CONNECTING THE DOTS
Why we cannot continue exploding the US population toward 438 million
Frosty WooldridgePresent U.S. population: 315 million. Projected in 38 years by 2050: 438 million. Environmental, quality of life and standard of living expected in 2050: degraded, dismal, and unfortunate for countless millions of Americans.
Well, let's see. Regarding the United States, we currently have about 330 million people. At least that's the figure I see being bounced around a lot lately. And it seems that we are doing quite well regarding everything except keeping the middle class from being eliminated.
Since about two fifths of the nation's land is locked up in Federal and State owned "off-limits" lands, what could we do if we needed to? Well, two fifths. If we take the current population of 330 million, and divide it by the 3 of the "three fifths," that's 110 million. Then, if we multiply that 110 million by the 5 (all 5 fifths), we get 550 million.
What this means is, for starters, that if we just relocated some of the people on the land that is locked up in Federal and State off-limits, we can easily support way more than 438 million.
On top of that, if we let global warming proceed, some of the northern Canadian and Alaskan lands will warm up to where they will be habitable. And Siberia, as well.
So we don't have any problem at all. By the time we run into any kind of problem, people will be moving to colonize Mars, etc.. And Frosty and I will have long since been in the grave.
In 1975, I visited the library at college (a rare event) and picked up a copy of Business Week or a similar periodical magazine.
The headline on the cover that caught my eye was: The Baby Boom: An Indigestable Lump in the Snake of Time.
Planning up until WWII anticipated the continuation of current trends in population increase. If memory serves, the baby boom was roughly a 3% increase over that. What got bureaucrat's attention were numerous reports of babies being born in the halls of hospitals. At some point, someone realized if they didn't have enough delivery rooms, they also did not have enough schools, enough jobs, enough of many other things.
I gather from the article that the VietNam War, the space program, liberalized college entrance standards and the Great Society were all in one way or the other used to respond to the Baby Boom. These in turn were financed via deficit spending. I think Nixon and Carter tried to turn that around, but without success. The economy tanked throughout the 70's. Reagan drank the kool-aid, cranked up the money presses along with Star Wars - the B36 ruse on steroids. When the USSR "collapsed", I seem to recall either Gorbachev or Yeltzin congratulating the USoA on its victory. He went on to say, before this is over, what you did to achieve this will hurt you worse than it hurt us. I think he was referring to the money printing and deficit spending, which by the 80's, very few people raised their eyebrows over.
The near crash of 2008 was a result of that in my view.
If all this is true, the USoA may have been fatally wounded by deficit spending in the 1960's. And this grew in part out of an unanticipated increase in population, now called the baby boom. If all this is true, the pacifists prior to WWII may have been right.
All this just to agree with Frosty's position here (not that he needs affirmation from me) and to point out this reference event related to population increase. If a poorly handled population increase of 3% over base rates can cause all this, then what will be the results of population increases such as those described in this article? Maybe the best way to deal with those consequences is to head off the population increase. This could run afoul of currently-observed and treasured aspects of individual liberty. Weighed against survival and standard of living, changes may be required that I don't even want to think about.
DC Treybil
Over population, all done by design. Why is it that those in congress and the president himself will not hear the American public asking for our Southern border to be blocked and not allowing for those that want to come to America to go about it in a legal manor? As we see, it is to over burden this nation to the point that it is not possible to manage such a high number of people. Another reason is to have the different types of people here in a melting pot where civil unrest will show its ugly head when those different races conflict with each other. That is for the reason to call for a lock down on the entire country for the biggest take-over you have ever seen or read about in your life. A people that belives that they are free are not going to be easily controlled by those that want more power. With 330 million people all wanting to be fed and asking for something to drink, watch the SHTF. Hope you have yourself and those you want to live with prepared for the cahos that will be nothing but a big disaster.
Thats what Thomas Malthus wrote in the 1700's about, this is old News
Thats what Thomas Malthus wrote in the 1700's about, this is old News