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.
Originally Posted by mur'phon
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.
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.
Last time I checked the "core" population had a birthrate a bit below 2, so yes the "core" isn't substaining itself.
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.
Funny, I seem to remember fertility taking a big drop amongst second generation imigrants. Anyway, it's not as if the US is "overpopulated".
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.
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.