4 ms·

In 30 years there will be nowhere left to run. If current rates of immigration continue we're looking at over 400 million crammed in. Everywhere will be congest

In 30 years there will be nowhere left to run. If current rates of immigration continue we're looking at over 400 million crammed in. Everywhere will be congested and expensive.

lotharbot 12y ago
400 million in a country the size of the US is not exactly "crammed in". There are plenty of congested and expensive places, mostly big coastal cities. If your view of "everywhere" only includes those places, then it will seem like "everywhere" is congested and expensive. But if you ever drive across Wyoming, Texas, Montana, or Kansas, you'll see plenty of wiiiiiiiide open space too. $50k will get you a decent house in small-town Kansas.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  The wide open places where there is no major city lack major cities because they are unsuitable sites. There isn't enough fresh water and/or the energy demands of logistics are unfeasible. Newsflash: we are not building brand new urban areas, and we won't be. People will continue to increase congestion and sprawl at the existing metropolitan areas. The ecology and quality of life will continue to degrade.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    There is plenty of fresh water and infrastructure in Kansas...it is not Nevada! We can probably double the number of cities in the USA no problem; we have the resources, we just lack the people. The USA is not China, where what you say is actually true (lack of arable land, resources, overcrowded cities, not much ability to build new cities because all the good space is already taken).
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
100 million more residents is a drop in the bucket. The US is gigantic and there's room for easily twice the population without overcrowding.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  The carrying capacity of the USA at our current standard of living (resource consumption) is probably around 1 billion people, more if we can use our resources more efficiently (which is bound to happen in the future). Immigration is usually just moving people around from resource-starved places to resource-rich places. So from a planetary perspective, it is a good thing.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    You are delusional. Two separate congressional commissions in the 70s and the 90s concluded the long term sustainable population of the USA is under 200 million. Moving people from poor places to rich places increases the environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 Anyway, "moving people around" is not a useful way to look at American immigration. The numbers of people overseas who would move here are effectively infinite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      200 million is ridiculous and obviously not true as we've already broken 300 million without any problems. Japan supports around 130 million people with an American-level lifestyle..it is much smaller with ALOT less arable land (the interior are all mountains!). A billion is really not a problem for a country as resource rich as the USA. We already produce much of the world's food, and our biggest problems usually amount to not being able to water our Kentucky bluegrass lawns whenever we want to. Even if we forget about much of the dry west, we still have lots of space (and the west actually isn't that dry...). Immigration is a great way of allowing for global social mobility. I hate the mentality of the "we got ours, screw the rest of you" mindset of the anti-immigration types. It is not only selfish, but morally wrong.
      - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        Japan is a global shipping or energy crisis away from utter catastrophe. You really think that's a situation we should shoot for? Japan is wisely choosing to lower its population. And major lol at the idea that Japanese have a quality of life comparable to Americans. They commute over an hour one way to tiny apartments and enjoy spacious neighborhood outdoor recreation facilities such as this: http://treasureheart.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/3/1833287/3026975.jpg http://treasureheart.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/3/1833287/3026... Clearly we haven't broken 300 million without problems. Quite obviously we've had an explosion of sprawl and loss of open space. We've had massive growth in infrastructure demands. It's very easy to argue that most major urban areas have seen a major decline in quality of life for the middle class.

In 30 years there will be nowhere left to run. If current rates of immigration continue we're looking at over 400 million crammed in. Everywhere will be congested and expensive.

lotharbot 12y ago

400 million in a country the size of the US is not exactly "crammed in". There are plenty of congested and expensive places, mostly big coastal cities. If your view of "everywhere" only includes those places, then it will seem like "everywhere" is congested and expensive. But if you ever drive across Wyoming, Texas, Montana, or Kansas, you'll see plenty of wiiiiiiiide open space too. $50k will get you a decent house in small-town Kansas.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
The wide open places where there is no major city lack major cities because they are unsuitable sites. There isn't enough fresh water and/or the energy demands of logistics are unfeasible. Newsflash: we are not building brand new urban areas, and we won't be. People will continue to increase congestion and sprawl at the existing metropolitan areas. The ecology and quality of life will continue to degrade.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  There is plenty of fresh water and infrastructure in Kansas...it is not Nevada! We can probably double the number of cities in the USA no problem; we have the resources, we just lack the people. The USA is not China, where what you say is actually true (lack of arable land, resources, overcrowded cities, not much ability to build new cities because all the good space is already taken).

MisterBastahrd 12y ago

100 million more residents is a drop in the bucket. The US is gigantic and there's room for easily twice the population without overcrowding.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
The carrying capacity of the USA at our current standard of living (resource consumption) is probably around 1 billion people, more if we can use our resources more efficiently (which is bound to happen in the future). Immigration is usually just moving people around from resource-starved places to resource-rich places. So from a planetary perspective, it is a good thing.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  You are delusional. Two separate congressional commissions in the 70s and the 90s concluded the long term sustainable population of the USA is under 200 million. Moving people from poor places to rich places increases the environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-NtQr89u4 Anyway, "moving people around" is not a useful way to look at American immigration. The numbers of people overseas who would move here are effectively infinite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    200 million is ridiculous and obviously not true as we've already broken 300 million without any problems. Japan supports around 130 million people with an American-level lifestyle..it is much smaller with ALOT less arable land (the interior are all mountains!). A billion is really not a problem for a country as resource rich as the USA. We already produce much of the world's food, and our biggest problems usually amount to not being able to water our Kentucky bluegrass lawns whenever we want to. Even if we forget about much of the dry west, we still have lots of space (and the west actually isn't that dry...). Immigration is a great way of allowing for global social mobility. I hate the mentality of the "we got ours, screw the rest of you" mindset of the anti-immigration types. It is not only selfish, but morally wrong.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      Japan is a global shipping or energy crisis away from utter catastrophe. You really think that's a situation we should shoot for? Japan is wisely choosing to lower its population. And major lol at the idea that Japanese have a quality of life comparable to Americans. They commute over an hour one way to tiny apartments and enjoy spacious neighborhood outdoor recreation facilities such as this: http://treasureheart.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/3/1833287/3026975.jpg http://treasureheart.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/3/1833287/3026... Clearly we haven't broken 300 million without problems. Quite obviously we've had an explosion of sprawl and loss of open space. We've had massive growth in infrastructure demands. It's very easy to argue that most major urban areas have seen a major decline in quality of life for the middle class.