Living in the big country

[Gob]

US Census 2010: Population hits 308.7m but rise slows

The population figures were the first results of the 2010 US Census

The US population has risen by almost 10% in the last 10 years to stand at 308.7 million, according to new data from the US Census Bureau.

But the population figure marked the slowest growth in a decade since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The south and west of the country continued their population expansion.

The individual states' populations will be used to reapportion the number of representatives each state sends to the US Congress for the next 10 years.

The total population of the US grew to 308,745,538 in 2010, up from 281.4m a decade ago, Census director Robert Groves said at a news briefing announcing the 2010 results.

Roughly 60% of the increase was from individuals born inside the US, while 40% was the result of those immigrating to the country, Mr Groves said.

"In every Census since 1790, we have counted all persons who live in the country - we count residents, whether they are citizens or not," Mr Groves said.

The state with the largest population growth was Nevada at roughly 35%, while Michigan was the only state to see a decline.

Mr Groves said the slow growth during the Great Depression and the slow growth of the past decade could be attributed to each decade's economic dips.

It was "an assertion on the part of historians" that growth slowed in the 1930s because of the Great Depression, Groves said.



And "the case is pretty attractive to make that the depression hurt the growth rate", he added, referring to the most recent recession.

But Mr Groves pointed out that understanding the effect of the economy on population was a complex task and researchers might never be sure how heavily economic problems weighed on growth.

The US is still growing quickly in comparison to other developed nations, like France and England - whose populations increased by about 5% over the last decade.

The growth in population throughout the US fell largely on Republican-leaning states in the South, which will allow these regions to add seats in the House of Representatives in the next election.

The US Constitution mandates that each of the 435 House districts properly represents roughly the same number of people within each region, and the battle over redrawing of congressional districts is usually partisan and protracted.

The figures could also play a role in the 2012 White House race as the number of seats each state has in the House determines their representation in the Electoral College, which is used to elect each president.

Eight states, mostly in the Southern and Western US, will add Congressional seats during the next election, while many states in the Northeast and Midwest will suffer loses in 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12044925

[@meric@nwom@n]

That actually made the news here too.

[rubato]

Population increase throughout the 1st world has slowed or stopped.

A good thing.

Now it needs to run backwards until we get to a sustainable level.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

I would like the US population to stabalize at around 200 million.

As it is now, there are too many people for far too few ressources.

[Scooter]

Do you propose some sort of war or engineered famine or disease to get it down to that level, otherwise it would appear to be a bit late.

[dales]

Not at all.

Send the excess 100 million to Canada.

You have a fraction of the US population with plenty of land.

[Crackpot]

But alot of it is really fucking cold

[dales]

......and they talk funny.

[Crackpot]

And eerily polite.

[loCAtek]

...[!?] I'm not goin' to Canada, fork off!

[Andrew D]

Do you propose some sort of war or engineered famine or disease to get it down to that level, otherwise it would appear to be a bit late.

I see it rather the other way: Not doing anything by way of population reduction -- rational, humane population reduction -- is the best way to get war and/or famine and/or disease.

The first thing, of course, is to make contraception (and its attendant education) universally available. Let's try that for twenty years and see how it goes. If we need to do anything more than that, we'll be in far better position then to assess alternatives than we are now.

[dgs49]

Ah...I think contraception...and abortion, are pretty much universally available within the U.S. right now. People aren't having kids because they can't get contraceptives, but because (1) they want them (hooray!), or (2) they are too lazy and/or careless to take preventive measures. Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are ubiquitous, and will provide birth control pills and devices for the asking.

More important than population is demographics. We have the resources in this country to sustain a population far larger than what we have. The unfortunate thing is that the population increases are mainly coming from poor immigrants and poor, uneducated, unmarried natives.

In Europe, where they are much, much more sophisticated than we are, the native populations are greying and dying out, replaced by arabs, turks, portuguese and Eastern European migrant workers and such. The governments are paying incentives and bonuses to native Germans, French, etc., for having kids.

We still live in a land of tremendous opportunity, and that's what counts.

[Andrew D]

Planned Parenthood is not as ubiquitous as all that. In the entire State of Alabama, there are two Planned Parenthood outposts. The same is true of Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, South Carolina, and South Dakota. In the entire State of Mississippi, there is one Planned Parenthood outpost. The same is true of West Virginia and Wyoming. And in North Dakota, there is no Planned Parenthood outpost at all.

Anyway, I was thinking globally. Sure, there's a lot of migration, but that's just shuffling the proverbial Titanic's deck chairs around. What we need is rational, humane reduction of the global human population.

[dgs49]

Humane?

Darn!

[oldr_n_wsr]

Last time I read anything about the "rising" population numbers is that the USA natives are not replenationing the current population and the increase is due to immigration (legal and illegal).

[loCAtek]

...Tomorrow the World!

[Miles]

Anyway, I was thinking globally. Sure, there's a lot of migration, but that's just shuffling the proverbial Titanic's deck chairs around. What we need is rational, humane reduction of the global human population.

Perhaps removing youself from the gene pool woud be a reasonable start.

[Andrew D]

Anyway, I was thinking globally. Sure, there's a lot of migration, but that's just shuffling the proverbial Titanic's deck chairs around. What we need is rational, humane reduction of the global human population.

Perhaps removing youself from the gene pool woud be a reasonable start.

I have already done the best thing anyone can do for the environment: I am child-free. Anyone who is not child-free would have to spend several lifetimes living like a vegan cave man just to catch up with me.

[loCAtek]

Hey, I'm child-free; don't smoke and don't drive a car: top that!

[dgs49]

It is a wonder that the myth of the earth's over-population continues unabated.

When the earth's population was a small fraction of what it is now, people were preaching doomsday scenarios of how we were all going to starve,blah, blah, blah. Yet the population doubled, then doubled again, then doubled again.

And for anyone with eyes and the desire to see, the starvation we see now has little or nothing to do with a lack of resources, and everything to do with horrible governance in the third world. In countries with vast natural resources, workable climate, and great populations, we see governments that steal everything that is not locked down, suppress the means of production, oppress the population, and do nothing to build the infrastructure. And people say the solution is BIRTH CONTROL? You gotta be shittin' me.

A free population creates wealth. They make things, they grow things, they engage in commerce, both internally and with the outside world. India is a good illustration. It has a large and dense population that is growing rapidly. Yet the quality of life is improving because the governments are gradually becoming less and less regressive, they are emphasizing the value of education, and they are exploiting the resources they have. In fact, many of the resources (e.g., iron ore) are still off-limits due to religious and cultural restraints, yet progress continues to be made and to accelerate. Their problem has never been too many people, it has been a bad government. The same could be said about China. Population is increasing along with quality of life, because of improving government (from an economic standpoint). Is Cuba's population starving because of a lack of resources? Hardly.

From a climate standpoint, the most productive agricultural regions in the U.S. are DESERTS! They have been cultivated through artificial irrigation, scientific farming, and hard work, incentivized by an economic system that rewards (and does not punish) productivity. Worldwide production of food and other valuable commodities is nowhere near at capacity, based on current knowledge and technology.

Too many people in the world? Yeah, right.