US population projections shrink because of declining birth rates, less immigration
US population projections shrink because of declining birth rates, less immigration
The Congressional Budget Office has shrunk its projections for the U.S. population in 30 years to 372 million residents
Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.
The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.
You're viewing a single thread.
This point keeps coming up. We are destroying the earth due to overpopulation and overuse, why is it bad for the population to decline for a while. Its very normal for populations of animals in the wild to spike and wane, its not some catastrophe.
Overpopulation isn't a thing yet. Won't be for several billion more.
And a shrinking population is only bad for Capitalism as it depends on endless growth, endless resources, and endless slaves to continue to function.
It's a core contradiction.
...because western economies are built upon larger young generations paying smaller old generations for the privilege of participation; take away its buttressing and that "stable" economic pyramid becomes a rickety tower...
...you can prop up the generational productivity deficit with industrial automation to some extent, but only if the benefits of automation are democratised rather than hegemonised, otherwise a smaller-and-smaller oligarchy instead dominates an increasingly-marginalised peasantry until the whole thing comes crashing down...
...when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply...
…when life becomes cheap, it will be spent cheaply…
dude, I've never seen it put that way before. That's the underlying theme for fascists. Send them to war, take away their benefits, stop them from having choices in life. It really doesn't matter to them because life is cheap. I'm going to get drunk this weekend I think.
...roll back before fascism and take a look at feudalism to see how ugly things can get in a steady-state oligarch civilisation...
We are destroying the earth due to overpopulation and overuse
The raw number of humans living in the United States has nothing to do with the degree to which we are demolishing the environment. States and counties with low populations are often more aggressive in unchecked pollution and resource extraction than those with large ones. And the dependence on inefficient energy, materials, and infrastructure is more prominent in communities with small rural distributions.
The policies that are destroying the country will not improve simply because the long-term birthrate is in gradual decline. We're going to smack straight into a Malthusian event due to climate change long before mere population trends impact our pollution output.
Its very normal for populations of animals in the wild to spike and wane
Wild populations do not normally kick off a global extinction event. This isn't just another biological trend, it is a full reworking of the global ecology. Even if we wipe ourselves out tomorrow, humanity's impact will be measured in epochs. Assuming humanity survives long-term, you'll see our footprint for eons.
I wasnt talking about what benefits the country. The country is made up, by us. The earth is not. Less humans will benefit the earth, especially capitalist humans.
If the economy needs people, then americans apparently should get to making babies or increase immigration, neither of which are well supported things.
As for climate change killing us first, you'd maybe want to remember what caused climate change in the first place, and how many people contributed to that over the last few hundred years. Almost like more people = more pollution from industry and food production.
Well, unless you can convince people they dont need the conveniences in their lives anymore and that they should stop eating meat and dairy.
Almost like more people = more pollution
Again, if you look at the per capita production of emissions this varies significantly by country. The median resident of India produces carbon consistently with normal global climate patterns. The median resident of Qatar is this endless plume of fumes.
Well, unless you can convince people they don't need the conveniences in their lives anymore
Part of the convenience of modern life is created by energy conservation. Quality insulation, electric lighting/heating, rail transit and bicycles, modern telecommunication as an alternative to travel, plumbing and water recycling, crop rotation and hydroponics and nitrogen rich fertilizers - all dramatically reduce the per-capita load an individual inflicts on the surrounding environment.
What we're seeing in countries like the US is a failure to invest in ecologically sustainable modernized infrastructure. We've foregone efficiency for profit, because single-use plastics perform better on the balance sheet of the O&G industry than biodegradable alternatives.
Per capita doesnt matter as much when as a whole pollution is increasing, as population keeps increasing. We dont need more people right now, unless you are referring to the economy. I dont care much about the economy though, as thats doing fine depending what class you are in.