4 ms·

> the U.S. has nearly unlimited room to accept immigration Says who? The permanent ecologically sustainable population of the U.S. is under 200 million. Suppor

> the U.S. has nearly unlimited room to accept immigration Says who? The permanent ecologically sustainable population of the U.S. is under 200 million. Supporting the current population at the current standard of living involves running down aquifers and top soil and fisheries. We could certainly cram in 600 million at a far lower standard of living. Why should the people favor a reduced lifestyle? Where exactly are the added millions going to live? There aren't really viable sites for new cities. No, with continued high immigration we're really talking about adding massively to both sprawl and overcrowding in existing cities. Citizens rightly regard both these developments negatively. The demographic trends in America were set in the 1960s and 70s to level off the population at a pretty comfortable figure around 200 million. With the massively increased immigration of recent decades we're going to hit somewhere well over double that. To what advantage? The parallel America with a much lower population would be a much nicer place to live for the vast majority of people.

avn2109 12y ago
What about if we build more Manhattans and put our 600 million people there? Maybe it's time to dig some subway tunnels on the Kansas prairie.
foldr 12y ago
The US has a very low population density. There's tons of room for new housing.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  Are you deliberately missing the point? The ecological impacts of sustaining human settlements go far beyond housing sites. The American west is overstretched for water. Much of the land west of the Mississippi is effectively already overpopulated. Beyond ecological concerns, you can't add people without compromising the lifestyle of people already here. Go ahead and ask people in most cities if they want their town to be a lot more like Los Angeles. The answer 90% of the time will be No. But that's what's happening anyway. This idea that there is a ton of land for new urbanization is obviously wrong. The good land is all in use. What's left is semi-arid, flood plain, or unsuitable in other ways. You can't just stick people out in a prairie or desert or on an Appalachian hill top. You have to ship in food and pipe out the sewage. That's not economically viable most places. The one area of the country that could actually support a higher population density is the great lakes region, but it's in fact slowly depopulating at the moment. Immigrants are not moving to Erie, PA. They are moving to places like NYC and cities in California. So this point that there is available land is a pointless academic discussion unless you want to impose soviet style internal passports.

avn2109 12y ago

What about if we build more Manhattans and put our 600 million people there? Maybe it's time to dig some subway tunnels on the Kansas prairie.

foldr 12y ago

The US has a very low population density. There's tons of room for new housing.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
Are you deliberately missing the point? The ecological impacts of sustaining human settlements go far beyond housing sites. The American west is overstretched for water. Much of the land west of the Mississippi is effectively already overpopulated. Beyond ecological concerns, you can't add people without compromising the lifestyle of people already here. Go ahead and ask people in most cities if they want their town to be a lot more like Los Angeles. The answer 90% of the time will be No. But that's what's happening anyway. This idea that there is a ton of land for new urbanization is obviously wrong. The good land is all in use. What's left is semi-arid, flood plain, or unsuitable in other ways. You can't just stick people out in a prairie or desert or on an Appalachian hill top. You have to ship in food and pipe out the sewage. That's not economically viable most places. The one area of the country that could actually support a higher population density is the great lakes region, but it's in fact slowly depopulating at the moment. Immigrants are not moving to Erie, PA. They are moving to places like NYC and cities in California. So this point that there is available land is a pointless academic discussion unless you want to impose soviet style internal passports.