Jim Everett wrote an erroneous column (The Examiner, Aug. 13, “How many people is too many?”) concerning the demographics of the world population and what it may mean to the human race.
Jim Everett wrote an erroneous column (The Examiner, Aug. 13, “How many people is too many?”) concerning the demographics of the world population and what it may mean to the human race. Mr. Everett really did not do his research before he wrote, but rather reiterated the tired liberal ecological diatribe.
Aside from the illegal immigration issue, please allow me to correct the misunderstandings of Mr. Everett and anyone else who believes as he does concerning population and the human race.
Thomas Malthus, a 19th century economist, was mentioned as someone in authority concerning world population and finite resources. The definition of economics is the study of the use of scarce resources, which have alternative uses and, yes, we all should be concerned about finite resources. However, Malthus did not have the data or the technology that we have today. Read “The Theory of Economic Alchemy” by Paul Zane Pilzer.
At this time, land and food are not finite resources, and neither is oil, as far as being in danger of disappearing within the next 400 years. If you take the land mass of Texas, you can give everyone in the world today a 1,200-square-foot house with four people per house and still have a lot of room left over. For example, if you divide that same landmass by 1,200-square-foot homes with four people to each home, although you wouldn’t have room for anything else, it would hold 24.8 billion people in 6.2 billion homes. Scientists today says the world can easily sustain at 9 billion people. I’m just say’n.
The article rightly stated that the population growth is more in the developing world and less in the industrial world mainly due to education rather than anything else. I do love how he blames Bush for the world’s population. OMG, I’m just say’n.
So, let’s take a look at demographics here. It takes 2.3 children born to each family just to replace the existing population level. The U.S. birthrate now stands at 2.1. When you factor in immigration we come in at 2.5. China’s birthrate is 1.1 and due to its one-child policy has 40 percent more men than women (they will be in a world of hurt), France is 1.2 and fast becoming a lost civilization, the U.K .is 1.8 and Australia is 1.8. At the current rates of below 2 these populations will have their populations halved in just over a generation. As underdeveloped counties become more developed they will follow the same path.
Food supply is well underutilized in the world today. The U.S. currently could feed the world with no help from any other country, but so can India, and when you factor in Brazil and Argentina along with the rest of the world we have an overabundance of capacity.
As with Mr. Everett, please allow me to address his illegal immigration statements, with just one example. In 1986, President Reagan and Congress elected to give the illegals citizenship. As part of the deal by law they were to fix the immigration issue once and for all, but as usual passed it off as so much busy work and did nothing. I’m just say’n. Something should be noted here. When Congress and Reagan passed the 1986 law we were told that the estimate was right at 800,000 illegals, but it turned out to be about 3 million. What on God’s green earth or in your wildest dreams would ever make you think that the true count of illegals is anywhere near 11 million to 12 million.
I’ll bet Mr. Everett right here and now that if citizenship to illegals is ever done again the count will be somewhere north of 18 million to 20 million conservatively. Please, when you write about statistics put your diatribe away and state the facts.