3 ms·
> We cannot strive for a continuous grow of the population since the earth's resources are finite. True, but the US is in the enviable position where it has en
by zhdc1 5y ago
> We cannot strive for a continuous grow of the population since the earth's resources are finite.
True, but the US is in the enviable position where it has enough resources to support a substantially higher population. The US has the second highest amount of arable (cultivated land) in the world, second only to India. However, its population is only one quarter of India's.
I'm not arguing that the US should increase its population to that extent, and I'm not arguing that having 1.3B people living in a country the size of India is a good thing. However, the US could maintain population growth for significantly longer than other countries.
- Ygg2 5y agoThat's true in the present, but I doubt it will hold true in the future as climate change moves arrable zone further north.
- zhdc1 5y agoThis will likely balance out, as losses from certain regions that will be adversely impacted by climate change (e.g., Florida) will be offset by gains in other states (e.g., Virginia). There will be some detrimental impact, see Quaye et al (2018) "Climate Change Impacts on Farmland Values in the Southeast United States" for where I'm pulling this information from, but it won't be completely devastating. Again, I'm not saying that this is a good thing, and I'm only talking about cropland and not the impact of climate change on costal population centers (it will be devastating).
- raxxorrax 5y agoI don't think the current numbers factor in water requirements, which can and will throw around these numbers quite a bit. India's farm protests are sourced in water problems to a significant degree.