and you were the decision maker, what kind of policy would you implement to deal with it? Just curious.

5/21/2007 6:03:13 PM

I'd set up a colony on the Moon.

5/21/2007 6:04:13 PM

but it will take more than 10 years to accomplish. assuming today's technology.

5/21/2007 6:05:20 PM

I'd terminate most all tdubbers to keep them from breeding

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM. Reason : s]

5/21/2007 6:05:29 PM

what is a tdubber?

5/21/2007 6:06:29 PM

Deal with what? If we have a billion people and everything is good, why mess with it? The US can easily support over a billion people.

5/21/2007 6:08:12 PM

^damn it. I was thinking about solutions to china's population problem. I guess the assumption of USA doesn't work.

5/21/2007 6:10:04 PM

What's this now?

Tdubbers breeding?

5/21/2007 6:15:27 PM

The US has 301,894,364 million people ... we still have 7 million to go before we reach 1 billion. That number won't be too hard to reach if amigos keep jumping border fences, tdubbers keep poping out babies like rabbits, and older people in America don't die. Of course, population growth could be countered by increase in homosexual relations, death of soldiers in battle, emo kids, and drunk driving illegals.

But, if we reach that point where we over grow our country, I predict the US will collapse just like other great civilizations and empires before us.

5/21/2007 6:33:21 PM

i think a child excise tax would discourage out of control reproduction. Women could be allowed to have one kid, then when they marry allowed to have another. This would allow a normal couple to have two children to replace them. Also, if your wife is a whore and had a kid before you met her this would allow you to still have one kid after getting married before being taxed. This could also work where if a woman had two children and divorced. She could then remarry and have another child with her new husband.

Of course you could have 100 children as long as you payed the "tax". I think this is an awesome idea because it creates a penalty instead of an incentive for cracked out welfare moms from pumping out children for more welfare $$$.

5/21/2007 6:34:14 PM

lol, like they'd pay it

5/21/2007 6:43:33 PM

Has anyone actually considered the possibility that human life is a valuable resource unto itself?

Just try to imagine how much more technologically developed we would be if we had more than twice as many scientists, researchers, and innovators?

5/21/2007 6:51:32 PM

Quote :

"Just try to imagine how much more technologically developed we would be if we had more than twice as many scientists, researchers, and innovators? "

maybe not much if there were twice the criminals/welfare moms/ other worthless people draining the economy and keeping money from being spent on R&D. Not to mention potential wars over resources needed to meet energy demands of such a large population

5/21/2007 6:53:49 PM

The total land area of the United States is 9,161,923 square kilometers, according to the CIA world factbook, meaning that with a billion people we'd have a population density of just over one hundred people per square kilometer, which in and of itself is not unacceptable by any means. Japan has a population density of more than 300 people per square kilometer, and nobody's particularly worried about them.

But, since that's dealing with the letter of your question instead of its spirit, I think eventually a tax on children would be the measure that seems to come closest to being constitutionally viable, although obviously even that would be the subject of heated debate.

Frankly I think that the advantage of living in an advanced industrialized society where you don't substantially increase your chances for success by having many children is that ultimately the market will dictate reproduction to a large extent. That is to say, people born in this country are already having fewer children, because it is not economically viable to have more. Outside of a relatively small number of people influenced by other factors, most Americans who chose to reproduce (and many don't) do so in numbers that are already approaching the state-imposed limit set by China.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 6:54 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2007 6:54:00 PM

dammit, you know all these people would flock on down to Raleigh too

5/21/2007 6:58:03 PM

Quote :

"Just try to imagine how much more technologically developed we would be if we had more than twice as many scientists, researchers, and innovators?"

Human life is most definately an important resource... but usually only as a manual labor work force. You have 1.3 billion people in China, but in 2005 there were only about 157,000 scientists, researchers, and innovators. Hehe, not even 1% (even if you add another 500,000 to that number).

A large population breeds more manual skilled workers than any other type.

5/21/2007 7:00:38 PM

Quote :

"The US has 301,894,364 million people ... we still have 7 million to go before we reach 1 billion. "

This statement confused me...

5/21/2007 7:00:54 PM

^ hehe, sorry...

5/21/2007 7:03:40 PM

Quote :

"The US has 301,894,364 million people ... we still have 700 million to go before we reach 1 billion."

Quote :

"A large population breeds more manual skilled workers than any other type."

Of course, because already there are more manual skilled workers. But percentage wise, it should stay constant. It could go up or down as well, depending on the demographics, and on who is reproducing. If US becomes half Mexican, sure, the percentage of super-skilled people will go down.

5/21/2007 7:04:27 PM

^close...

Quote :

"The US has 301,894,364 million people ... we still have 700 million to go before we reach 1 billion."

5/21/2007 7:14:47 PM

Quote :

"Tdubbers breeding?"

5/21/2007 8:50:59 PM

^^ haha oh shit, i didn't see the "million" in there!

he gave 300 trillion people to the US!

5/22/2007 3:52:53 AM

Quote :

"But, if we reach that point where we over grow our country, I predict the US will collapse just like other great civilizations and empires before us."

so china?

if the US merged with Canada and Mexico (won't anytime soon) then it would be the largest land area country, and have 400 million (about) people with a growth rate of probably 1.1-1.2% annually....

density isn't the issue

as for skilled labor, that's more a issue of education and opportunity

Quote :

"Outside of a relatively small number of people influenced by other factors, most Americans who chose to reproduce (and many don't) do so in numbers that are already approaching the state-imposed limit set by China."

ummm i think the average family size in the US is still well above "1" which is the imposed limit in China

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : s]

5/22/2007 3:02:57 PM

apparently china due to its restrictions on births has turned it into a sausage fest. although i am sure it isn't as bas as NC State

5/22/2007 9:43:57 PM

Quote :

"The US has 301,894,364 million people"

That's a lot of people. I guess we beat China after all.

5/23/2007 12:25:20 AM

5/23/2007 1:34:40 AM

Quote :

"ummm i think the average family size in the US is still well above "1" which is the imposed limit in China "

I said it was approaching that number, and bear in mind also that "family size" and "reproduction rate" are two different things.

At the moment, US women have an average of 2.05 children in their lifetime, which, taking immigration out of the picture for just a moment, is below the replacement rate. That rate has also been falling for years, a trend that shows no signs of stopping.

Aside from, say, well-off Catholics who still choose to have litters of kids, the overwhelming majority of the people who are propping those birth rates up are lower-class and immigrant populations. And, as much as I'd like to give into the "Oh noes we're fuxored!" attitude that so many people here seem to have, I think that improving conditions, education, and availability of birth control for the lower classes will counter the trend long before we reach some sort of population critical mass.

5/23/2007 3:32:29 PM

of course if Christian conservatives have their way abortion will be outlawed and the birth rate for the lower class and immigrants will sky rocket. the ultimate irony will be when one day b.c of this minorities will approach the majority in lots of areas and these staunch traditionalists will get voted out of office

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM. Reason : l]

5/23/2007 4:02:43 PM

^^ So if all the pro-life people are having like 6 kids, and the pro-choice people are having 1-2... wouldn't you just end up with something like a 3:1 ratio of pro-life to pro-choice people in a generation (assuming most people will follow their parents' beliefs)?

5/23/2007 5:38:43 PM

I don't see why. I didn't say anything in my whole post about abortion, and many people who are pro-life are not anti-contraception, especially among the young.

5/23/2007 6:10:13 PM

China and India have bigger underlying issues than their population. A lack of habitable land, a lack of natural resources, and a lack of arable land is what makes their large populations such a problem. The US has none of those problems.

5/23/2007 6:23:33 PM

The US's comparatively free market automatically adjusts the growth rate to the appropriate level. The same is true for any market economy.


A better question would be "if the US were a command economy for decades and built up inefficient imbalances then suddenly switched over to a market economy, what would it do?"

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 6:52 PM. Reason : sdf]

5/23/2007 6:50:43 PM

some people are idiot calculations saying the us population would be spread across all the land. if we had 1 billion nobody would still be in montana wyoming or dakota. people would all be aroudn the coast so don't compare to japans landmass because its all coastal.

today the world became more urban the rural.

5/23/2007 6:52:35 PM

Quote :

"some people are idiot calculations saying the us population would be spread across all the land. if we had 1 billion nobody would still be in montana wyoming or dakota."

i was going to make that point but got lazy. yeah i'm sure a good % of that 1 billion will also help fill the alaskan wildlands up by the arctic circle also.

5/23/2007 9:29:14 PM

"Soylent Green is people!"

5/23/2007 9:31:17 PM

I would be willing to be that with a billion people there would be a LOT more large cities in states like Montana and Wyoming. Sure, the population density of the coasts would increase the most, but people would still probably create cities in places where there is no need with current population levels.

5/24/2007 2:07:25 PM

^Agree on all counts.

5/24/2007 2:46:22 PM