General discussion

Locked

300 million club

By onbliss ·
According to US Census Bureau's population clock, the national population of US will hit 300 million on Oct 17th at 7:46 a.m. Eastern Time.(Tuesday, tomorrow).

Another fact is that the population density of US is still very low compared to other densely populated countries in the world (80 people per square mile: USA Today)

I have seen lots of articles on the Internet, and head quite a few radio programs discussing several aspects of this scenario.

The world population is at about 6.5 billion. It is going to be frantic fight for resources in the next few decades.

Interesting times are set for the future, as humans are not accustomed to big changes in their lifestyles, especially if they get used to comfort. Can't blame humans. It's their nature.

Just like we have over design or under design, population it seems to have similar traits - over population or under population. Getting the optimum design and population will be the challenge. It is easier when it comes to designing software, though :-).

USA, welcome to the 300 million club :-)

ps: Crossing 300 million is actually symbolic. Not much difference between 300 million and 299.99 million people, eh?

edit: added "eastern time"

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

15 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

My first

by maecuff In reply to 300 million club

grandchild is due any day now. If she's born at 7:46AM tomorrow, then I guess she'll be # 300,000,000.

Collapse -

It is going to be frantic fight for resources?

by maxwell edison In reply to 300 million club

Go back in history and see how many times that very thing has been said whenever a population milestone has been reached. It's always been wrong. Why is it right this time?

Collapse -

It is right this time because...

by onbliss In reply to It is going to be frantic ...

1) Countries are getting more and more industrialized; requiring more resources. Three populous countries (China, India and USA) will be leading in the resource hunt to support their population, dreams and interests.

2) Our lifestyle has changed, as the have-nots start to join the haves, they would start to consume more. "Vast prosperity" requires "vast resources"

Collapse -

It's the same as always

by maxwell edison In reply to It is right this time bec ...

Tomorrow's problems will be solved with tomorrow's technology and future innovations. When the USA reached 100 million, the predictions were that future generations would starve to death for lack of food. Not to be, however. We produce dozens of times more food per person now than then.

I'm sure glad I don't have your (or anyone's) doom and gloom attitude. Not only would I always be depressed, but I'd always be wrong. Name one such "doom and gloom" prediction that's come true. You can't, because they never do.

Collapse -

There's a lot of truth

by TonytheTiger In reply to It's the same as always

to the saying: "Necessity is the mother of invention."

Collapse -

Absolutely correct, Tony

by maxwell edison In reply to There's a lot of truth

It always has been, and it always will be. And it's the one thing the "doom and gloomers" always overlook.

Collapse -

Is'nt some one jumping to conclusions

by onbliss In reply to It's the same as always

My remark if you had carefully noticed was not just about USA. So it does not matter what USA alone does about its resources.

And also just because I comment that there will be a rush for resources does not mean it is a doom and gloom attitude. Go read my post again. Stop shoving your words in my mouth.

If you can not see the increasing purchasing power of millions in China and India, and starting to consume more, then so be it. If you can not see the changing life style and the vast consumption, then so be it.

I am glad I don't have your attitude.

Collapse -

Of course I see the change

by maxwell edison In reply to Is'nt some one jumping to ...

I see change in purchasing power; I see changes in higher consumption; and I see corresponding changes in the levels of education and technological advancements. I just don't necessarily see it as a change for the worst or something that's necessarily or automatically a bad thing.

And if you read my remarks carefully, you'll see that I didn't come close to suggesting the USA as being the only one who will solve tomorrow's problems with tomorrow's technology and future innovations. The only reason I mentioned the past 100 million USA population is because you started this thread by mentioning the USA's 300 million population.

Maybe you DO need my attitude, or at least learn to read it a little better. In this case, my "attitude" is one of optimism and confidence that future generations will not only solve tomorrow's problems with tomorrow's technology, but they will do it by turning those problems into opportunities -- just like the past and current ones do and have done. (World-wide, by the way, not just the USA.) If you think that's a bad attitude, I feel for ya'.

I guess it was the "doom and gloom" comment that pushed your buttons. You originally said, "It is going to be frantic fight for resources in the next few decades." Well, that sounds like doom and gloom to me. However, I'm glad to see you toned it down to just, "a rush for resources" and omitted the "frantic fight" for them. By the way, which do you think it will be? A "rush" for resources, or a "frantic fight" for them?

And speaking of attitudes, what's with yours? Can't you stand it when someone disagrees with you?

Collapse -

Yes the right button

by onbliss In reply to Of course I see the chang ...

You are right about "doom and gloom" comment that triggered. Infact I wrote something more virulent, and even before I posted I went and stripped it of all the caustic comemnts :-)

Speaking of attitudes, let it be known maybe it was the time of the day or whatever, but you irked me on this one. I have kept my cool in our earlier discussions (almost all the times), and not falling for your "button pushes" and debating tactics.

If it is the choice of words "frantic" that must have pushed your buttons. Well I was speaking to a Sudanese cab driver, and he was talking about the influences of China in Sudan. And how China is opposing international peace keeping troops in Sudan. China is behind Sudan's resources. Also I have read several articles where China & India have been looking at World resources (just like USA) and are playing strategic games. India was on the verge of signing agreements with Iran and Pakistan for various energy needs/plans. India was kind of offered the carrot & stick to wean itself away from Iran. In fact the three populous nations are forced to do what they are doing because of their hunt for Markets & Resources. If this is not frantic, then I will leave to you to pick your favorite word in lieu of "frantic".

I never talked about the success or failure of tomorrow's world in solving tomorrow's problems. Did I? You can say I stated the obvious - global competition for resources.

You jumped the gun, and created a straw man from my comments and attempted to slaughter it. So your tactics is what irked me, not your disagreement. Infact your comment about tomorrow's problems implictly acknowledges what I said about futures frantic/rush. And since I have'nt said if tomorrow's world will fail, I actually have not disagreed.

Collapse -

Was it really wrong or just not as bad as predicted?

by Oz_Media In reply to It is going to be frantic ...

I agree Max, the sky seems to always be falling. No matter how brightly the sun shines, someone will always bear a sign saying "The end is near".

But this doen't always mean such predictions are WRONG per se, but perhaps exaggerated, worked around etc.

Eg> At one time there was so much land available in the USA they literally had opportunities to run and claim plots. Try that on your neighbours lawn next week and see how well it goes over. LOL, I wish that could happen again!

They said we'd burn up all the coal, then the French inventor, Rudolph Diesel, invented the diesel engine and we saved our coal reserves. So rather than being WRONG in their prediction, we (with a little help from our French friends) just found a better way. Just as we are trying to do with gasoline engines, a bit more of a curve there though, too many people to convert to a better idea.

So whlie I see many of these diminishing resources (as you well know that is something I take keen interest in) we also create new ways of doing things that eliminate the waste of these resources. When we become complacent and suggest that poast predictions were WRONG we face teh risk of then not progressing and making our world a better place.

IE. If nobody believed that gasoline consumption would deplete our supply of oil (or contribute to global warming :) ), we would not create new ways of powering our vehicles, which we desperately need.

Perhaps these fears are what fuels invention.

On another note, it certainly did give the impression that the USA has been resolving these issues by inventing new ways of doing things, sorry Max but you know I do not see the US as an inventor of much at all, but more of a hungry consumer that creates a need for other countries to develop new ways of selling to one of the world's largest importers.

Whenever R&amp for new products or concepts is looking for a marketplace for testing, it is the US because of the consumtion volume and sample size.

Back to Networks Forum
15 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums