What is Digg?213 Comments
- Cuchanu, on 07/17/2008, -1/+48Well considering there are 130 million more people in the US then there was in 1957 I don't think this should surprise anybody. To put it crudely that's about 65 million more vaginae which as we all know have babies.
- RealmDown, on 07/17/2008, -4/+49Higher gas prices = more stay at home time = increase in baby production
Makes sense to me. - dave11980, on 07/18/2008, -2/+32Perfect example of statistics inaccurately portraying facts. During the baby boom we went from 140 million to around 180 million depending on when you say the boom stopped. We are pushing around 300 million. Of course your going to have more births, we have more people. Guess what, China has more births than we do, it's not because they are more promiscuous, it's because they have more people to have babies.
- megadan76, on 07/17/2008, -11/+37That's pretty weird.
Our resources are going to be seriously stretched in 25 years if we keep going at this rate.
How long until some major event wipes out a large portion of humanity? It seems inevitable. - kemp34, on 07/18/2008, -2/+23The birth RATE right now is much lower than in the baby boom. This article appears to be a form of fear mongering.
- eastwood24, on 07/18/2008, -4/+21It's the Malthusian collapse. "Left unckecked, populations will increase at geometric rates, while the resources needed to sustain such growth only increase at arithmatic rates" - Thomas Malthus. Eventually, we will hit a point where people will turn againist one another to surivive. I remember reading about a science experiment where they puts rats in a cage with an initial ample amount of daily food. Eventually they bred to the point where the cage was too small and food not enough, at this point they turned to murder and cannabalism.
A good reference to the big picture of how population growth works:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/exponential_growth - saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -8/+22Overpopulation zealots are worried about "more mouths to feed", but they never seem to take in to consideration that each birth is two more hands to do the work that needs to be done. People don't just suck up supplies, they produce them (unless they are on welfare). There are more humans than ever, yet there are more than enough supplies to support art, literature, science, etc. Sure, there is only so much raw material, but these problems can be solved in time.
- antoniuk, on 07/18/2008, -1/+13Takes two to make a baby junior. Would that mean half the men are sluts as well? Having a dick does not exempt you.
I hope the last woman who you called a slut made you cry in a little ball in your parent's spare room you so now call your own.
Have fun grudge spanking it to Tera Patrick you winner you - FutureGuy, on 07/18/2008, -2/+13There are a lot more people today then in 1957, so even with slightly more births it not going to significantly change the population. "And the 2.1-child per woman average means that the U.S. isn't doing much more than replacing its population."
- executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -0/+10The major fallacy of that argument is that as countries get wealthier the birth rate decreases.
Look up the birth rates of Hong Kong, China, South Korea, Japan, Western European countries, even canada. They are well below the 2.1 replacement rate.
Japan's birthrate last year of 1.32 and no net immigration will devastate this country if it continues.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/IF08Dh01.html - UberNick, on 07/18/2008, -2/+12What issue of Highlights did you pull that ***** from?
- Which Native Americans?
- What kind of trees naturally abort? Like as a precursor to coat hangers?
- 7th generation? - saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -1/+11 Since we don't live directly off the land, It should easy now to have lots of kids, but Americans usually only have one or two. In fact, birthrate has a NEGATIVE correlation to GDP -- women in richer countries produce fewer children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate. ...
- Kruez, on 07/17/2008, -6/+15Somebody needs to teach these kids to pull out!
- jbrand45, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9bag it before you shag it and need not worry about pulling out
- nikkilynette7, on 07/17/2008, -6/+14There is technology that can take care of the water shortage. We can now turn sea water into drinkable water... it just costs money for the system and the product.
There are also alternative fuels for the oil shortage... it just costs money for the new technology.
We can do what we need to do to make this world a better place and continue to have healthy families. We just have to do what we know we need to do and always look for alternatives to better our environment. - s0l0s0ul, on 07/18/2008, -3/+11it IS inevitable! The plants are going to start attacking large crowds of people, causing them to walk backwards and kill themselves, so we will be forced to move around in small crowds. Someone should really make a movie about this.
- Screwy1138, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8The intelligent also strongly trend towards fewer kids. Which is scary as hell IMO.
- slvrbullet87, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8The mortality rate for stupid people has plummeted in the last 50 years, everything has been made very safe, and doctors can do amazing things to heal the wounds morons cause themselves.
- ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8We are practically in the age where we can have robotic farms where nobody needs to do any work.
Very few people produce food anymore. If you go and look at farms you'll notice that no longer are there 20 acre farms run by a 7 person family, but 20,000 acre farms run by 5 people with huge machinery. - joauri, on 07/18/2008, -2/+9"And the 2.1-child per woman average means that the U.S. isn't doing much more than replacing its population."
That doesn't actually seem to be a bad thing. - inactive, on 07/18/2008, -2/+9All these kids = more single moms looking for a new daddy when I just want to go out on a date.
- darkphenox, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8yes but its not like the frontier days when more hands= more food where every one had more then enough land, right now there is a limited amount of jobs and allot of them need training and education which teenagers do not have.
- executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -2/+82.1 chilren per female in a country is the replacement rate as stated in the article. How does that contribute to overpopulation?
Overpopulation is one of the biggest fallacies being propogated today.
In fact countries all over the world will be facing under population soon such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Western European states, Canada to name a few as their birth rates drop well below 2.1 - TheSpook, on 07/18/2008, -1/+7Hmmm, if you can't afford the gas, you're in for a shocker when you have to pay for the kid. Then again, our government gives away free money for the kids of deadbeats, but not for gasoline as far as I know (unless you're heating your house with it, which I wouldn't recommend).
- drlha, on 07/18/2008, -1/+7worminater: "you're" dumb
- theadvinci, on 07/18/2008, -2/+8Moon and Mars... here we come!
- evil-doer, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6i came here to say the same thing. comparing apples and oranges here. per capita comparisons would have been more accurate.
- drlha, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6If they're born here, they're Americans.
- shoediva, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6I hope all these people have jobs so they can support these babies, and not us the tax payers.
- Haecceity, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5It's amazing how people can't understand pretty straightforward articles, and how article authors can't understand the basic facts they write about. The US population today is about 1.5 times what it was in 1957, so the growth rate is actually much lower than it was then. And at 2.1 children per woman the growth rate is essentially zero, especially given that not all of those children will reproduce or even reach reproductive age.
- mchisari, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5
Talking about "the Native Americans" is like talking about "the Asians." You're talking about a vastly diverse group of civilizations, many with opposing and conflicting values (some with a strict religious heirarchy, some almost vaguely agnostic, some with egalitarian economies, some with top-down heirarchies, etc). You cannot make blanket statements like that. - JKAL, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5and I guess almost duplication of the population since the baby boom is not a significant factor in this equation?
this is sensationalism at it's best, in fact the birth rate should be reported as low - marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Repressed much?
- BaseballGuyCAA, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aY8-zknBKE
- TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6your friend tito and his 30 friends that crossed the rio grande.
btw, nice avatar. i bet you get all the girls. - wiggles, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Ahh, to be young, cynical, fatalistic, and overly dramatic again...
- Korbels, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6Uh... More people more births! BRILLIANT!
- chaos7, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4you are so right. and so many idiots don't even put into question if they should not have a kid for reasons beyond their personal ones.
- nofx1510, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Well the Millennial Generation is screwed in 20 years...... damnit.
- dood, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Vasectomies: They're cheaper than having a baby, and you can always adopt if you change your mind. The pain from the vasectomy is very temporary (and in my experience dull, more of an ache than anything else) but the benefits are permanent (in nearly all cases).
- puter, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4That's exactly what I was going to post.
Of course there are a lot more babies, we have twice the population to produce them. This is precisely why population increase is exponential, there is absolutely nothing new in this article.
Stupid article. - blast_flame, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Mathusianism is flawed as technology and as such availible resources increases exponentially too. For instance we design computers on computers now. This exponential growth is known as the law of accelerating returns, read a book or two by Ray Kurzweil to find out more.
- tillerman00, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6Stop *****!
- dood, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah, exactly. What's wrong with just replacing the population? Why should we be concerned if our population isn't growing? I don't have any particular desire to live in a country with billions of people fighting for food and other resources.
- pwnerofnoobs, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3The kind of tree that has lots of thorns.
- richmomz, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4The article overlooks the fact that the population now is much higher than it was in 1957, so birth rates in strict number terms is not that surprising. Per-capita the jump in birth rate in 1957 was still much higher.
- Jazz837, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6This is one huge reason why my husband are are choosing not to procreate. There are too many damn people on this Earth!
- slvrbullet87, on 07/18/2008, -7/+10We already cultivate almost all of the fertile land, besides more people more space taken up. If you think overpopulation doesnt cause problems, go look at some pictures of Indian cities.
- aupton, on 07/18/2008, -12/+15Having a kid today is selfish... The world is over populated !
- MrZaiko, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Yea but how can you feed those 20 billion?
DO THE MATH -
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 