Having more than two children will destroy the planet...
 

Story Here

Okay, so it's not quite that severe, but it's a compelling discussion nonetheless.

So, with that as inspiration, guys - How many children is enough for a family? Should there be compulsory limits on how many you can have?

And, would you consider the environment before copulating?

AK.

when Copulating... I'm thinking of copulating tbh :), But I think that we should plan families within our means, If you are in debt, unemployed, In trouble with the law etc a contraceptive (or timing, depending on your religious beliefs) would better suit the taxpayer and the environment imo

Once we invent star trek replicator technology, there will be no need to worry about feeding a massive population... For the mean time I think that we should genetically engineer some specialized plants to grow in the seas and oceans, plants which would be very delicious and full of valuable nutrients, vitamins, minerals, low calories, and also grow fast.

For now, making genetically altered superplants to suplement our population sounds better than Roddenberry's very imaginative replicator idea.

Arcesious, dear, you need to beam back down to us here on 21st century Earth. :)

I think each couple should determine for themselves how many children they can responsibly raise. For us, that's 2 kids, maybe 3 at most. My husband came from a family of 9 kids and loved being in a huge family. Everyone is different.

Ive been watching a lot of Star Trek Lately. In fact, I'm currently waiting for my father to get home so my family and I can watch some more Deep Space Nine. As you can tell I'm excited.

Still, genetically engineered superplants aren't that far-fetched. After all, we already have done genetic engineering of tons of other plants, animals, and most notably, bacteria.

hehe, My grandfather is one of 13 lol, so our family is huge, most of my generation dont have kids, well I'm the oldest at 28 so still time but I've never been interested in starting a family up to now.

Will I think of the environment? Yes.
Should there be compulsory limits? Absolutely not. We're not China over here.

_EW_

I think there shouldn't be, to be honest. I do think that there should be some sort of exam as a requirement for a marriage license, that evaluates both mental and physical aspects, in order to ensure that future children don't end up in an awful situation.
Maybe you should ask the rabbits that question.

Technically, having any children is increasing the population. If the average Western person lives to 80 And has children on average at 20, then in the remaining 60 years of your life, 6 new people would come into existance. Increasing the population. Granted this would eventually balance out, but if length of live contrinues with this ratio, say, in 20 years the average person lives to 100, well now there's 8 new people, and that 4th generation may live to 160, that's 14 new people. And so on.

Will I think of how I effect the world? Of course I will. Does that mean I think having 2 children is the answer? Not at all. I think there is a point where having children becomes excessive, but I count that in number of pregnancies, not number of children really, and sometimes regularity of kids.

If you have 9 kids from 9 different pregnancies, that's excessive. if you have 9 kids from 3 sets of triplets, which odd as that is, is possible, then that's different. If you're having a kid every year, that's a bit much, if you have several kids over a larger span of time, that's a different story.

It's destructive for humans to multiply like they have in developing countries indefinitely, but there is just as significant a threat to economies such as Japan and Italy, who have an inversed population pyramid... where there are many more elderly than children. It is best to keep a slight increase in population growth, such as 2.1-2.2 children per couple in order to ensure developed countries won't suffer the same fate such as what these states are facing.

It would be most important to establish and maintain the highest population/dependency ratio. This is a measure of the total number of a population compared to the number not working, such as children and elderly. If people are expected to live longer, then the age for retirement should change accordingly if they are going to be healthy enough to work another 10-15 years.

Having more than 2 children will destroy the planet? Maybe, maybe not. I'd think the earth will deal with the overpopulation problem, naturally, if governments cannot handle it and people can't be bothered to keep it in their pants. I know it is cold, but even if we try, I have my doubts about everything related, here. The earth only has so much.

Frankly it is a problem bigger than any of us. Even if we conserve on having kids, I am doubtful that enough others will do it, too.

Just when I thought you couldn't make me crack up again, you say something like this. Yet totally relevant. How does he DO that?

Agreed.
I would agree there. Unfortunately, having seen what I have about eugenics and neo-eugenics, be it either on societal engineering or genetic testing scales... I cannot decide which would be worse... potential overpopulation chaos or paving the way for elites to be doing sick experiments on their fellow humans.

However, I do know there used to be a health test called a Wasserman test--
Checked for STDs at the very least. Pre marital and the potential spouse was informed. Both participated. Had to. You could not bow into privacy protection of results to hide them from your soon to be significant other. 'Course back then, there was not the privacy act either.

Probably this was done because the US was more religious back in those days. Just guessing though.

Fresh critters to eat for the wolves. Problem solved.

Strange how the people who generally mention the overpopulstion problem are also opposed to war. That tends to be the world's answer to overpopulation. Famine/desease/natural disaster/war tend to trim down our population. If we become too overpopulated, someone comes along and says, "Hey, we need some room." the other country says, "You can't have it." The first country responds with "These destructive devices say I can." Then we get war. Lots of people die for their countries, and the population comes back down.

I honestly do not see us having an overpopulation problem. If anything it is an innovation problem. Too many people complaining about the wrong problem, and not working to fix the right problem. Rather than complaining about the "too many people" problem, shouldn't we be working on the "not enough food" problem, or the "not enough room" problem. Seems to me a better approach than "You can't have more chillunz" which is rather difficult to enforce.

Yeah, war is good because it restores the balance that was lost when death rates declined in developing states. You can't sustain a population of our size with our demands at the same time. Technology can only go so far, but our habits and way of life are just as important to change.

The Earth's carrying capacity is only so great and although we can push it with technology. What population we have at the moment is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, but we're sacrificing future needs for the present. We are going to have to realize that more people will only push demand for resources higher while supplies dwindle even faster.

Choice: what would you prefer? A cheaper way of life and more children, or living well with fewer people and more abundant supply of food and energy?

War is an unethical way to lower the population. Starvation won't do the job either. No, we're just going to have to learn how to reuse all of our resources, probably the hard way. That, and eventually we'll have to expand into space. As is the nature of organisms such as we. Struggle for existence and all.

Fortunately and unfortunately, nature figured out that the more variation in a species the more likely it is to survive. The bigger a species is, the easier it is for it to variate. This helps against diseases, but it also creates population support problems, especially when a species gets as populous as ours.

We need modern medicine to get a good deal more advanced, so that eventually the need to populate to variate to survive will seem less urgent to the genes of the following generations of humanity.

Although, it may take too lng for our genes to slow down fertility rates, and thus, though it is a somewhat controversial idea, future generations might end up having a need to tweak the genes behind fertility a bit.

Strange, I was under the impression that innovation was done more out of necessity. It may take a redesign of buildings to accomodate a changed world. It may take learning techniques to reclaim uninhabitable land... say teraforming deserts.

What resource defines the earth's carrying capacity? Food? water? Land? Energy? Perhaps reaching that upper limit will drive us to look seriously at teraforming other planets. I honestly do not believe that we'll ever get to that point. I think we'll just find more efficient ways of producing what we need. Perhaps we'll begin by colonizing the floors of the oceans. Having served on a Nuclear Sub, I can tell you the only thing we couldn't produce ourselves was food. Given enough starting resources, it would be possible create our own food underwater as well.
Neither. Your choice assumes those are the only two options. Another option is simply that we find a way to adapt to a hyper populated planet. The other option is to branch out and learn how to adapt other planets to our needs.

I mean we could use global warming to create a livable world elsewhere... or more likely make more of earth habitable by humans, and by the same token learn new farming techniques to more efficiently produce the required foods.

Sorry, I just don't see war as any less ethical than forced sterilization, or forced abortions. As to the expansion, see my previous answer in this post.

[sarcasm]Oh yes, that is much more ethical than allowing war/disease and famine kill people off. [/sarcasm]
Adjusting genes WILL have other unintended side effects. If you tweak the gene, and that gene mutates, we could have a situation where the entire population becomes infertile. Doesn't that seem a bit harsher than a few little wars here and there?

Wow, how blunt. Still a tough choice to call considering all things even without any other meaning attatched to the choices.

Well, I value life and do not romance war, personally. However I recognize inevitability of war and quite sadly a necessity for more than that of population control. I'm not saying doomsday, but all the time I am reminded of signs that $#*@ is about to hit the fan.

True it is a choice.

Innovation problem...yes and I think in general that of apathy and laziness (not to scathe or mock any recent postings elsewhere :dev8:) causing a general obliviousness--the very condition needed for disasters to start happening.

As far as the real problems...I find it odd that government and unions pay farmers not to grow...yet we must pay and extend services when the less fortunate are in need. I have an innovation for you courtesy of Native American chiefs who have a clue for the farmers and the less fortunate: have these farmers (still paid, but now) produce food that shall go to these less fortunate. It would save $$$ and feed the hungry needy. I think that might even help the environment.

Any objections here?

How about all that spare food in restaurants that is either given away for free or thrown away because it has to go? Why not have that go to local homeless shelters?

Hmmm finding what to cut was difficult, so I figured I would simply leave it in tact.

I will say that most restaurants especially higher end ones tend to give their food to homeless shelters. The ones that do not, choose it more for liability purposes than anything. If someone gets sick from a food item from a major restaurant, they could be held liable(to an extent, obviously).

The oblivious: Sadly that seems to make up more and more of the population of the planet.

War: I just feel it is more ethical of a choice to other means of population control. Generally because it tends to exist without being FOR population control in itself. We start other means of population control and war breaks out, we end up with an underpopulation problem.

Farm Subsidies: Never been a big fan of them, but I understand why we have them. That would probably be best debated in another thread though. But still your point is valid, that if we need the food, we can always call upon those that are getting paid NOT to grow.

You shouldn't do that. Think of something else. You'll last longer. :D

No, I don't believe that there should be limits imposed on the number of children you can have. The Catholics would have a fit. :p

You shouldn't wink at me while talking of copulation, I may punch you in the eye :)

Oh. Bad emoticon choice. Sorry. :whacked:

Better?

If food becomes an issue, it should be noted that the majority of America's corn crops are fed to cows and other livestock. In doing this, much of the potential nutritional value that can be produced is reduced to almost a tenth of what could have been achieved had those fields been used to grow food for human consumption.

This is an example of how much waste is produced by our lifestyles alone. The problem we will eventually face is that we are depending upon imported fertilizers and contaminating sources of water through our agricultural activities. If we restricted the use of fertilizers and certain irrigation methods in arid locations, we would have lower crop yields, but that might be sustainable. If we skipped feeding most of it to livestock and instead grew crops for human consumption, we could sustain a larger population than we already have in the US.

The issue we currently face is that we in America have been leading our economy by the idea of spend, spend, spend... but that's what lead to the housing crisis we face. If we don't have a sustainable supply of food, water, and energy; then a larger population would only serve to destabilize any future projections we can make about the future.

Darth_Yuthura
It's not such a huge problem really, developing countries see their growth rate decline as they get richer, while developed countries can always absorb surpluss population from poor countries, at least for the forseable future.

While I'm all for improving eficency, not using fertilizer seems like a waste, since it is available, why not use it?

I think the question is not necessarily about 'how many children a family has' but rather 'who has children'.

I agree with this. Didn't the economist Robert Malthus predict humanity's demise due to starvation, given that production of food is subject to diminishing returns? He was right about diminishing returns but failed to anticipate technological change. :D

Yes he did predict that. :D I just learned that in AP Enviro last week.

The tricky thing about global population of that it grows exponentially. New technology brings about ways to produce more food but increases in technology also brings about high population growth rates - we saw it during the Industrial Revolution and through the rise of agriculture. New medicine lowers death rates, prolonging lifespans.

@Tommycat: we don't need to worry about producing more food as we produce enough food to adequately feed the whole world - it is a problem of distribution.

I agree with DY. When it comes to overpopulation, it is mostly in developing countries. I know China's system of controlling population is a bit harsh but they have a decent idea that they just implemented wrong. They have a serious overpopulation problem, more than the rest of the world.

I think that at some point or another (sooner probably more than later) we will have a serious problem with overpopulation. It is hard to argue either way because there really is no one set limit at which the world is overpopulated. The more people on earth, the less resources there will be for each- it depends on the quality of life that we desire.

~HOP

I thought so, I mean I could have sworn I read somewhere that we(the US) grew enough food to feed everyone in the world.

Again, it may seem cold to say it, but the overpopulation in those areas is offset by the starvation. This naturally limits the population. We go in and start trying to limit the population, the starvation could kill the population all together. Once a population reaches critical mass, the chances are a major disease will decimate the population of an area, as living in such close proximity to others increases transfer rate. I think any kind of government mandated killing of children is a bad thing.

Why is it somehow acceptable for a government to tell a woman she has to get an abortion(even if she wants the child), but it isn't ok to tell a woman that she must carry the child to term? Are those of you who support that kind of population control pro-choice? or actually in this case it would be more appropriate to call it pro-abortion since the choice portion of it is taken out of the equasion.

Again, this is where innovation kicks in. We think we're getting close to our upper limit, and we find a new way to live. Or the world decides it's time for a cleaning and kicks out a new disease for us to battle. I mean the Influenza outbreak wasn't that long ago(relatively speaking). I'm sure there will be another outbreak that will help cull the population far more effectively than the "You can't have more chilluns" method.

We developed a new way to live the last time we neared our population limit. Look at New York City and see how much we have grown. In the early 1800's we would have considdered the sheer number of people living there an impossibly high number.

A lot to take in at once but I believe that I learned this in General Economics, in the modernization segment. Again, in Micro Economics, but in small part--participating in a simluaton activity lesson where you were in some situation affected by that very thing. Distributors faced a grim decision at the end:
Do you as an owner of a distribution company:
a) cut and run before it gets really bad
b) cut and run while it is good to minimize your losses
c) stay it out

While I can elaborate on these, I will leave it to the imaginations of you all to add to the end of the answers above and take those for what you will.
(Hint: A very ugly picture if you are thinking about it properly)

Ah. Here is when principles and ethical behavior come into play--or at least they should. However, you are subject to the cyclical changes like everyone else. In positions where the economy is riding upon you more so than others...temptation is a little hard to resist because it would seem that you are only punished for doing the right thing. You become another casualty because the economy elsewhere might come undone and the backlash will in effect hit you. (I wish I didn't have to sound so cryptic but there is no other concise way to express this).

Which, unfortunately, legitimizes black markets in the areas of cannibalism, organs on ice, and prostitution. Worse yet, eugenics and neo-eugenics. On both scales social and genetic engineering. 1934's "tomorrow's children" comes to mind. Groups that want to cap off the worlds population.
And yet they are at odds with that because they need chattel/cannon fodder with which to feed their machine.

Also it's a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for governments. It pays, yet it doesn't in both ways; to do something, or to look the other way.
Both have negative and positive consequences. It's just a question of which is the lesser of 2 evils.

Unless people themselves (slavery) is a commodity and a resource.

:rofl:

Mr. Manners: Maybe there's hope for you to learn some manners, yet. (puts hand on Beavis' shoulder)
Beavis: AAAGH! Don't touch me @$$wipe! (ducks out from hand on his soulder)
:xp:

[QUOTE=Tommycat;2591254] War: I just feel it is more ethical of a choice to other means of population control. Generally because it tends to exist without being FOR population control in itself. We start other means of population control and war breaks out, we end up with an underpopulation problem. [quote] Population controls of all kind, not just war, all end up making us underpopulated. The other ones (which comparatively just take off edges and spikes on the whole problem itself) are considered distasteful because
1) many consider it murder
2) it impedes rights
3) its results are not immediately felt until a fair chunk of time later

Say, 15 years, and you will figure out what your actions as of now actually do. Trouble is, that is a bit hard to foresee and you can't really undo what you have done once you get there.
==============
@ D.Y. I agree, however I would suggest also that nutritional knowledge for caloric intake relative to your line of work is something most people just won't do in the US. I'd agree that ought to change...unfortunately, I have my doubts about high up on the list of priorities that "change" is for our president. Especially if he wants to be likable. Besides, the diet (con artist) racket for health nuts is also a form of economy infrastructure--though seriously I wish it otherwise.

True enough. I would agree with you more except: some lines of work sort of require eating calorie rich foods in order to have enough energy to do it sustainably.

While we do not require a great deal of animal proteins, normally (just enough to keep our brain and muscle mass), plant proteins
1) can wear away teeth faster due to grittier nature and texture
2) require a greater size of volume for meals in order to give the same level of nutritional value
3) meat is easier to digest quicker than plant

The human stomach can only cram in so much and what's more is that obesity and overweight problems are just as much a result of lifestyle and food quality as they are for quantity of food and genetics.

I would agree to a point. People, credit wise, have generally been unwise of recent years. People born in the 80's to mid 90's, according to Clark Howard, have not been good on saving money lately. Now having said that, guilty parties also extend to Goniffs (yiddish word for a thief in charge--more or less) making policies in banking loans, then taking the money and running when the time is right.

After all: Why would you lend to people who in your estimation, are probably not capable of paying the loan back with even a reasonably good interest rate? You wouldn't, unless made to.

Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on this?

Is it any less bad to look the other way? (Hint: that's what will happen if a proactive role is too difficult to implement)

I will be very blunt with you: The government looking the other way on homosexuality probably occurs for these reasons
FACT 1: It does not reproduce, it cannot reproduce.
FACT 2: STDs and blood-borne diseases do not care what type of sexual activity spreads them.

On the side, prostitution that is indiscriminant has potential to be profitable.

(Disclaimer to both sides: This is not necessarily a reflection on my opinions in this matter.)

The growth rate is frightening, especially considering that technology is still rocketing upward more and more as time goes.

Straying from the subject, I'll just make a note here: The issue with fertilizers is how much should be used to make the most of the resource. If you increase the amount of water or fertilizer applied to a field, you increase crop yield at a diminishing rate. The idea would be to accept a reduced usage to make to most of the resource because don't forget that the majority of nitrates and fertilizers used are chemicals, not animal waste. By accepting a 10%-20% drop in crop yield, you might be able to extend supplies of these chemicals by decades where you will have an overall greater amount of food produced in the long run.

In agriculture, there will always be demand for livestock, but if we were to only use products that we would normally just throw away or are undesirable; that would be a means to utilize waste products for meat production. When I said 'most' farmland, I mean using much more of the land for human consumption. The potato has most of the nutrients we need to live, not to mention the highest calorie-land ratio of any food.

I simply would suggest that the ethanol production that we have in placed be abandoned and only used on a limited scale where the products used are not grown on prime farmland or with corn planted for that purpose. Only when something would otherwise be thrown away as waste should biomass be used for animal feed or ethanol production. With more food can come more to export or a greater population carrying capacity.

Also the issue of growth rate depends upon birth/death rates. When a population multiplies, it's because the death rate declines, but birth rate remains the same. Once there is an abundance of technology and people, then the birth rate falls. The problem after that comes from either an unbalanced population pyramid with fewer children to elderly, or highly variable birth rate that depends on the economy.

If we can prepare a plan where a state can sustain a population reduction, anticipating fewer children and more elderly, then great. However, Japan and Italy doesn't have such a plan; but they aren't even willing to accept foreign born children to take the place of the declining population of offspring. They need to increase the number of children they have, or they will suffer economic problems for a generation or more.

Eh, nitrates can be manufactured just about anywhere, the limiting factor is energy, which isn't all that much of a deal in the long run asuming we invest in expanding production.

A simple way to reduce this problem drastically would be to accept more imigration, makes it better for their home countries too as a bonus.

How does more immigration make the problem better? People leave a country for very few reasons, better opportunities, overpopulation, or just plain old don't like it. So, if we're got a lot of people immigrating from a country were you just DONT want to be, that's not going to be pretty, better opportunities is variable, but this can often lead to the problem we have in the US where immigrant families are having lots of kids but living for a long time. And if they're already overpopulated there, then won't they do the same here?

:hugs: I am so proud of you DY: most in college I have met would suggest either the extreme of Vegan militancy, or Steak slaughterhouse.

You have hit it on the nose.

We do need animal protein, just not very much in most cases for most people.
The rest an be covered elsewhere. Most of what we need can be grown.

...Now if only fellow students in past would have parked their pride to say what you just said. :)
-------------
That would help the resources we have here on earth.

===============
Well, and also they don't have the vicious circle present today in the US.
Nor the large scale shift in demographics.

In the US, It isn't that our, shall we call them, pre-existing core population is not breeding (Didn't we just have some invitro-fertile woman give birth to octuplettes on top of having six kids already?); It is that other populations come into the country that tend to have more offspring and larger families. These families are populating the US, and with it a spiraling exponential growth simply outnumbering its preexisting core population. There are problems with too much of this happening as well.

Quoted For Emphasis:
Also consider: Not all Americans are these lazy, incompetent people who won't do certain jobs which need doing: a problem here is that now undercutting for jobs is occurring even here. What's more is that colleges even consider making admission requirements easier on foreigners and illegals--these are not dumb people and they are moving up by taking any advantage they can get. It is not only the low end jobs being taken.

Plus there are those who remain under the radar that manage to be able to survive and work here in the US, and send their money back to where they came from...meanwhile they do not intend to integrate here, fully. When it is in their best interests, they just split instead. Even if this does not contribute to overpopulation in a permanent way, it does end up weighing the economic engine down and taking up resources. So another set of problems exist here as well as for those who stay.

Web Rider
Since imigrant families will tend to be in their, ah, most rabitish years, then yes, you'll have a certain increase in fertility, though the efect will usually wear off after a (relatively) short time as children of imigrants have fewer children themselves.


GTA
Actually if you think a bit before you eat, it's not very hard to manage without. Been living on a (for all intents and purposes) no-animal diet no problem.

Last time I checked the "core" population had a birthrate a bit below 2, so yes the "core" isn't substaining itself.

Funny, I seem to remember fertility taking a big drop amongst second generation imigrants. Anyway, it's not as if the US is "overpopulated".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that a majority of hispanics would be a problem? If so, why?

As long as they are legal imigrants folowing the rules, I don't see a problem with this, though you could always strenghten employee rights for all workers if it gets too far.

A big reason for this is simple, foreigners tend to pay more than Americans for the same education. As for taking higher paid jobs, why not? If they are better qualified, why not let them?

Since this is mainly done by hispanics, this works hardly hinders the US much. While remitances are fueling their home country's engine, that engine is very much linked with the US, so what helps one benefits the other.

Quality weighs more than quantity.

This argument has veered sharply towards immigration. I'll try to inject as much as I can re: environment. However I think the only environments that are affected here are living environments.

Of course, transit and traffic would have to be considered.

I've never seen any definitive proof either way. Still, it would make sense that human nutrition requires at least some animal proteins to sustain muscle mass, and organs.

It is nice to see you using yourself as an example. Again I reiterate, we can only take in so much quantity of food per meal. 1 lb of meat vs 2.7 lbs of plant. Perhaps if people were to manage more short meals a day rather than 3 huge ones on average I could maybe see that working? If they didn't also gorge on junk foods, maybe. If they kept a constant control, maybe. OR maybe I have it wrong?...

Still, this is a good thing to consider for both the health and environmental aspects.

Well that is considering *percentages*, not necessarily actual numbers.
You DO have a point here; however, when you take into considerations that immigrants and illegal aliens (both now being considered citizens) and more keep coming at a faster rate than the core population can reproduce, it would make the core population's numbers seem to stand still and maybe even decrease even if their numbers are (if ever so slowly) climbing.

I will admit, though, the core population is on a decline currently. It won't stay that way. There may still be just about as many people now in this core grouping as 10 years before. Birthrates are declining and so are death rates. Consider: The population looks like it is declining when it may not actually be.

So this is roughly neutral. Why are we not doing mass transit via a rail system? There was another thread where darth yuthura and I were speaking of this. I think what it came down to was that this does not cover all, and in fact it leaves a significant number out. Most are not willing to pay for this anyway.

Not getting overpopulated? True it is not overpopulated overall. I think the US would rather it stay that way, too. However with a tremendous loss in jobs (thank you NAFTA and CAFTA) the number of jobs available is lessened with those coming in. So there is a bit of crunch. If things are not going anywhere in a hurry, that doesn't bode well.

Depends on where you live in the US, I guess. Consider the differences between CA and NV. Huge. CA has the highest foreign population of any state. NV, not so much though it has been somewhat on the increase both foreign and core populations. NV has probably seen a population increase in both. However it appears to have a much lower foreign population than CA--it's as if all the core population from CA are movin' there. Not to say all the other states on or near the Mexican border don't have their population of foreigners, but if you look at CA you'll find it much higher than its neighbors.

I would not be surprised if foreigners are cutting and running contributing to the overall decline you speak of. In fact a joke comes to mind how Mexcio will finish the fence to keep Americans out of their country when America collapses, and fill in the underground tunnels with concrete just in case it's really bad. Funny, I'm not laughing. :carms:


After this point I think it gets into immigration more than environment. Which I will deal with you on that issue privately or in another thread. In fact it ties in on free trade--and not to worry, I'll get back to on that soon enough as well. ;)

Suffice it to say, it is not all as black and white as you'd evidently like to believe in your post. The long and the short of it is: I do not see how it is a good thing to have illegals taking from the US to make their economy better, only to turn around and cut us off once their country is strong enough, in returned. Seems like other countries we have been doing business with have also been acting that way. Why the **** not? They see what is happening and don't want to be part of it "when the **** hits the fan". All the while the US is stagnant and threatening decline. With jobs lost overseas (gee, thank you NAFTA & CAFTA), now we are burning the candle from both ends on both high and low ends of the economy w.r.t. jobs and education. What we will have is a rat race.

This isn't a problem? Maybe not to you, it isn't. I beg to differ since I am in danger of being undercut.

No, it is number of children on average pr woman, lower mortality only reduce the effect, it can't cancel it, and the increased lifespan would have to make incredible jumps in order to make up for birthrates.

The rest of your post either belong in the free trade thread (clicky) or in an imigration thread (feel free to start one).