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