Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

US Population to Top 300 Million

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Oct 04, 2006 07:34 AM
from the won't-just-one-of-them-be-my-bff dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially. The US census bureau says the 300 million mark will be reached 39 years after US population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million. That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india. It is noteworthy that sheer number of human beings do not necessarily have the heaviest impact on the environment. Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology. The US consumes nearly 25% of the world's energy though it has only 5% of the world's population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each American produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, a rate about 5 times that in developing countries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

US Population to Top 300 Million 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Plenty of Room (Score:5, Informative)

    by CrazyTalk (662055) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:39AM (#16303517)
    The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas. The "Rust Belt" - cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh - continues to shrink. Pittsburgh alone has lost over HALF of its population from nearly 700,000 in the 1960s to barely over 300,000 today (and not just due to people leaving for the suburbs). If you're willing to tolerate the winters there's plenty of room up here!
    • Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paranode (671698) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:51AM (#16303657)
      The population of the US may be increasing, but only in certain desirable areas.


      So the hispanics, whose population growth rate was over triple that of the general population last I checked, are all living in desirable areas?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rlp (11898) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:37AM (#16304423)
      For anyone who thinks the US is running out of space - I suggest the following exercise. Take a drive on I-10 westbound through western Texas. The road is arrow straight and goes for miles and miles through NOTHING. No towns, no buildings, no crossroads, nothing. Apart from portions of the east and west coast, the US is not very densely populated. You might say 'Who would want to live out in the desert in the middle of nowhere?' I'd agree with you, but then again, the residents of Vegas might not.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PMuse (320639) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:22AM (#16305207)
      I have long pondered where under the sun man should live and this answer was revealed to me: God meant for man to live where he can grow grapes.

      It's that simple, really. If the grapes like the climate, so will we. And, if not, at least we will have wine.
      [ Parent ]
        • Re:Plenty of Room (Score:4, Funny)

          by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:16AM (#16304045)
          You'll be waiting awhile for that. Oceans rose at a constant 0.3mm per year from 1901 - 2000. So, 3 cm over 100 years. I think you should be able to figure out the rest.

          But but... Day After Tomorrow said...
          [ Parent ]
      • Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:03AM (#16304883) Homepage
        Days of major terrorist attacks in New York: 1, ever.

        Number of major earthquakes on the West Coast: about 5 or 6 in the past century, spread out from California to Alaska.

        Percentage of years in which Buffalo, New York has freeze-your-ass-off winters: 100.
        [ Parent ]
  • AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gentimjs (930934) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:40AM (#16303531) Journal
    Re: The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries."

    Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"

    They just dont get it.
    • by Mayhem178 (920970) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:53AM (#16303687)
      Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"

      Yeah, they probably will. But would you rather have it any other way?
      [ Parent ]
    • Trashy Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dareth (47614) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:12AM (#16303975)
      America has a disposable culture. Even things that are made to last for more than one use have a limited lifespan. Things are not engineered to last, and are cheap enough to replace rather than repair. Durable goods used to be things that were expected to be last for at least 10 years. This included cars and refrigerators. Over time the definition of durable goods has changed so that they are only good for 3 years, and only includes cars.

      Even our cars are pretty much designed to fall apart after 3 years of regular use. How can American's not be leaders in producing trash in this kind of environment. Only good note is my mother in the law is a packrat and has not thrown hardly anything away for the last 30+ years. But I guess she is just a minor rounding error on the average.
      [ Parent ]
      • Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot DOT kadin AT xoxy DOT net> on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:50AM (#16304639) Homepage Journal
        I don't know where you were, but I think you're vastly overstating the durability of previous-generation automobiles and appliances.

        Cars today are far more reliable than cars were 40 or 50 years ago. You can take pretty much any car today, and expect to get 100,000 miles out of it, properly maintained. This is not just Japanese cars, most domestic cars will last this long too. A whole lot of cars didn't used to have odometers that even went beyond 100k; it was just assumed that it would be scrapped by that point. Plus, they're more efficient, safer, and cost less in real-dollar terms. Not to mention a lower defect rate and less production waste. In short, you get a lot more for your dollar when you purchase a 2006 automobile than its 1956 equivalent.

        Maintainance statistics on refrigerators I don't have as readily, but I'm willing to bet that you're viewing the past with some rose-colored glasses there, too. Most major appliances today will easily last ten years, in fact I'll bet that more of them are thrown away because they're no longer stylish, than because they actually break.

        There are certain legitimate criticisms of the way a lot of mechancial devices are currently designed (sealed units, difficult to repair), however the upshot of this is that they're both more reliable, require less maintainance (when's the last time you had to have the coolant in your fridge topped off?), and far less expensive than they were in the past.

        The reason you don't see very many older cars on American roads is not because they all die, but because we as a whole, don't like to drive them. Rather than driving them until they're actually at the end of their mechanical life, they either get sold to other countries (Mexico imports tons of used cars from the U.S.), or are cut up for parts or scrap rather than being reparied after some non-fatal damage. I suspect that in any major U.S. junkyard, you could very quickly put together enough parts to have a working automobile; it's simply not worth the labor for a skilled mechanic to do so. In other countries, or in the U.S. in the past under different economic conditions, this wouldn't be allowed to happen.

        There are lots of things I'm nostalgic about the past for, but I have no illusions about the strides we've made in product engineering over the interim. That we've taken those engineering gains and used them to create a disposable culture is a social, not technological, problem.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jafac (1449) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @10:49AM (#16306559) Homepage
          Yeah, 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. . .

          My 1972 Volkswagen, when it was running, had over 200,000 miles on the frame, (maybe 50k on the current engine). On the other hand, I had to tweak the timing or the carb adjustment literally every other week to keep it running smoothly, and adjust the valve clearance pretty much at every oil change (3000 miles - the classic 1600cc Air Cooled VW engine has NO oil filter stock). Yes, I tinkered with it, I've swapped engines, rebuilt engines, swapped transaxles, bolted on some suspension modifications, etc.

          My 2003 Volkswagen. . . I pop the hood for oil changes every 5000 miles. I expect 200,000 miles with no unscheduled maintenance, and given anaecdotes from other Jetta owners, that's not an unreasonable expectation.

          On the third hand - if something DID go wrong with the 2003 VW, I'd pretty much have to take it to a shop. I own a nice set of tools, a timing light, tach/dwell meter, even a bore kit for carb jets, compression tester, and I have rebuilt the 34-pict carb blindfolded (as an exercise). But I couldn't even begin to troubleshoot a complex fuel-injection timing or turbocharger problem with the 2003 VW. Even if I had the necessary manuals, I don't have the experience or the equipment. And I would expect the equipment to run north of $10k. (though the VAG-COM serial cable and software is pretty slick - that's the exception in the industry today, not the rule).

          So I'm somewhat "on the fence" as to whether I'm better off with today's cars.
          Definately, when one takes into account, safety features - air bags, crumple-zones, antilock brakes, more advanced suspension designs, etc. And the lower-maintenance factor is mighty convenient. But the inability to DIY (partially caused by emissions regulations - partially by IP-law profiteering) is a big minus.
          [ Parent ]
        • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @11:07AM (#16306911) Journal
          I agree that cars of today are worlds better than old ones but I think most appliances have gone downhill. My parents just got rid of the washer & dryer they purchased with their house in 1967. My wife and I just bought a new washer and dryer to replace units that were just over 10 years old. The dishwasher they bought in the early 1980s still works; our newer one died two years ago. Its replacement didn't wash dishes as well, so we replaced it with a more expensive unit (which, I'll admit, is very quiet.) I can't tell you how many toasters, microwaves, etc. we've gone through. They just get smaller, lighter, and flimsier. I'm sure they're move efficient and cost less to produce and ship (by dint of being lighter) but I'd rather trade a little efficiency for 2-3x the lifespan (and with that, less-used landfills) and some user-serviceable parts.
          [ Parent ]
  • It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VampireByte (447578) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:41AM (#16303551) Homepage
    Americans aren't pumping out puppies, it's that we welcome people looking for a better life. So lay off the environmental left wing crap, those people would be somewhere creating pollution.
    • Re:It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Funny)

      by tygerstripes (832644) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:45AM (#16303597)
      we welcome people looking for a better life
      ...which is rather cruelly misleading on your part. Unsporting, I say.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Malc (1751) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:04AM (#16303835)
      They wouldn't be producing so much pollution though, would they? I would be that on average, most 1st generation immigrants consume below the national average. Either through habits developed in their birth culture, or because immigrant's tend to be poorer (yes, I'm a highly paid immigrant, but immigration is costly and leaves you without networking to find jobs. BTW, I'm not an economic migrant as I came from a country with comparable standards of living and salaries).
      [ Parent ]
      • You believed that? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot DOT kadin AT xoxy DOT net> on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:20AM (#16305167) Homepage Journal
        the US gov't is far from welcoming the tired, poor and huddled masses anymore.

        And we never did.

        The whole "give us your tired, your sick" crap was just that, crap. The U.S. has never been particularly interested in taking refugees; exceptions to this are just that -- exceptions -- and not the rule.

        I don't know what drives this constant temptation to embellish the past, but it wasn't this wonderful place of sunshine and light. Most of the people who were allowed to immigrate into the United States throughout its history weren't allowed in out of some sort of self-righteous pity, but because they were needed in order to meet the demand for labor. Lots of sick people got sent right back on the boats they came over on, and even if you were young and healthy, you still had to have someone willing to vouch for you here in the States before you were allowed in.

        We need to stop deluding ourselves about our past immigration policies. While they may have ended up being more liberal than the rest of the Western world's at the time, that was only because Europe had more people than it knew what to do with, and the U.S. was starved for labor and people to tame the new lands it was in the midst of acquiring. As a nation we needed more people, and as a result we became more welcoming; the latter was a response to the former, not the other way around.

        The needs of the United States have always been the driving force in our immigration policy historically; if it worked out well for the immigrants then all the better for them. It's mostly after the fact that people have congratulated themselves for being so high-minded.

        Now it's disappointing to me as an American that our immigration process wasn't easier for your wife, who I am assuming is probably educated and employable -- in short, exactly the type of people we need to be encouraging to come here. However, I don't think that as a nation we should be guilt-tripping ourselves into rolling out a red carpet to everyone who needs a place to live, particularly to those without skills, for whom there is little demand today and less so in the future; we have never engaged in this historically, and there's no reason to start now.
        [ Parent ]
  • America is doing something right... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SniperClops (776236) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:42AM (#16303553) Homepage
    Asia has too many, Europe has a decreasing population, America is just right. Whats your secret?
  • Already??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:42AM (#16303557)
    Shit! Quick, go to a school and start a killing spree! It's the only way to keep this thing under control.
      • Re:Already??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tygerstripes (832644) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:18AM (#16304073)
        Wow; it was fascinating to watch that post go from +5 funny to -1 Flamebait after you posted your heart-rending plea.

        Thing is, Funny is both a) subjective and b) unrelated to "tasteful" (well, inversely related if anything). I don't mind being modded down - that's what the system's for - but your statement that "it isn't funny" means that you didn't find it funny. Clearly at least 3 other people did at the time, which is what humour is about - timing. The following Troll/Flamebait mods only appeared after you sulked and wept your heart out.

        I can appreciate it wasn't funny to you - yes, it was tasteless - but I knew people who were badly affected by the London bombings and who that very night were making jokes about it. Partly it was a coping mechanism, but partly it was just that some people like edgy humour and prefer to distance themselves from tragedy with levity. In some ways it's a way of confronting tragedy head-on. Iodine for the wound, as it were. I've no doubt you would have found those jokes as funny as they and I did. You might have felt slightly uneasy about it, but it was that ability to laugh, to shrug it off, at least to be pragmatic, that stopped everyone from going bug-fuck paranoid and bitter at the time, and which allowed London to get on with its life instead of doing exactly what the terrorists wanted - freaking out.

        Sorry if I offended you. However, your knee-jerk reply suggests that you aren't well equipped to deal with the stings and blows that everyone experiences in life. Still, it is interesting how quickly the mod-tide turned...

        [ Parent ]
  • by GfxGeek (994243) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:45AM (#16303605)
    "The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population..." We can do better than that. Thanks to ATI / nVidia and their 1.21 gigawatt next gen GPUs, I'm confident we can shatter this number by next year.
  • Not so bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by halivar (535827) <bfelger.gmail@com> on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:51AM (#16303655) Homepage
    You'd think, that as the third-most populated country and first in consumerism that we'd be sucking up everyone else's resources. For oil, yes. But not for everything. According to the Foreign Agricultural Service:

    How much of its agricultural products does the United States export?
    American farmers export 45 percent of their wheat, 34 percent of their soybeans, 71 percent of their almonds, and more than 60 percent of their sunflower oil.

    For many food products, U.S. producers are among the lowest cost producers in the world.

    So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.
    • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ruliz Galaxor (568498) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:04AM (#16303839)
      But do you also know where the American agricultural products are exported to? Do you know how many Africans cant sell their agricultural products, because of the low priced (with subsidies!) American products?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tygerstripes (832644) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:07AM (#16303889)
      Jesus, all the numbers and none of the context.

      How much of that low-cost is due to subsidising? How does the US stack up against developing countries pre-subsidy? I'd like a figure please.

      More to the point, do you have any idea what impact subsidising your food exports has on the global economy? Specifically, have you got a clue just how badly fucked the third-world, agriculture-based economies are thanks to your heroic efforts to get rid of this food that your farmers are overproducing so they can reap the benefits of such a heavily manipulated market?

      You may not be sucking up other nations' resources in this regard, but you are destroying their ability to be economically profitable and competitive. The thing is, economically speaking it doesn't make much difference to the US - just a few less wasted fields here or there, a marginally improved national deficit figure - but to the countries who rely on food export to maintain any kind of currency in the global market, it is everything. Still, as long as nothing inconveniences the honest 'Merkin, yes?

      [ Parent ]
          • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tygerstripes (832644) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:45AM (#16304549)
            Actually, this is dead wrong. You could be sending megatonnes of the stuff, for all the difference it would make.

            The big problem in "starving Africa" is not food, but war, corrupt government and diverted distribution. Africa is materially capable of self-sufficiency, but corruption and fighting always prevent the aid and resources from reaching those who most need it. I have hear first-hand stories of how import shipments of good grain, after a mysterious week's delay somehow end up arriving in port half their expected size and full of vermin and rot - and, curiously, of the same variety that the importing country was supposed to be shipping out.

            And one of the main reasons for constant war and corruption? Manipulation of the global market through subsidy, sanctions and ridiculous demands by the western-led IMF & World Bank. Like it or not, we as a culture are pretty much directly responsible for all of the shit that's going on in Africa.

            I've seen whole essays on this, and it's too depressing for me to go into any more detail.

            [ Parent ]
  • Immigration anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Demon-Xanth (100910) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:54AM (#16303711)
    A large part of the growth of the US population is from the large amount of immigration the US has, both legal and not legal. Also, the OP stated that they compared the per capita usage to developing countries, not industrialized countries. It sounds like someone's cherry picking stats to make it sound bigger than it is.
    • Re:Immigration anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by radtea (464814) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:17AM (#16304053)
      It sounds like someone's cherry picking stats to make it sound bigger than it is.

      This isn't cherry picking. The point is that the developed world has a resource usage pattern that is globally unsustainable. As the largest developed country in the world the U.S. is actually in a position to do something about this, and in fact actually are doing something about it at the state and local level, although the federal government leaves something to be desired in this regard.

      There are more wasteful countries in the developed world, notably your smug neighbour to the north: Canadians are one of the few peoples on Earth who are even more wasteful than Americans, and our only saving grace is that there are so few of us in such a large amount of empty space that we don't in aggregate have such a large impact on the plant. Conversely, things don't improve so much globally when we clean up our act. But when America goes green, the weight of 5% of the world's population comes off the planet's shoulders.

      There was some guy once who said something about treating others with the same love you give to yourself, and another guy around the same time who said something about not doing to other people what you do not want them to do to you. "Using up the world's non-renewable resources and treating the planet as our personal garbage can" is probably something that most of us would rather not see other people doing, and so it probably behooves us to not do so ourselves.
      [ Parent ]
  • US isn't the only one growing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Malc (1751) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:56AM (#16303737)
    "The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone [...] for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially"

    Wrong! Canada (member of the G8, so technically a major industrial nation, even though a little over a tenth the size of the US) is increasing in size faster. More new immigrants settle in Greater Toronto Area every year than any other N. American city, including LA and Miami. Since I first came to Canada 10 years ago, I've seem the population grow from 28 million to 32. The last government was trying to increase the inflow of immigrants. Yes, it's easier to have a higher growth rates on lower numbers, but the impact on things like services (medical, roads, education, etc) and the enviroment are still proportionally higher.
  • Before we can (Score:3, Funny)

    by refriedchicken (961967) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:56AM (#16303739)
    go to war with China (those bastages are taking all the oil we need), we need to increase population to catch up to them...It is all part of the administration's master plan for when Jeb becomes president.
  • What is the real "breaking point"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The-Bus (138060) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:57AM (#16303743) Homepage
    I found this US Census page [census.gov], but I can't find the "live" moving clock. It seems, to me at least, that a 1% yearly growth in population isn't really anything to be alarmed about. In fact, if you look at population density [wikipedia.org], our population density is less than average: 31 people per km compared to the world average of 48 km. That's less than 10% of the density in Japan or India. Some European countries are way up there as well. Germany and the UK both have more than 200 people per km. Even without Alaska, we're still only at about 37 people per km.

    If we had Germany's population density, the US would have 2.2 billion people (and still only about 400 interested in the World Cup).

    The question isn't about density, as it is about resources and the ecological footprint that Americans have. We're terribly, awfully wasteful. If we all became more conscious about resource use, in twenty years, even with 360 million people, we could use less resources then than we use today. At that point, the economic benefits of population (and immigration) outweigh the other costs.

    I'd be a lot more worried if we've maxed out our resource use efficiency and there was simply no way to improve. No, we've got a lot of improvements we can do. If we follow through with them, US population growth won't be a problem in the next century.

  • Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rob Kaper (5960) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:01AM (#16303801) Homepage
    The 5-25% phrase bugs me. It's designed to make the US look wasteful while that's definitely not the case.

    According to Angus Maddison's [url=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Stati stics/horizontal-file_2006.xls]world population and GDP .xls[/url], the US GDP is 8.2 billion and the world's 38.9 billion. So the US accounts for 21% of global economical output using 25% of energy resources. That's below average and something to think about, but it definitely puts a different perspective on matters.
  • Americans & Energy Use (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JeanPaulBob (585149) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:33AM (#16304347)
    The US consumes nearly 25% of the worlds energy though it has only 5 % of the worlds population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide.

    I really doubt that's true. Not that 25% of the world's energy use takes place in America, but that a good energy accounting system would assign all that use to Americans.

    Say what?

    What I mean is, America uses more energy per capita in a simple account, but think about what we're using that energy for. At least some of it is going toward production of goods & services for export. Should the energy used to manufacture and ship a computer be assigned to us, or to whoever buys it in another country? I think the latter.

    Even taking that into account, I would guess that we still use more per capita. But not 5x as much.
  • Per Capita Oil Usage (Score:5, Informative)

    by ev0l (87708) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:51AM (#16304657)
    According to Nation Master [nationmaster.com], who gets there information from the CIA fact book, the USA is 17th in oil consumption per capita.

    Interesting to note: Luxembourg is number 7 and most of the largest consumers per capita are Island Nations.
  • no spin needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PMuse (320639) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:12AM (#16305033)
    What an artfully cherry-picked bunch of statistics!

    That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india.
    True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.

    Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology.
    Population density is worth at least a mention, no?

    Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.
    Since the US produces more waste per person than any country in the world, why set up the comparison against developing countries? The US produces more than twice the trash per person of the more efficient industrialized nations. Isn't that trouble enough?

    US environmental impact is an important problem that shouldn't be undermined by spinning the statistics. The reality of the problem is more than bad enough.
  • That's 5 Pounds of trash... (Score:4, Funny)

    by gillbates (106458) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @10:21AM (#16306133) Homepage Journal
    We're Americans, we measure our trash output in pounds, not kilograms. The metric system is for those snooty Europeans.
    • Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tdemark (512406) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:45AM (#16303601) Homepage
      Maybe if we adopted stringent population controls like china did, we'd be better off.

      Except, according to TFA, a full 40% of the US population growth is due to immigration (legal and illegal).

      - Tony
      [ Parent ]
    • by Stoertebeker (1005619) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @07:58AM (#16303757)
      It's logical that the richest country on the planet will be doing a greater share of consumption as well as production compared to the rest of the world.
      Only the resources they are consuming are limited on a global scale, leaving less to anyone else. And the trash/pollution they produce destroys the environment on a global scale. Are you surprised that less wealthy people aren't exactly happy with this arrangement?

      It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...

      [ Parent ]
    • by maxume (22995) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @08:36AM (#16304407) Journal
      That's a lot of ... poop. By the way, 100 square meters is, drumroll, 10 meters on a side, which is about 35 feet. Assuming you use miracles for infrastructure, that's still not very much room, especially if you want silly things like parks.

      Taking you somewhat less literally, we get most of our fresh water from nature at the moment. Oxygen too. Those things are quite a bit more important than physical space. If you choose to take E.O. Wilson seriously, read "The Future Of Life". He puts the carrying capacity of the earth at somewhere less than 20 Billion people. Comfortable at less than that.
      [ Parent ]
        • BZZZT (Score:4, Informative)

          by ThinWhiteDuke (464916) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:23AM (#16305223)
          And with it's roughly 25% usage of the world's energy supplies (including oil) what does the US do with it? Create an even greater percentage of the world's goods

          WRONG [wikipedia.org]

          World GDP = 60,000 Bn
          US GDP = 12,000 Bn
          Share of US in World GDP : 20%

          Amazingly enough, the US are less energy efficient than the RoW.
          If you're looking for an exceptionally efficient economy, try the EU.
          [ Parent ]
            • Re:BZZZT (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rkcallaghan (858110) on Wednesday October 04 2006, @12:49PM (#16308707)
              Anonymous Coward wrote:
              The EU is looking more and more impressive. It's amazing that Europe has gone from the chaos and destruction of WW2 to the peace and prosperity of the EU.
              The EU is now what 'these united States of America' (note the lower-case u in united and 'these' instead of the) was before the civil war. States used to be as distinct and seperate here as the EU countries are now; and the federal government had much less influence, concerning itself primarily with matters like the treasury and common defense.

              ~Rebecca
              [ Parent ]
        • by dido (9125) <dido.imperium@ph> on Wednesday October 04 2006, @09:52AM (#16305659) Homepage

          Really? Then why was the balance of payments deficit for goods for 2005 a record $782 billion? The last time the United States had a positive balance of payments was in 1973, and the deficit has been on an almost steady increase for the past two decades. Read the figures published by the Census Bureau [census.gov] (warning PDF link), or if you prefer, a a graph from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [bea.gov]. With these figures, the only reason why the United States hasn't yet suffered an Argentina-style economic collapse is that other countries keep buying up US debt...

          [ Parent ]