Overpopulation

High School Students Are Very Worried About Overpopulation. They Shouldn't Be.

New report claims U.S. overpopulation will blight their futures.

|

NPG
NPG

American high school students are very worried about overpopulation, according to Negative Population Growth (NPG). The group bases this claim on the responses to a questionnaire it distributed to hundreds of 9th- to 12th-grade teachers across the nation.

Founded in 1972, during the heyday of overpopulation hysteria, NPG's goal is "to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth—eventually stabilizing at a size that is sustainable over the long term." America's "optimal population," it adds, is "approximately 150–200 million people (our nation's size in 1970)." Here are the results of its not-so-scientific survey:

If we stay on track with the present rate of population growth, America will add 90 to 100 million more people (almost 1/3 of the number of people who live here now) by the time you are 40–50 years old. How concerned are you about living in such an overcrowded nation? Very Concerned: 25%, Somewhat concerned: 43%, Not very concerned: 23%, No Opinion: 5%.

How worried are you that an ever-increasing population will continue to use up the Earth's limited reserves of fresh water, fertile soil, forests and fisheries? Very Worried: 29%, Somewhat worried: 38%, Not too worried: 20%, No Opinion: 13%.

Do you believe people should do all they can to solve the world's environmental problems even if it proves to be a very costly endeavor? Yes: 55%, No: 12%, No Opinion: 33%.

Do you think America's schools should put more emphasis on teaching about the consequences of population growth? Yes: 35%, No: 33%, No Opinion: 32%.

Do you feel that future Americans in the 22nd century potentially living in an environmentally-damaged nation would be right or wrong to think that we did not care enough to put limits on population growth to keep environmental problems from spinning out of control? Right: 45%, Wrong: 22%, No Opinion: 33%.

The questionnaire was basically a push poll—that is, an ostensible survey whose true objective is to sway voters using loaded or manipulative questions. Consider this one: "How worried are you that an ever-increasing population will continue to use up the Earth's limited reserves of fresh water, fertile soil, forests and fisheries?" It assumes that some deleterious trends exist and then asks if you're concerned about them. Yet NPG is wrong about the trends: America's "limited reserves" of those alliterative resources are not actually being used up.

Fresh water? Pacific Institute co-founder Peter Gleick points out that the U.S. has long since passed "peak water." The amount of water withdrawn from sources such as lakes or rivers in 2010 was lower than at any time going back to 1970. Often, a portion of this water is returned to the source and is available to be used again. During that time, U.S. population has grown by more than a third and GDP has nearly quadrupled.

Fertile soil? Wind and water erosion of soil has fallen by 44 percent in the U.S. since 1982. The U.S. Department of Agriculture further reports: "In 2007, 408 million acres of agricultural land were in cropland (down 17 percent from 1949), 614 million acres were in pasture and range (down 3 percent), 127 million acres were in grazed forestland (down 52 percent), and 12 million acres were in farmsteads and farm roads (down 19 percent). Nonagricultural uses have increased from 37 to 49 percent of the land base." Farmers are getting more crops from less land. For example, corn yields have soared from around 40 bushels per acre in 1960 to nearly 180 bushels per acre today. Wheat yields have more than doubled since 1960, from 30 to 65 bushels per acre.

Forests? They're expanding. The area covered by forests in the U.S. has increased from 721 million acres in 1920 to 766 million acres in 2012.

Fisheries? This story is not as happy. That's largely because many are still managed as common areas by government bureaucracies. Nevertheless, a 2014 study reported that of the 44 overfished stocks examined, 19 showed significant increases in rate of biomass recovery; none of the 44 showed statistically significant declines in rate of biomass recovery. The increased allocation of individually tradeable quotas means that the health and yields of most fisheries will likely improve.

Now let's consider the claim that today's high school students will be "living in such an overcrowded nation." When I was born, the population of the U.S. was 160 million; it now stands at 320 million. But kids today are very unlikely to see another doubling of U.S. (or world) population. America's total fertility rate—the average number of children a woman is expected to have over the course of her lifetime—has fallen to a record low of 1.84. The minimum rate needed to keep a country's population from shrinking is generally thought to be 2.1. Minus immigration, U.S. population will begin to decline during the lifetimes of today's high school students.

What about the notion of overcrowding? America's current population density is 85 people per square mile. The NPG projects that it will rise to 105 people per square mile by 2050. Assume, for the sake of argument, that that's true. The current densities elsewhere are 660 people per square mile in the United Kingdom, 593 in Germany, 373 in China, and 295 in France. And if for some reason today's high school students do feel overcrowded, they might consider moving to one of the 1,660 out of 3,142 U.S. counties—that's 53 percent of them—that are emptying out.

Meanwhile if current economic, technological, and ecological trends continue, those students needn't worry so much about "living in an environmentally-damaged nation." The Environmental Protection Agency reports that air pollution has fallen by 67 percent since 1980, although it must be acknowledged that water pollution trends are not as positive.

In his 1982 book The Coming Boom, the brilliant futurist Herman Kahn pleaded for the return of "an ideology of progress." Kahn warned that

Two out of three Americans polled in recent years believe that their grandchildren will not live as well as they do, i.e., they tend to believe the vision of the future that is taught in our school system. Almost every child is told that we are running out of resources; that we are robbing future generations when we use these scarce, irreplaceable, or nonrenewable resources in silly, frivolous and wasteful ways; that we are callously polluting the environment beyond control; that we are recklessly destroying the ecology beyond repair; that we are knowingly distributing foods which give people cancer and other ailments but continue to do so in order to make a profit.

It would be hard to describe a more unhealthy, immoral, and disastrous educational context, every element of which is either largely incorrect, misleading, overstated, or just plain wrong. What the school system describes, and what so many Americans believe, is a prescription for low morale, higher prices and greater (and unnecessary) regulations.

NPG is still trying to scare schoolchildren into believing these "largely incorrect, misleading, overstated, or just plain wrong" fables of imminent environmental doom. Shame on them.

NEXT: Trump's Idea of 'Fake News' Is Much Broader Than His Awards Suggest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey, teenagers. Worried about overpopulation? Don’t have sex! Problem solved.

    1. Newsflash, they aren’t having sex. The fearmongers already won this issue.

      1. Correction, teens are having sex but 20 somethings are having less and less babies.

        1. anecdotal: I’m 28 and only one of my close white middle class friends has a child (by mistake). Everyone else, even the married couples do not.

          I assume the poor, religious, and patriarchal cultures are still pumping them out at a status quo rate.

          1. What if I told you there is this thing called contraception?

          2. Thank you and your elite friends for our future Idiocracy.

          3. Seems like a lot of people are putting off having kids to their 30s. A lot of my friends had kids in their 20s (or earlier in a few cases). Recently there has been sort of a second batch, with several friends having babies in their mid to late 30s.

      2. Teens are all LBGTQAWVHXHWEGF now thanks to public schools. No babies.

    2. You know where overpopulation is really a problem? In shitholes!

      1. Too many butt babies. This is the problem.

  2. I thought the whole point of school was to scare schoolchildren into certain beliefs. If not, things have sure changed since I was a youngin’.

  3. Negative population growth? Screw that. I’m a libertarian, so I support open borders! If every man, woman, nonbinary adult, and child in Mexico wanted to move to the United States today, we should let all of them in. Who cares how it would impact meaningless stats like “humans per square mile.” The more the merrier, I say.

      1. It would indeed be pretty clumsy to “troll” a website by agreeing with its official position on a major issue. But I’m not a troll. I just call things like I see ’em. For instance, I can point out areas where I disagree with Reason, such as their lack of extensive day-to-day coverage of #TrumpRussia. When it comes to immigration, however, I’m on exactly the same page as everyone in the Reason family, from the interns all the way up to the Koch Brothers.

        Yes to open borders! No to white nationalism!

        1. Lol. Like white nationalism is some kind of virtue. I thought you were getting better, but now you suck again at this trolling thing.

          1. No to white nationalism!

            Lol. Like white nationalism is some kind of virtue.

            Lol He OPPOSED it!

        2. What about negro nationalism?

          1. Sneer at the negro nation if you want, but you’ve got to hand it to them they’ve got a hell of an anthem.

            We used to sing this in school; I think I mastered it before I mastered the U.S. one.

          2. First, you should never use the N-word. Not even that one.

            Second, in the same way that black people cannot be racist, so-called “***** nationalism” is a logical impossibility in a white supremacist country like this one.

            1. OBL though, do you not feel that (to adopt the phrase of an Englishman who made himself rich off the Blackman’s music) the cosmo is the nigger of the libertarian world?

              Oh, and it’s totally cool; I’m a Puerto Rican.

        3. Re: OpenBordes… Whatever,

          It would indeed be pretty clumsy to “troll” a website by agreeing with its official position on a major issue.

          You’re not agreeing with that policy position. You’re mocking it. Clumsily.

        4. You agree on one issue (kind of… most Libertarians would argue open borders are untenable if everyone who arrives is entitled to government benefits) and otherwise are progressive.

          1. Dude, it’s a parody account run by a butthurt conservative.

          2. I’m way more libertarian than that. For example, as a member of the LGBTQ community myself, I applaud Scott Shackford’s writing on Transgender Bathroom Panic. I also appreciate Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s writing on reproductive rights, although I wish she would do more to emphasize the relationship between Net Neutrality and abortion access.

              1. Eddie ain’t that clever.

            1. I also appreciate Elizabeth Nolan Brown’s writing on reproductive rights, although I wish she would do more to emphasize the relationship between Net Neutrality and abortion access.

              This made me chuckle heartily. Thanks for that laff OBL.

      2. Is that not your position, OMS?

        Surely, you don’t put limits on migration, especially Mexican migration? How on Earth do you justify any limits? Is the billionth migrant less worthy than the first? Less deserving of engaging in the exchange of his labor than the first?

      3. Don’t overlook the possibility that he’s insane.

      4. Or … HE knows what negative population growth does to YOUR children’s and grandchildren’s FICA taxes.

  4. Overpopulation hype is always “not enough people who look like me, too many people who look like you.”

    We need more humans, not less. Human ingenuity is a the most important resource we have. Somewhere, probably in a fetid slum in the third world, a child is being born who could invent a cheap and clean energy source or develop a new strain of grain that will feed the world.

    1. We already have Monsanto.

      1. You just said the “M” word. Sad!

    2. We need more humans, not less.

      Is there a correct amount of humans on the planet? It would seem to me that a few places are indeed overcrowded and need to maybe cut back on the reproduction a bit.

      1. Re: Juice,

        Is there a correct amount of humans on the planet?

        No, that’s why we need more, not less, humans.

        Logic, Juice. If there WAS a number, people would worry we’re getting there too fast if that number was higher than the current population. But that’s not what the human-haters at the NPG and the ethnocentrists are saying. They’re saying there’s too **many**. You and I know that’s preposterous, so I as well as albo can say: we need more.

        1. No, that’s why we need more, not less, humans.

          So you think the correct amount is more than the current amount?

          If there WAS a number, people would worry we’re getting there too fast if that number was higher than the current population.

          Why would people worry about moving toward the correct number?

          They’re saying there’s too **many**. You and I know that’s preposterous, so I as well as albo can say: we need more.

          More? Why? What if we were able to somehow snap our fingers and replace 100 M illiterate dirt eaters with 50 M scientists and engineers? Would everyone else be better off despite there being fewer people? I would tend to think so.

          Maybe the key for improving humanity’s general welfare isn’t to produce as many humans as possible, but to have the highest quality humans who innovate and contribute instead of just existing.

          1. Yeah, you would–but those 50 million scientists and engineers who are going to have to take up illiteracy and eating dirt thanks to you might not be.

            And they’ll have to do twice as much of it as well.

            Not everyone can design and calculate the depth and structure of ditches–somebody’s gotta dig them, too.

            1. But as technology advances, you need fewer and fewer people to do that sort of thing. And those jobs become less shitty.

              I don’t think there is an optimal number of people either way. It depends on what you value. The world can certainly support a lot more people. But I can imagine plenty of scenarios where a stable population somewhere around what it is now would be a good thing (unless people start moving to space or other planets). I just don’t want anyone trying to engineer it. Let people do what they are going to do.

      2. Hong Kong and Tokyo and Manhattan and Seoul are absolutely stuffed with people and seem to be doing fine.

        The planet can support billions more. But it won’t have to. As countries get more prosperous, their fertility rate goes down. Make the world richer and you “solve” “overpopulation.”

        1. Cities in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. are also absolutely stuffed with people and are not doing so well, at least on the human welfare and environmental fronts.

          And you’re right. The more prosperous a country or society becomes, the fewer children it has, so as people become more prosperous, the population growth rate will decline and eventually (in a couple of centuries or so) reverse. Would you think this is a bad thing or a good thing?

          I would say it’s a good thing. There would be fewer people, who I would hope would be better educated and more conscientious about the environment and other species sharing the planet with us. Hopefully in that future there would be way more room for wild animals and plants to flourish and do their thing.

          In that future fewer total people would be required to sustain general prosperity for everyone.

        2. Hong Kong and Tokyo and Manhattan and Seoul are absolutely stuffed with people and seem to be doing fine.

          Not sure about Tokyo specifically, but Japan as a whole has a declining population. Which could be a problem in the future because fewer Japanese means less Anime and J-Pop…

      3. My first suggestion would be Hanson. I don’t know how much they’re making nowadays, but it can’t be enough to support their almost inhuman reproduction rate. I think the middle one had four kids by the time he was 20 or something.

      4. We need more people to colonize space. Lots more.

        1. Or just colonize the empty places on our planet. Say, Nebraska.

    3. We need as many humans as humans choose to produce. It’s no one’s business how people choose to reproduce.

  5. I’ll probably regret asking this, but I sincerely wonder how folks like these feel about immigration? I find that the “there’s too many people for the environment” types are usually lefties, the very same people who get furiously mad at any suggestion that the U.S. should reconsider just how many people come across the border. But people from south of the Rio Grande need food, water, shelter, etc. too.

    1. Re: Enjoy Every Sandwich,

      I’ll probably regret asking this, but I sincerely wonder how folks like these feel about immigration?

      Both the negative population growth proponents and anti-immigrant zealots and ethnocentric bigots operate on the exact same WRONG assumption: that the pie is fixed, that resources are “finite” (a word they choose rather than scarce because free markets already allocate scarce resources efficiently) and thus babies or immigrants –depending on which idiot you’re speaking with– are a threat to the life of whoever lives in an arbitrary area.

      1. that resources are “finite” (a word they choose rather than scarce because free markets already allocate scarce resources efficiently)

        WTHF? It’s widely understood that if supply were infinite in any given spacial/temporal bound economics would collapse. No one would trade or migrate as there would be no need to. The fact that you conflate the notions of abstract micro- and macroeconomics, ethnicity, and nationalism in such a bizarre manner says much more about your worldview than anything about the economics of scarcity and racial nationalism. Your ‘idiotic’ white nationalist straw men could just as well say that the nationalist pie isn’t fixed (because it really isn’t) and any given minority’s inability to claim a (majority) share of any given pie is a stupid artifact of the notion that the pie exists and could be consumed. Not that I believe in such notions as much as the fact that the relationships between race/ethnicity, nationality, and economics are far more nuanced and less bounded. The notion that there’s some distinction between scarce and finite because of racial nationalism is pure, unadulterated fabrication on your part.

    2. EES: NPG would restrict legal immigration to 200,000 people per year; favors “streamlined” deportation; and advocates for “more physical and technical barriers to entry” aka the wall; and promotes a “papers please” country in which you have prove your citizenship whenever you bank, work, go to the doctor, or interact with government officials.

      1. NPG sounds like a passel of assholes.

        1. Well everyone has a right to an opinion in this country… after we check your papers.

          1. One of NPG’s policy prescriptions for discouraging fertility (at least at the link provided by Mr. Bailey) is not very Reason Rainbow coalition friendly:

            “Priority in public housing for families with fewer than three children.”

            1. Everything else is being explicitly endorsed by Reason though. So this is definitely a hard piece of cognitive dissonance.

        2. I support negative asshole growth.

      2. Yeah, still waaay too pro-immigrant for my taste.

    3. It is interesting because I believe now almost all, if not all the population growth in the US is from immigration. These people have already acheived what they want in the born here population.

      1. If we stop immigration completely there would be a period of population stalling and decline. Eventually it would rise on its own again.

    4. Not all lefties are pro-immigration.

    5. If lefties = people who believe we need bigger government, I’m not one. However, every time I go into a city, especially Washington these days, my perception is that there are *far* too many people for the environment.

      Admittedly high-tech remote employment could put a lot of those people back on nice sustainable cattle ranches in the Dakotas, but until we see that happening, I believe the surge in homo/bi/a-sexuality reflects young people’s *own* perception that they’re living in grossly overcrowded environments. Their willingness to believe that the whole world is being destroyed by overpopulation reflects what they see and hear around them.

  6. What is the educational value of this poll? Why are students being compelled to participate?

    1. It’s a school. They’re not there to ask about the educational value of things.

    2. Based on the wording of the questions, that was bulldozer level of push polling.

    3. And almost assuredly conducted within the context of a course-long diatribe about how humans are destroying the world. There are plenty of teachers who are focused on actual teaching, and you can be sure none of them chose to dispense this stupid survey.

  7. Actually I think this is a good thing because previously kids were pushed unthinkingly into starting a family. They really need to think twice. I would say, “If you believe in ‘addiction’ or ‘terrorism’ then don’t have kids because they will be its victims.”

  8. All I’m getting from this is that we should all grab our wive/girlfriends and tell them to fire up that baby-maker.

    1. Poor Mrs. Rebel Scum.

      1. Hey, he didn’t say whether he was going to grab his wife or his girlfriend. Hope he chooses wisely.

        1. Yeah, but in either case, the poor lass will have to perform all her own foreplay.

    2. And by way of reply, (if I were one of them I’d) grab…”YEEEOOOWWW!”–adding new versions to the Rebel Yell.

      Unfortunately, too many Southern country gals just looove babies and don’t need to be told to have six or eight of the little darlings. While I’ll grant that some of those kids (some of whom are related to me) seem happy while growing up in the big old family farmhouse, some of them are manifestly less happy when told they have to go to the horrible overcrowded city to find jobs, pay $1000 a month to live in a slum while their wage level still adds up to $750 a month take-home pay, etc.

  9. Minus immigration, U.S. population will begin to decline during the lifetimes of today’s high school students.

    Of course 150 million people would immigrate to the US if allowed and another 150 million have another Anglo-sphere country as their first choice. Add in spouses and kids and an Open Borders US could easily double their population.

  10. And of course there is always this:

    http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-con…..h-2017.png

  11. If we stay on track with the present rate of population growth, America will add 90 to 100 million more people…

    ALL OF THEM SOME SHADE OF BROWN

    1. And we will have you sign a contract agreeing to the terms of our impending dominant/submissive relationship. Also it’s a social contract, so you don’t have to actually sign anything. \90to100MillionShadesOfBrown

    2. Trolls may not technically belong to the human race; however, even Black and White are in fact shades of Brown.

  12. The kids should be scared of negative population growth. Fewer Americans would mean the nation gets much older, with far fewer hosts for the retired leisure class to live off. If they want Social Security and Medicare to be around for them, they should get married young and have lots of kids.

    1. We can build robot home carers, like the Japanese. The latest models are so realistic they calculate the peak of your medications’ effects to determine the right time to steal from your dresser drawers.

      1. Roujin Z, speculative fiction or manifesto?

  13. A question I see almost nobody asking: if it’s really true that automation is going to continue to make more and more jobs disappear over time (especially menial low level jobs), what do we need a hundred million more people for?

    People who don’t have jobs have to depend on someone else, a life of crime, or welfare in order to survive, and our country is already going bankrupt. Given that even with the current booming economy there are still a large number of people outside the workforce, you could make an argument that we already have more people than we need right now.

    1. There will be jobs. Lot’s of jobs. Trust me. /Reason

      Realistically, if we don’t open some brand new low-IQ lines of work we are going to have a serious issue in the next 2 generations. That doesn’t mean we won’t, but I’m pretty skeptical of it.

      Libertarianism has no good answers for those problems. Like it or not, “let them starve” generally ends with the people taking such an attitude with nooses around their necks. Or neck deep in the blood of starving peasants who want bread.

      1. That’s because those predictions are wrong. Marx believed that would be the downfall of capitalism, but not a single technological leap has turned out that way, even the ones that kill off the majority of existing jobs.

        The reality is, there will be jobs so long as there are human needs unmet, so until post-scarcity, which is technically impossible anyway.

        The only obstacle to that will be outdated labor regulations including the minimum wage. Technology will drive down the cost of living so much, despite the efforts of regulators to make it more expensive, that even people who own nothing will be able to serve their capitalist overlord’s desire for a grass-fed, hand-crafted, artisanal avocado toast for a pittance with more purchasing power than any of us have today.

        1. That has been absolutely true up to this point, but I’m not 100% certain that the current phase of the technological/information revolution is going to turn out exactly the same as the past revolutions.

          The U.S. labor force participation rate peaked some time around January of 2000, and has been going almost steadily down for 18 years now. The long term trend has been towards more and more productivity being generated by fewer and fewer people.

      2. Or neck deep in the blood of starving peasants who want bread.

        And?

        But seriously, there’s a bit of a difference with automation in that, because automation, nobody starves wanting bread. I don’t exactly disagree that the future won’t end up with NAPers swimming in pools of blood but if we do, it will be because well-fed Antifa/OWS/LGBTQers grow tired of consuming regular bread and trying to force us to bake them artisanal bread from leavened human fetuses. Whether the blood is our fellow compatriots, human fetuses, or aggressive Antifa/OWS/LGBTQers is TBD.

    2. Remember the Luddites? Then again, our tax code forces more imports — which the GOP tax bill missed entirely. It’s the write-offs of jobs-creating new industrial investment. Screwed in 1986, by both parties, to pat for another middle-class tax cut. There’s a SHORT-term incentive that will never lat because EVERY major manufacturer will never pay the corporate income tax. (The goobers will cheer at that, but – hey – THEY elected Trump!)

    3. If there isn’t demand for labor, fewer immigrants come.

  14. “Minus immigration, U.S. population will begin to decline during the lifetimes of today’s high school students.”

    Greater demand for labor, more affordable housing!
    Yay!

  15. What a bunch of BS. Anyone with eyes can see that the masses of humans are destroying everything good they come into contact with. Reducing human population by some 2/3 or so will do nothing but good for those that remain.

    1. “Destroying” or merely altering to suit human ends? By “good” who is the judge? Do you think humans building a dam for hydroelectricity is “bad” and the unaltered river “good” and if so, what do you think about beavers doing the same? I suspect under your veiled value system lurks not reason or evidence that “anyone with eyes can see”, but self-loathing and misanthropy.

  16. C’mon give ’em a break. The left only has scare tactics: global warming, er, global climate change, racism, sexism, over population, Trump voters, etc.

    They need these tactics, it’s all they have.

  17. The Malthusian argument invariably makes several false assumptions which renders their seemingly logical reasoning in error as well, much like Marxism. First they assume human population growth is always exponential and that humans cannot regulate their breeding by their own volition, which is not the case. They chronically underestimate human resourcefulness and our ability to innovate (socially technologically and economically) so that resources are used and distributed more efficiently. They always make the non-scientific value judgement that the world is “overpopulated” regardless of the number of humans and without consideration of the opposite value-based claim, that the earth may be underpopulated. They assume resources are finite instead of cyclical. It can easily be demonstrated that the one thing that “uses up” resources is entropy and that can easily be reversed by the input of energy. So the only resource we really need to consider is energy and space, the former is nearly inexhaustible when one considers nuclear energy and the latter is about the only finite resource on earth we have which is about all the Mathusians get correct.

  18. Who tells Trump’s goobers? With no immigration and declining population, their kids will face massive increases in FICA taxes. Or they get thrown into the streets. DUH,

  19. My major concern about an ever-increasing population is less environmental and more economic. We need fewer and fewer people to perform the same tasks, and fewer people to maintain our infrastructure. Which means fewer jobs available.

    1. Exactly. (This web site could use “like” buttons.)

  20. So 20,000 people will NOT die of starvation today? That’s what you’re trying to say? There is enough for everyone and then some? So 840 million people are not suffering from hunger and malnutrition? Huh. Oh wait, you conveniently skipped over those FACTS to paint a ridiculous narrative that everything’s fine, move along. Yes the birthrate is down in civilized countries, because they realize that having kids is irresponsible. It’s Africa, China, and India who are the main problems. But don’t forget that every American uses 20X the resources as a Chinese person. This article is pure disinfo and this site does not deserve to be called “Reason.”

    1. This article is pure disinfo and this site does not deserve to be called “Reason.”

      Umm, you introduced a different topic AND you’re wrong. WORLD will have negative population growth within 25 years, because birthrates have been declining WORLDWIDE for about 20 years.

      So the sky is not falling. Sorry.
      Say Hi to Bernie

  21. Top ten indicators that it makes sense to have more than one child or none, again:
    10. Anyone who’s willing to work is employed and paid.
    9. Trump voters are now lobbying to reopen Ellis Island.
    8. While a few skyscrapers have been preserved as historical museums, nobody, even in Hong Kong, now lives or works above the third floor.
    7. Average teacher/student ratio: 1/1.75.
    6. Teen marriage is decriminalized.
    5. Silly intrusive regulations such as limits on pet animal ownership (including horses), much less the secondhand smoke exposure argument against marijuana, are TV comedy show material.
    4. Majority of adults report knowing at least one person between ages 20-40 who is asexual, usually for obvious medical reasons, but never having met anyone who was homosexual.
    3. Approximately half of all U.S. citizens live in a house from which they can see at least one neighbor’s house.
    2. “House for rent, Brooklyn, 1 acre garden space.”
    1. *Nobody*, not even senile billionnaires who’ve never questioned the political beliefs they were taught 90+ years ago, seriously argues about the non-issue of overpopulation any more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.