• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • Super Maintenance

    Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.

    Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.

    We apologize for the inconvenience.

  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

U.S. population to top 300 million this month

Damn! In my country we are just 3 million :wow:
 
War Lord said:
If we're gone, than who cares what state the planet is in?

I don't see you lamenting the state of Jupiter or Mars.
I meant us as in us, those of us that are on the board, not the human race in general. What do I care what happens after the human race goes extinct?

I'm thinking about my kids and grandkids.
 
TrailerCues said:
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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061002/ts_nm/environment_population_dc

It looks like a decent amount of people will have to die in the future,i doubt the planet can support so many people in one place.Dispite the fact that i read the whole report,the USA will have to stop having children for a while.:cmad:
 
Halcohol said:
I meant us as in us, those of us that are on the board, not the human race in general. What do I care what happens after the human race goes extinct?

I'm thinking about my kids and grandkids.

If you're a typical liberal I wouldn't worry about it, because Liberals tend to have less kids than average.
 
War Lord said:
If you're a typical liberal I wouldn't worry about it, because Liberals tend to have less kids than average.

... wait, what?

"I'm worried what the world will be like for my kids."
"Don't worry, you'll have less kids than average"

:huh:
 
Danalys said:
china hasn't got any girls on the way. thus no one to give birth to the next generation. so then an army of chinese men will be looking for women. so better start being nice so they think your worth hanging onto. otherwise you'll start world war 3.
The ratio you are looking for is as much as 3:1, and only in some rural areas. Where they would be just as likely to have multiple kids anyway. City people generally don't drown their girl babies.
 
Fred_Fury said:
no, I was thinking more along the lines of allowing hunters to put their population under control.
Thought thats what was already going on...
 
Maxwell Smart said:
In 50 years the U.S. will be like the Brazil of North America.
What do u mean...
 
War Lord said:
If you're a typical liberal I wouldn't worry about it, because Liberals tend to have less kids than average.

man, you are so funny...
 
Gonking said:
man, you are so funny...

It's true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

The liberal baby bust
By Phillip Longman
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.


By Sam Ward, USA TODAY



Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

Single-child factor

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.

Rewriting history?

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

It's one of the reasons why the Dems have been having trouble getting elected and why, even after the mass stupidity of the Republicans have of late, that they still might not win the upcoming election in November.
 
War Lord said:
Call me back when you have 3+ kids.
Im more of a liberal and I will have at least 3 kids. But it all depends on my financial situation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"