Reply #17: But the birthrate of people LIVING in the US is at a NEGATIVE rate. [View All]

[happyslug]

The population increase in the US has been, for the last couple of Decades, been from immigration NOT new born. This is also true of Europe and Japan. China and Russia (and the rest of the old Warsaw Pact Nations) have also seen negative population growth, but no new immigration so their population is dropping.

Now, the third world has seen population growth, but all of the third world has seen the RATE of population increase drop since WWII, this drop is more noticeable since the 1960s.

My point is saying population control will help the environment in the US and the rest of the 1st and 2nd world (The "2nd world" was a cold war term for the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam and the various members of the Old Warsaw Pact) is nonsense. The facts do NOT support such a position.

Now, there is some evidence that it MIGHT help in the Third World, but with the general decline in the birth rate in the Third World that is less and less a factor.

Side note: While much of the population increase is in the "Third World", the growth rate varies by country. For example Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the rest of the "Asian Tigers" have a low population increase compare to the rest of the third world (They birth rate closely matches the rates in the First World). Northern Mexico and Mexico city birth rate resembles the First World, but even Southern Mexico and Central American have much lower birth rates today then they had in the 1960s (Most illegal immigrants into the US is from Southern Mexico and Central America NOT Northern Mexico).

My point in this side note is population of the world is peaking and is expected to peak somewhere between 2050-2070 then drop. The main problem is environmental degradation has less to do with population growth then the switch from a subsistence economy (Which most of the Third world had till the 1960s) to one aimed at the demands of the West for goods (including food). The chief reason for the recent increase in immigration from Southern Mexico and Central America has been do to NAFTA and other "Fair trade" agreements with the countries of Mexico and Central America. These agreements permitted the US to ship its surplus of grain into those countries, dropping the price of corn so much that the subsistence farmers of the area had to quit farming and move to the US just to earn enough money to feed themselves and their families. Another problem was the shift of the Agriculture in those nations to items for the US and European Markets as opposes to feeding the local population (i.e. More Bananas, more Beef, more Coffee, less Corn). This one two punch on local population has been the "Push" behind people moving from Southern Mexico and Central America to the US in search of Jobs. Yes, immigration and environmental degradation are inter-related, one leads to the other. This switch in what is being planted and harvested in these areas are causing the environmental degradation NOT any increase in the local population. The various environmental groups see this and view the demand for populations control as a solution to the problems with the environment as false, and worse an excuse to divert attention from the real cause of environmental degradation, the switch from subsistence farmer to huge industrial level agriculture production for items wanted in the West.