Full Version: Immigration IN THE LARGE
The US is growing, with most of the growth being due to immigration (both legal and illegal). At the present time, world population is about 6.5 billion, and is projected to go to about 9.5 billion, which is a commonly stated number for the "carrying capacity" (the max number of individuals that can live on the resources of a "region", in thei case our earth).
But, little is said about the quality of life and the nature/amount of the "productivity" of that area at that carrying capacity. The present population of the world is also about at its "inflection point", the place where the rate of population growth begins to slow down (even though the actual growth still increases.) Without immigration, the US is about a constant population.
Roughly, if population goes over carrying capacity, a lot of die off occurs, if at carrying capacity, birth rates must match death rates (and there is little margin for error or change), and if below carrying capacity, there is margin for error and for change. This same rule holds for regions within the "world" (such as us in the USA), though it is modified some by "international trade".
I get that our policies, across the board in the US, are mostly derived from experiences acquired "before the inflection point" and therefore don't reflect "post inflection point" reality. We here in the US have the choice of using our "before carrying capacity" resources to some combination of: increasing our population, increasing our production, increasing our "smarts" (science, math, technology, and engineering to better weather the approach to carrying capacity "difficulties), or watching TV.
Many feel that we need the present immigration rate to have more smarts incoming. I disagree, we need our own smarts within our own culture to ensure that we get what we want to go for, and outside smarts need to be working on their own outside of the USA approaches totheir own carrying capacity difficulties! If they do not work on their problems, we probably won't have any "trade buffer options" with them, which might help all of us!
Questions for debate:
1, Do you agree/disagree with any of this?
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
But, little is said about the quality of life and the nature/amount of the "productivity" of that area at that carrying capacity. The present population of the world is also about at its "inflection point", the place where the rate of population growth begins to slow down (even though the actual growth still increases.) Without immigration, the US is about a constant population.
Roughly, if population goes over carrying capacity, a lot of die off occurs, if at carrying capacity, birth rates must match death rates (and there is little margin for error or change), and if below carrying capacity, there is margin for error and for change. This same rule holds for regions within the "world" (such as us in the USA), though it is modified some by "international trade".
I get that our policies, across the board in the US, are mostly derived from experiences acquired "before the inflection point" and therefore don't reflect "post inflection point" reality. We here in the US have the choice of using our "before carrying capacity" resources to some combination of: increasing our population, increasing our production, increasing our "smarts" (science, math, technology, and engineering to better weather the approach to carrying capacity "difficulties), or watching TV.
Many feel that we need the present immigration rate to have more smarts incoming. I disagree, we need our own smarts within our own culture to ensure that we get what we want to go for, and outside smarts need to be working on their own outside of the USA approaches totheir own carrying capacity difficulties! If they do not work on their problems, we probably won't have any "trade buffer options" with them, which might help all of us!
Questions for debate:
1, Do you agree/disagree with any of this?
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
Not much interest in this topic I guess; so I wish to try again please, with some answers of my own: 
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
Really worried. And the only solution I see is to know the problem better and some possible fixes. What I see is:
A. Incomplete science,
B. Poor publications with more anecdotal info than anything useful e.g. the book LOCKOUT!
C. Legislation second only in length to the 9 Billion word IRS statutes which screams at me: "There's nonsense here, hidden agendas hidden, opportunities for the "clausal only" (ask questions if this is a vague term please) "legal interpretations/decisions, and absolutely no principles explicated (that I understand
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
None! Because we have not the slightest idea what our law does now, know there is a lot of special interest "interest" hiding in the Bushes, and we'll only know truth by starting from scratch = zero immigration. And, I really think we need talent uniformly over the globe, cuz overpopulation "threat" is also such.
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
Really worried. And the only solution I see is to know the problem better and some possible fixes. What I see is:
A. Incomplete science,
B. Poor publications with more anecdotal info than anything useful e.g. the book LOCKOUT!
C. Legislation second only in length to the 9 Billion word IRS statutes which screams at me: "There's nonsense here, hidden agendas hidden, opportunities for the "clausal only" (ask questions if this is a vague term please) "legal interpretations/decisions, and absolutely no principles explicated (that I understand
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
None! Because we have not the slightest idea what our law does now, know there is a lot of special interest "interest" hiding in the Bushes, and we'll only know truth by starting from scratch = zero immigration. And, I really think we need talent uniformly over the globe, cuz overpopulation "threat" is also such.
Your questions are somewhat difficult to understand, but I'll do the best I can.
The very first thing to be aware of when it comes to overpopulation is the pattern of population growth around the world. The sheer number of human beings on the planet isn't really the point (although, clearly, there must be some point beyond which the Earth simply can't support any more people.)
From Wikipedia:
Link
The point is that the United States, and the rest of the developed world, is probably not at its maxium carrying capacity, but that the much of the less developed world has probably already exceeded it. The real question isn't "What is the maximum population which can survive" but "What is the optimal population which can provide the best possible life for humanity."
The lesson to be learned is that the way to limit population growth is prosperity, education, advanced technology, and the emancipation of women.
So, I guess I both agree with some of what you say and disagree with some of it.
I don't worry about the USA reaching its limit of population. I don't worry much about the level of immigration into the USA. By comparison with the truly serious problems that Western Europe is having with its immigrants (mainly due to a complete failure to integrate these immigrants into society), the USA doesn't have much of a problem at all.
I think that, on the whole, immigration has done more good than bad for the United States. The current level seems OK to me, at least for the short term.
The very first thing to be aware of when it comes to overpopulation is the pattern of population growth around the world. The sheer number of human beings on the planet isn't really the point (although, clearly, there must be some point beyond which the Earth simply can't support any more people.)
From Wikipedia:
Link
QUOTE
The United Nations states that:
Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to swell to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.
Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to swell to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.
The point is that the United States, and the rest of the developed world, is probably not at its maxium carrying capacity, but that the much of the less developed world has probably already exceeded it. The real question isn't "What is the maximum population which can survive" but "What is the optimal population which can provide the best possible life for humanity."
The lesson to be learned is that the way to limit population growth is prosperity, education, advanced technology, and the emancipation of women.
So, I guess I both agree with some of what you say and disagree with some of it.
I don't worry about the USA reaching its limit of population. I don't worry much about the level of immigration into the USA. By comparison with the truly serious problems that Western Europe is having with its immigrants (mainly due to a complete failure to integrate these immigrants into society), the USA doesn't have much of a problem at all.
I think that, on the whole, immigration has done more good than bad for the United States. The current level seems OK to me, at least for the short term.
1, Do you agree/disagree with any of this?
Yes. We will eventually hit a stale mate point to where we either expand past our ability to sustain life or due to an over population, disease eliminates (Spanish Flu x's 500) the majority of the population. We also cannot forget we are in a vast universe to where we understand maybe .01% about (the ole meteor theory). But with human nature, we have an inherent ability to self regulate population. We are a race of conflict that will always find a reason to "eliminate" anothers foe.
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
Worried, yes. Average waste per day by a person is 4.5 lbs. At 5.3 billion persons (not taking into account birth rate and death rates) per day adds to nearly 24 billion tons of garbage per day. Thats 12 million tons. Where will we put all this waist.
The only way to handle such a population will all depend on technology and new resources. Many people find our space program a waist of tax payers dollars, but in the end, it will be whats saves humanity.
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
[/quote]
We are a nation of immigrants so I would not do away with immigration but sure as hell do a hell of allot more than we are now. Illegal immigration needs to be addressed and fast or our system will fail and this great country will be in a simular situation as many states in the EU.
1, Do you agree/disagree with any of this?
We have a rapidly growing economy and we NEED smart people and should (as countries like Canada do) try to attract them to come here. At the same time we need to STOP poorly educated illegal aliens from coming here. A recent survey in Mexico revealed that 70% of their entire population would, if they could, emigrate to the US. Mexico is 106 Million people. 70% would be 74 MILLION people.
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
Yes but if we can improve living standards history tells us a corresponding drop in population growth will follow.
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
Same as now less the illegal portion. If, after eliminating illegal immigration, we need more workers we can raise the limits and we could (and should) be specific about what type of people we allowed in.
We have a rapidly growing economy and we NEED smart people and should (as countries like Canada do) try to attract them to come here. At the same time we need to STOP poorly educated illegal aliens from coming here. A recent survey in Mexico revealed that 70% of their entire population would, if they could, emigrate to the US. Mexico is 106 Million people. 70% would be 74 MILLION people.
2. Are you worried about what a fully populated earth will be like within the USA, and if so what?
Yes but if we can improve living standards history tells us a corresponding drop in population growth will follow.
3. What (and whyso) would you like our immigration rate to be: none, some, same as now, more than now?
Same as now less the illegal portion. If, after eliminating illegal immigration, we need more workers we can raise the limits and we could (and should) be specific about what type of people we allowed in.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.