by Mark Angelides
A stark look at the reality your children and grandchildren face is rarely discusses. Politicians may extol the virtues of mass-immigration and couch it in terms of GDP and economic boom, but the over-populated future the next generation will have to deal with is not bright. First, let’s check out some figures:
World population 2016: 7.3 billion
World population 2050 (projected): 9.6 billion (UN estimates)
U.S population 2016: 325 million
U.S population 2050 (projected): 438 million
U.S population density 2016: 85 people per square mile
U.S population density 2050 (projected):114 people per square mile
U.S land needed to feed one person: 1 acre (or 640 people per square mile) Estimates vary greatly, but considering calorie count and intensive farming, this seems to be the most common number.
U.S Land needed to feed 2016 population: 505,812 square miles
U.S population density adjusted for Food producing land 2016: 98 people per square mile
U.S population density adjusted for Food producing land 2050: 139 people per square mile
These figures do not take into account the more than half a million square miles of land that the U.S Department of Agriculture deems not fit for living or farming. If this figure were included, the population density would be even higher.
The last figure is the most shocking one. To feed the people of the U.S, a population density of 139 people per square mile is required. In fact the number will actually be higher if we remember that some land is neither suitable for food nor habitation (mountains, weather, desert, on water, lakes etc…). So either people will be crammed in at a rate that is unheard of, or they will be hungry. We shouldn’t assume that the U.S will be able to find its food stocks from overseas (which in itself is a very unsafe position to be in), because the rest of the planet will be experiencing the same problem.
Throughout History, population centers around the world have generally reached equilibrium between birth rates, replacement rates and death rates. If a group got too large, resources became scarcer (or the group members would receive a smaller share) and this would lead to having less children (or famine, which again resettled the growth rate). It is a natural (and often sad) process that we see across the whole of the natural world (especially in the animal kingdom).
But the system got “tricked”: mass-immigration. This kind of mass movement was never before possible in history (other than through mass warfare and genocide, which thus lowered the population anyway), as moving large numbers of people required resources to be already set up at the place of arrival including food, defenses, shelter etc… So by necessity, the movement of people was in smaller groups. With today’s mass migration, the natural rules no longer apply. Resources are already in place.
A natural process that would have resulted in a population having less children has been interrupted. This means that the population will continue to grow at an unprecedented rate. The natural systems that have kept the human race going have been upset and this will result in less resources for everyone.
It may sound uncaring to suggest that natural processes should take their course. But the alternative is devastating for all humans. And remember, it is not a question of changing people or killing people, it would just mean less breeding due to fewer resources. Imagine how many deaths would be prevented (especially infant mortality rate in poorer countries) if we cut down on mass-immigration.
* If you’re curious at how I arrived at the figures presented above, please leave a comment below.
by Mark Angelides