Fertile Ascent

U.S. fertility rate now high enough to sustain population

Posted at 10:04 AM on 21 Dec 2007

Americans consume far more than their fair share of the world's resources -- and more Americans are on the way. The overall fertility rate in the U.S. increased 2 percent from 2005 to 2006, nudging the average number of babies born per woman to 2.1 -- high enough to sustain a stable population for the first time since 1971. The U.S. is somewhat of an anomaly, as most developed countries have far lower birth rates (and, to environmentalists' dismay, are scrambling to raise them). Factors in the U.S. propensity to keep popping kids out may include relatively low use of birth control, widely held religious beliefs that value childbearing, relative ease for women to balance work and family, and a growing population of Hispanic folk. Meanwhile, most developing countries have much higher birth rates -- also to environmentalists' dismay. We've got more dismay (and neighbors) than we know what to do with.

source: The Washington Post
see also, in Gristmill: Quit talking about population already
see also, in Gristmill: Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late?

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Meanwhile, the MSM remains clueless ...

This is an alarming trend. At least, alarming for anyone in the U.S. who pays attention to and cares about disappearing wild areas, disappearing open space, disappearing species who are losing the last of their remaining viable habitat, the ongoing decline of unsustainably-pumped aquifers, the disappearing rivers in the West that are drying up to service growing Western populations, the ever-growing traffic jams clogging our ever-expanding Metro areas, etc.

But look how the Washington Post spins this:

"... The "replacement rate" is generally considered desirable by demographers and sociologists because it means a country is producing enough young people to replace and support aging workers without population growth being so high it taxes national resources.

"This is a noteworthy event," said John Bongaarts of the Population Council, a New York-based think tank. "This is a sign of demographic health. Many countries would like to be at this level."

The words of a green-eyeshade economist eagerly crunching numbers on his profit-and-loss spreadsheet ... but who clearly hasn't a clue as to what 6.6 billion people and growing means to his weary little planet.

I don't challenge the notion that a contraction in population will bring with it some unpleasant economic realities (e.g. fewer working youngsters to foot those Social-Security bills). But I dare the John Bongaarts of the world, and their Ivy-league blowhards, to challenge the notion that a world with 9 billion people hitting Peak Oil in 10-20 years will be a hell of a lot more unpleasant. No doubt Bongaart will be on own his little tropical island by then, far from the teeming crowds he is so eager to welcome ...

by GonzoDon at 12:12 PM on 21 Dec 2007

Please Make Room

The biggest reason that overpopulation is the biggest and most important environmental problem is that there are so many people, there's no room for anything else.

In order to be ecologically viable, an ecosystem needs AT LEAST 50,000 acres of untouched wilderness AND wilderness corridors between itself and other ecosystems of at least that size. Humans could live there, but they'd need to live as pre-industrial hunter-gatherers. Unless we're willing to live like that, we need to greatly lower our population to provide that space for everything else on the planet. Economic concerns are irrelevant. To paraphrase the Native American saying, anyone who thinks economics is even close to being as important as the environment deserves to have to eat, drink, and breathe money.

by Wolverine at 3:59 PM on 21 Dec 2007

See also

Competitive Birthing

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:55 PM on 21 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?