X-Message-Number: 22680
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:14:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: population again

Mark Plus is still worried about population, although I find
it hard to understand why.

From a UN report, Feb 26 2003 at
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/pop850.doc.htm:


"As a result of these trends, the population of more
developed regions, currently at 1.2 billion, is anticipated
to change little during the next 50 years. In addition,
because fertility levels for most of the developed countries
are expected to remain below replacement level during
2000-2050, the populations of 33 countries are projected to
be smaller by mid-century than today (e.g., 14 per cent
smaller in Japan; 22 per cent smaller in Italy, and between
30 and 50 per cent smaller in the cases of Bulgaria, Estonia,
Georgia, Latvia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine)."


At http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/People the US is
listed with 2.07 children per female lifetime. This
is near replacement level. Therefore the population growth
that still exists in the US is caused almost entirely by
immigration. If an agricultural crisis develops (which I find
totally implausible) obviously immigration quotas will be
revised downward.


According to the 1999 CIA World Factbook, population density
of the United States was about 30 people per square
kilometer, placing it 177th in the global list of nations. By
comparison population of South Korea was 477 people per
square kilometer; Japan, 337 people; Taiwan, 685 people;
Netherlands, 466 people; United Kingdom, 245 people. Of
course some parts of the United States are unsuitable for
agriculture, but this is also true of the other nations
listed (especially Japan).


I have been reading about the dire consequences of
overpopulation since the 1960s. It remains an unfulfilled
prophecy.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22680