Do we really need 3 times more people than we already have? It's not like we can (or should) randomly settle people in Montana. New people will go to where the jobs are. Can you image NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. with THREE TIMES the number of people that live there now?
New Book "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger"
|by Anonymous||reply 43||15 hours ago|
Good God, what an asshole.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||Last Wednesday at 6:17 PM|
I ain’t leaving any progeny to this shitshow.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||Last Wednesday at 6:20 PM|
So he thinks we need to compete with China on population?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||Last Wednesday at 6:24 PM|
That’s some fucked up thinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||Last Wednesday at 6:25 PM|
Over 40% of the US in uninhabitable due to terrain or weather.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||Last Wednesday at 6:51 PM|
Obviously, I haven't read the book, but I can't imagine what a polluted mess this would end up being. Let alone trying to take in hundreds of millions of immigrants.
How about we stop trying to be #1 and fix the last 3 decades of downward spiral instead?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||Last Wednesday at 6:59 PM|
Mass immigration is damaging to the environment. It causes population increase in BOTH the country of origin and the destination country, thus depleting resources and lowering quality-of-life. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have been saying this since the 1970s, but have been recently silenced due to being taken over by a billionaire director with a political agenda. Moderate environmentalists who have recently pointed this out have now been painted as "right-wingers hijacking the environmental movement".
|by Anonymous||reply 7||Last Wednesday at 7:01 PM|
R7, how does emigration out of a country increase the population of that country?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||Last Wednesday at 7:03 PM|
Anti-immigration posters on here. Borders should be open and all are welcome.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||Last Wednesday at 7:08 PM|
This book presupposes our ability to solve so many other problems first (climate change, political gridlock, economic inequality, on and on), just to make this country liveable. If we were advanced enough to solve those problems, we would be wise enough not to keep growing our population through reproduction, and we would be able to share our technology with other poorer countries so that they could improve their standard of living without forcing their people to leave their homes against their will.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||Last Wednesday at 7:10 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 11||Last Wednesday at 7:13 PM|
The idea that the government should encourage Americans to have more children is absolutely absurd. Immigration is different since those are lives that already exist.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||Last Wednesday at 7:18 PM|
The whole world needs exactly the inverse of this proposal.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||Last Wednesday at 7:34 PM|
No! We don't need 1 billion people. The average person's quality of life would plummet, and the damage we'd be doing to the environment would be exacerbated. Having the space to accommodate that many people doesn't mean we need to use it for that purpose.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||Last Wednesday at 7:43 PM|
R8 because if people think that they and their children can easily emigrate they have no incentive not to continue to have excessively large families, and worse, no incentive to improve conditions in their own country. If people know that their best option is staying put they are more likely to actually think ahead on how to make it a better place long term
It is heartening to see all the responses from people who see this book and the idea it presents as the utter lunacy it is. There is a need for a global population management strategy, and the lead could be taken by countries like Japan that have already demonstrated success at it
America with a billion people would be hell on earth, as would any country that tripled its population. Both Bangladesh and Pakistan have done what this moron is proposing, neither one is Paradise on Earth by a very very long shot
|by Anonymous||reply 15||Last Wednesday at 9:16 PM|
He discussed it on the Slate Political Gabfest last week. A billion people would mean America would have roughly the same population density as France.
The book is mostly a thought exercise, prompting us to think about solutions presently available for our problems that would be more starkly called for with a billion people.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||Last Wednesday at 9:25 PM|
R7, I'd like to see that study, because it does not sound credible. If you have it available, can you tell me this: does it provide an estimate of population growth in each country in the absence of migration? You are saying that allowing immigration increases population in both countries, but that is kind of irrelevant if the total world population were to grow even faster in the absence of immigration. All data suggests that people in richer countries have fewer children, so moving immigrants who would have had 10 kids in their home country (and whose kids would have had 10 kids each, etc.) to the U.S., where they might have 4 kids (and those kids, being born in the U.S., would have 2 or 3 kids each) would be better for slowing population growth.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||Last Wednesday at 9:29 PM|
I'm the one on DL who keeps saying that the US needs to drastically cut immigration, preferably to zero. People on DL keep disagreeing with me. If not 1 billion, how many immigrants are enough? Because these people are never ever gonna stop until the entire third world lives here.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||Last Wednesday at 9:32 PM|
I listened to the Political Gabfest podcast with this guy.
He never even bothered to sell the idea. So confusing.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||Last Wednesday at 9:39 PM|
R16, wait until Africa’s population really explodes in the coming decades. They’re already at the southern border.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||Last Wednesday at 9:39 PM|
R20 was for R18.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||Last Wednesday at 9:40 PM|
Africa population is doubling every 27 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||Last Wednesday at 9:41 PM|
R18, it's not immigrants, it's people period. 1 billion native born Americans would be way too many, and probably far worse than 330 million native born Americans and 670 million immigrants. Where are the policies that will incentivize Americans to have fewer kids?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||Last Wednesday at 9:42 PM|
The West is doomed because of colonial guilt and because eugenics/genetic hygiene is unacceptable in the West
You know who’s going to run things very soon. It’s all about IQ. They’ll fix everything. It’ll be ugly, but they’ll fix things.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||Last Wednesday at 9:48 PM|
R24 I think you’re right.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||Last Wednesday at 9:53 PM|
Africans at the Mexican border. From the AP.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||Last Wednesday at 9:53 PM|
NBC covers Africans at the Mexico-Guatemala borders.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||Last Wednesday at 9:54 PM|
Africans demand entry to claim asylum.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||Last Wednesday at 9:57 PM|
[quote] So he thinks we need to compete with China on population?
China’s population will shrink because of the one child policy, for several different reasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||Last Wednesday at 9:57 PM|
R24, you are absurd and frankly disgusting. Look at the biggest driver of migration today: climate change. The average American has 4 times the carbon footprint of the average non-American (which includes other Westerners, meaning the multiple is even larger compared to human beings living in underdeveloped countries). That works out to 4 x 330 million Americans = 1.3 billion Americans, if each had the global average carbon footprint. There are two solutions to this problem: reduce the number of native born Americans, or reduce the carbon footprint of the average American (or both). The latter means a reduction in the standard of living for Americans. This is the only just solution. American consumption of energy and natural resources is destroying the planet and uprooting people from their homes around the world. Once Americans start living within their means and stop imposing hardships on everyone else, then you can talk about "Western guilt".
|by Anonymous||reply 30||Last Wednesday at 9:57 PM|
Central Africa comes to the South. Poetic justice.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||Last Wednesday at 9:59 PM|
R30, you’re an infant and/or low-IQ.
Just let is take the wheel.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||Last Wednesday at 10:04 PM|
Central Africans coming to South Africa.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||Last Wednesday at 10:09 PM|
A "surge" in African immigration is doubling a very small number. People freak out when they read a headline that says such and such has doubled. That's a meaningless metric unless we know the starting number. If One is doubled, the new total is Two. Not very terrifying.
There are two situations that are diametrically opposed in operation here. One is planetary. Our current lifestyle is killing our planet. That includes clearing land to grow food, or, more specifically, to grow animals we fatten and eat. In the process, we are killing off vast ecosystems, causing mass die-offs of species,. We are also fouling the air and water, polluting the ocean and overfishing it. Our planet could probably comfortably sustain 3 billion people living a Western style comfortable lifestyle and meat-centered diet.. It cannot sustain 10 billion people living a western lifestyle without the planet becoming uninhabitable.
On the other hand, the economic system which brings the most comfortable and safest lifestyle to the most number of people is capitalism. Capitalism is completely predicated on growth models, and most importantly on population growth (increasing demand for goods and services). When population plummets, capitalism as an economic engine starts to sputter and then dies. Japan and Europe have been struggling to figure out how to maintain vibrant capitalist economies in the face of plunging birthrates and declining population for several decades. Now China is suddenly coming face to face with the reality that its population is starting to level off, and will decline by 2065 to 1990 levels - 200,000,000 less than its peak, or the entire population of Brazil fewer. Fewer people, less demand for housing. Property values start to decline and then fall rapidly. Older people don't need new washing machines, cars, computers at the same rate that younger people do. The US is at that point in its birthrate. Robust immigration has disguised that drop in birthrate, and kept the US economy vigorous. Now, post COVID and an anti-immigration president, all bets are off. Countries that still have rapid growth rates are mostly in South Asia, Africa, and the middle East.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||Last Wednesday at 10:35 PM|
Europe can function as an overflow sink for Africa and the Middle East. And South Asia.
Keep them coming.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||Last Wednesday at 11:04 PM|
R24 is sadly right. The West will not control the world much longer, it will be Asia's time (mainly China). And yes, the "fix" will be absolutely brutal. They have had the good sense to constrain their own population with the one child policy which was needed, and they are now reaping the benefits. The West has effectively ceded leadership to China due to a loss of confidence in Western culture. Bye bye democracy
China already controls swathes of Africa and much of the third world and own a lot of their infrastucture. They are busy extracting minerals and other resources. I have friends in South Africa seeing this happen
|by Anonymous||reply 36||Last Wednesday at 11:18 PM|
That’s a lot of foreskin!
|by Anonymous||reply 37||Last Wednesday at 11:49 PM|
Matt Y. discussed his book with his Vox colleague Ezra Klein this morning.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||Last Thursday at 8:05 AM|
[quote]It's not like we can (or should) randomly settle people in Montana.
All 7 billion of the world's inhabitants can fit in Texas with their own tiny houses and a small patch for vegetables. Yet individuals own property the size of small countries. Inequality is the main enemy.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||Last Thursday at 11:40 PM|
R39, where will they work? What about the environmental impact of settling all those people on unoccupied land? And with climate change, much of Texas is going to become uninhabitable due to drought, wildfires, and flooding. Where are you going to move all those people when they can't live there anymore, and how are you going to manage the mass exodus of Texas refugees to other states?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||Last Friday at 7:53 AM|
R39’s vision of paradise is billions of people stuffed in rows of homogenous little huts with just enough space for a vegetable garden.
Talk about living the dream! Good luck motivating the masses to take up arms for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||Last Friday at 8:34 AM|
There are areas of the world where a man’s masculinity/virility is judged by the number of children he has. Hell, there are some areas of the US where men are proud of fathering many babies by different women. And the Hasidim are hellbent on having 10 children or more.
If a woman doesn’t produce many children a man can divorce her in some place Some men can marry more than one wife in order to produce lots of children. A woman in Africa told my women’s health NP friend that if she used birth control & only had 1 or 2 children her husband would be considered strange & inferior by other men. She had to keep producing to make her husband look good or he would be disgraced.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||15 hours ago|
yikes, I kinda like yglesias at times, but yikes. a billion. I'm crying as I type.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||15 hours ago|