Would Mitt Romney (if elected) encourage or discourage America's
mindless population growth of 3+ million annually? This applies to
both immigration and immigrant-enhanced native births. NumbersUSA.com
has good graphs showing different scenarios.
The U.S. population is projected to reach 420 million by 2050 if
trends don't reverse. It could ultimately climb to 500 million and
beyond. Some fools even think we should compete with China's numbers,
as if victory goes to the most crowded landscape.
Mormons, even more so than Catholics, are stuck on the Genesis 1:28
"multiply and subdue" edict, which no longer works in a world of 6.6
billion headed toward 10+ billion. 200 million is cited by scientists
as the largest population America can support without fossil fuels,
and with the goal of halting the destruction of nature. Some people
still treat nature as an enemy to be slayed. They don't understand
that nature, not money, is keeping them alive. Modern luxuries get
prioritized over survival necessities.
Getting back to the Romney question: we certainly don't need a growth-
pusher President in a nation already facing energy shortages, water
shortages and loss of cropland & wilderness to home-building. Our debt-
based economy demands population growth for fix after fix, like a
junkie. But this grow/borrow process has been a zero sum game for
decades. All we're really seeing is bigger crowds; what's the point?
Trillions in national debt are also a _natural_ debt under the guise
of global trade. A steady-state system could halt this idiocy.
Those who think there "is no population problem" are invited to read
this link. All of the usual arguments are covered:
http://enough_already.tripod.com/cliches.htm
E.A.
When animals breed out of control we call it overpopulation.
When humans breed out of control we call it "economic growth."
|