2 ms·
All US population groups other than post-1965 immigrants have below replacement fertility. If you really care about energy use, stopping mass immigration is the
by WildUtah 11y ago
All US population groups other than post-1965 immigrants have below replacement fertility. If you really care about energy use, stopping mass immigration is the only choice -- reducing population growth among core Americans is moot.
And the East Asian and European immigration could continue -- those national origin immigrants assimilate to American birthrates or lower immediately. It's the Central Americans, Caribbeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans that are driving all long term population growth.
And now I see why the opening paragraphs warn about political incorrectness. Comment readers, please just ignore that aspect.
- astazangasta 11y agoThis reasoning is spurious, I feel. We know that illegal immigration happens; we also know that wealth and happiness, especially education and stability for women, results in lower birth rates. Attempting to stem immigration means that instead of immigrants being happy, stable and educated they will be poor, marginalized and unstable. This will push up birth rates. In addition, preventing immigration only helps if the immigrants use more resources here than they do in their nation of origin - this is not clear. Are those immigrants with high birth rates even burning fuel at the rate of a typical American? Let's know that first before we start banning them.
- kbutler 11y ago> All US population groups other than post-1965 immigrants have below replacement fertility. U.S. Mormons have greater-than-replacement fertility rates, making Utah top the nation's fertility rates. (Posting as WildUtah, you should know this!)
- WildUtah 11y agoI wasn't thinking of religious groups, but yes. The Mos (and the Amish) are keeping it up.