given the right to work here in the US for 3 months out of each year and return to their homeland... their beloved Mexico would do so. But current immigration laws keep them in fear of going to visit their families and fear of not being able to return to the land of bread and honey . I have spoken with many illegal aliens and the consensus among the Mexican people. is that they can live their and support their families for the rest of the year with only 3 months of income here. Our government knows this... so why have their been no changes..... because our government does not care about their plight they just want them to stay here under their thumbs..... How can anyone say that our government cares about the ecology of our great country..... the dumping of chemicals...... the greed of oil for gas when their are much cheaper, more ecology friendly alternatives. Government greed of money is what all of our problems boils down too.

Answer 5

It may seem ridiculous to you, but only 5.5% of American territory is developed land. So there's a lot of space.

Population growth is an utter necessity to care for elder generations. If a population begins to shrink (as it is in Russia), the average lifespan goes down (as it is in Russia). We're better off with our population rate growing.

A birth rate of 1.7 is not enough to replace population. Generally, population experts consider 2.1 children per couple necessary to maintain proper population growth. Thus, immigration makes up the difference.

We're fine. What we need to do is get better at conserving our resources.

Answer 6

A lot more. You've obviously never been outside the United States.... the amount of people per square mile is much much more in other countriess with the exception of Russia and Canada

Answer 7

You forgot to mention we have one of the largest landmasses in the world as well, but yes I think the influx is getting ridiculous. All of the major cities should be moved to Alaska.

Answer 8

This country is much better off today, than 50 yrs. ago, and things are getting better. We are far far behind India and China, which is in the Billions, is doing fine.

Answer 9

<> in simple terms simply by fact something it criminal would not propose that's perfect. <> there's a reason you could no longer spell 'assume' without '***'. people who assume too plenty finally end up making asses of themselves. <> would not make sense, does it - and yet, there you're advocating human beings in easy terms assume the government is right! <> incorrect! <> advert hominem assaults harm your credibility. possibly Marc, like me, would not see too plenty interior the way of credibility whilst analyzing your question. <> The term "fetus" actually skill "the greater youthful interior the womb". The fetus IS a residing individual. life starts off at theory, no longer beginning nor some arbitrary factor in between. subsequently, each and every abortion constitutes the homicide of an unborn individual. <> however the fetus IS human. subsequently, abortion IS homicide. <> what's so narrow minded approximately acknowledging the unborn for the residing human beings they're? on account which you're no longer able to try this, would not that propose your innovations is in certainty greater narrow than mine? <> That in simple terms is going to show how schizophrenic human establishments could be - and you desire to assume such a company (the government) is right.

Answer 10

Growth is the engine that drives a country.

Answer 11

Implosion has begun.