Birth control = population control.

[bball]

Depends on the site I guess.

U.S. fertility

The United States, at a population of over 291 million, is the world's third most populous country, after China and India, and has the highest population growth rate of all industrialized countries.4, 12 Fertility, or births per woman, contributes to our population growth and must be addressed in order to achieve population stabilization.

Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths.24, 25 The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year.26

U.S. fertility first dropped to less than replacement level fertility in 1972,11 and by 2002 had dropped to a record low.19 (Replacement level fertility is 2.1 children per woman because of infant mortality - see terms). During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population.11, 12 Because of population momentum, U.S. population would have increased to 255 million by 2020 and then gradually declined.11

In 2000, births increased 3% over births in 1999 - the third straight increase following nearly a decade of decline from 1990 through 1997.12 Now, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime is at 2.03 - slightly below replacement level.12

 

[bball]

US women still average 2.03 children (number 1 in industrialized nations). With the increased population of women in child bearing years, and average life expectancy generally increasing (science, medicine , technology) US pop grows 1.6 million a year. Census Bureau puts it at 3.3 million a year.

Not trying to be an a$$, I think that is a little off though, we are below replacement rate here in the U.S.

"The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2014 is 1.86 children per woman..........However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries, because the differences in fertility rates are less than the differences in immigration levels, which are higher in the U.S."

One thing I do know Kell, you are right about immigration boosting our numbers. I also see it each night at work. In the community I am employed, the Hispanic demographic births 4 to 1 over Caucasian.

 

[Kell-inKY]

I think the discrepency is just from the dates, yours is from 2000, but either one is below replacement level in reality.

And I don't see "moral hazard" coming back in style anytime soon, as long as there are no consequences to your actions, why change?

 

[Deepsouth]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Ot3kBTgq8w

 

[Drzr]

Who are any of you to decide these issues....you can always leave to make more room!

 

[greybeard]

This country is gaining one person every 15 seconds. And the population has grown more than a 3rd since 1960 in the US of A. We need to address this issue and no one wants to talk about it. The population in this country is choking us one birth at a time.
Something needs to be done ASAP.

I agree DrZR.
One of the things I have always found ironic, is that those who are in favor of something almost always want someone else, anyone else, everyone else but themselves to act on that desire.
People who already have a conventional home are all up in arms about "sustainable living" and drive down to protest sites to completely disagree with anyone who now wants to build a home out of lumber, then turn right around and go back to their nice comfy home built out of 2x4, 2x8s etc.

Same way with population control. I see academia complain about the 'ever growing population" all the time, but not one time have I ever seen one of them volunteer to lead by example and be the first on their block to put themselves permanently in a box or advocate their own family members do it. They, like the tree huggers, always want nameless, faceless strangers to do it. Kinda like taxes--those who think taxes should be raised to fund something, always want someone else's tax rate increased.
Go figure.

 

[bball]

Who are any of you to decide these issues....you can always leave to make more room!

What exactly has anyone decided? Simply having a discussion about population. Some interesting and informative posts have been added (esp Kell and deepsouth). If you're so offended, click to a different thread. It's just that easy.

 

[Drzr]

Who are any of you to decide these issues....you can always leave to make more room!

What exactly has anyone decided? Simply having a discussion about population. Some interesting and informative posts have been added (esp Kell and deepsouth). If you're so offended, click to a different thread. It's just that easy.

As you may also, Sir, further, the original post states "something needs to be done ASAP". That suggest and implies "to me" that there is a desire for more than discussion-but action.

 

[bball]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/2009/11/23/the-dark-past-of-population-confrom/&ved=0ahUKEwj8no22jYTLAhWF9R4KHdzCBRAQFgiDATAW&usg=AFQjCNHDK9W0R58RNnqOgN98Ot3kBTgq8w

Your post has me wondering... since as a culture we have moved away from agronomy through industrialization and technology, does it just seem like we are overpopulated because there aren't the jobs available as when our society was agronomicall driven.

 

[hurleyjd]

http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/essay.html

 

[bball]

Who are any of you to decide these issues....you can always leave to make more room!

What exactly has anyone decided? Simply having a discussion about population. Some interesting and informative posts have been added (esp Kell and deepsouth). If you're so offended, click to a different thread. It's just that easy.

As you may also, Sir.

Still didn't answer the question and I'm not the one offended. Was merely offering a solution for your dissatisfaction with the posts. If more people would pass over the threads that offended them, maybe so many wouldn't be placed on lockdown. And those enjoying the discussion can continue with the thread. Just a thought.

 

[Bestoutwest]

One of the things I have always found ironic, is that those who are in favor of something almost always want someone else, anyone else, everyone else but themselves to act on that desire.

Same way with population control. I see academia complain about the 'ever growing population" all the time, but not one time have I ever seen one of them volunteer to lead by example and be the first on their block to put themselves permanently in a box or advocate their own family members do it. They, like the tree huggers, always want nameless, faceless strangers to do it. Kinda like taxes--those who think taxes should be raised to fund something, always want someone else's tax rate increased.
Go figure.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. My wife and I believe in not over populating the earth for many reasons. We are both only children, and our son will remain an only child. I work with 95% women (and it sucks, but that's a different topic) in the medical field. They're all mommies that 'love' their jobs, and there's usually one pregnant at any given time. I constantly get asked when we're having another one. Never. The answer is never. There's too many people as it is, and the only way that I can make that stop is with me. So we are.

 

[Drzr]

bball, It seems you are the offended.

 

[bball]

It seems you are the offended.

Nope. Genuinely enjoying the discussion. Enjoy the challenges and info shared.

 

[bball]

One of the things I have always found ironic, is that those who are in favor of something almost always want someone else, anyone else, everyone else but themselves to act on that desire.

Same way with population control. I see academia complain about the 'ever growing population" all the time, but not one time have I ever seen one of them volunteer to lead by example and be the first on their block to put themselves permanently in a box or advocate their own family members do it. They, like the tree huggers, always want nameless, faceless strangers to do it. Kinda like taxes--those who think taxes should be raised to fund something, always want someone else's tax rate increased.
Go figure.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. My wife and I believe in not over populating the earth for many reasons. We are both only children, and our son will remain an only child. I work with 95% women (and it sucks, but that's a different topic) in the medical field. They're all mommies that 'love' their jobs, and there's usually one pregnant at any given time. I constantly get asked when we're having another one. Never. The answer is never. There's too many people as it is, and the only way that I can make that stop is with me. So we are.

I think GBs post would have more bite if someone had brought up euthanasia.

 

[greybeard]

I did, as did the OP.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I think GBs post would have more bite if someone had brought up euthanasia.

There is a certain party of people in Congress that believe physician assisted suicide (the closest you'll ever get to euthanasia) is a viable option for folks. There is a another certain party of Congress that keeps that from being a reality. Therefore, it's really a non-issue. But honestly, I don't see the point of wallowing around in joint pain, incontinence and dementia for the last 10 years of my life. I'd rather end things while I've got some semblance of senility.

I suggest you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. While not being a factual account of what could happen when a society decides to enforce eugenics, it offers a very well written 'what if' scenario when something like that happens. I believe that eugenics becomes slippery slope very quickly that doesn't end well, and one in which I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions.

Remember, the road to he!! is paved in gold.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

It's actually paved with good intentions.

 

[bball]

I think GBs post would have more bite if someone had brought up euthanasia.

There is a certain party of people in Congress that believe physician assisted suicide (the closest you'll ever get to euthanasia) is a viable option for folks. There is a another certain party of Congress that keeps that from being a reality.

I suggest you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. While not being a factual account of what could happen when a society decides to enforce eugenics, it offers a very well written 'what if' scenario when something like that happens. I believe that eugenics becomes slippery slope very quickly that doesn't end well, and one in which I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions.

Remember, the road to he!! is paved in gold.

Read it. Very familiar with it. It sounds like you and I are in similiar employment environments.
I was simply stating that no one (until GBs post) had actually articulated ending a person already born (felt OP stated a possible problem but didn't offer euthanasia as a solution). I do think eugenics/ genome review is a slippery slope....but I think it will be a reality. Already being introduced in high schools and colleges across our nation. That's where it begins, with the next generation.

 

[Drzr]

It seems you are the offended.

Nope. Genuinely enjoying the discussion. Enjoy the challenges and info shared.

Well, if it's discussion why am I invited to not be part of the discussion?