US Population: 1 Billion by 2100

[Snowguy716]

Given land size the US is underpopulated. The US is not even in the top 150 countries by population density and is less dense than the rest of the world including Antarctica as part of the denominator.

It is certainly possible if immigrants from high fertility countries come here and use their "economic surplus" to maintain that high fertility. The US economic outlook might be crappy, but its better than their home country. Though of course if that were to happen, concerns about carbon footprints might put the environmentalists in the same boat as the minutemen.

People need to know that the U.S. has plenty of room to grow.  And that we can do it without causing major harm to our environment.  It will take planning... but we can do it.

The next big surge of immigrants will be sub-Saharan Africa.. and it will be the last great migration, I believe.  Already, thousands are coming to Minnesota.. we have by far the largest Somali community in the nation.. and Ethiopians aren't far behind.

We're going to see big increases in immigration from the Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia, Liberia, Angola, etc. as immigration from Latin America and Southeast Asia begins to taper off.

[Free Palestine]

I hope not.

And if this does happen, Celestia forbid, I hope the United States no longer is a single nation-state.  Otherwise, the U.S. will only be even more of an oligarchy than it is now.

[Senator Snowstalker]

That's assuming that growth remains constant. Chances are we'll slow down in a couple decades.

[muon2]

Again, here are my points:

The native population growth is solely based on older peer groups being smaller than younger peer groups. That differential ends when the baby boomer start to die in large numbers. Current annual rates of increase are based on "demographic momentum" and not any positive demographics [2.1+ children per woman.]

Increases in life expectancy are leveling off. Population has been growing as much from peer groups sticking around longer than being larger.

Considering the first two, projecting the current population growths going forward doesn't make much sense.

That's assuming that growth remains constant. Chances are we'll slow down in a couple decades.

Both my estimates assume a growth rate that slowly declines. It is true that if there were no net immigration the death rate would probably overtake the birth rate by 2050. I'm willing to assume that, and use that in projections.

However, net immigration does not only add linearly to the population, but exponentially due to their children and grandchildren. That is true even if the immigrants have a birth rate that matches the native population, but typically first generation immigrants have a higher birth rate than the rest of the country.

So the controlling question is what the rate of immigration is in the coming decades. If it stays fixed at the current level of about 1M per year and one takes into account the multiplication factor for their offspring over the decades, then the 2100 population would be in the range from 500 to 600 M.

If the net immigration slowly grows by only 10 K per year that puts the rate at just under 2 M per year by 2100. Again the compounding effect due to the families of immigrants is present, and to be conservative we can assume that their birth and death rates assimilate in the second generation of immigrants. The result is a population well over 600 M in 2100. If the increase in net immigration is at twice that rate which is consistent with an economy with more boom years than bust years the population would exceed 700 M in 2100.

[BigSkyBob]

Here's the Pew Link:

  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

Their numbers simply aren't materializing.

They assume that they will be 67 million immigrants in 45 years. The current rate is about a million a year.

They assume that birthrates would drop slowly among Hispanics, and Blacks, and rise among Whites over the next 45 years. The White fertility rate has not risen. The Hispanic rate is down almost to the projected lows, and Black fertility is already below its projected 2050 rate.

In most of Europe, Canada, and Asia the developed world has resulted in significantly below replacement fertility. For some reason, Pew assumes America will stabilize at 2.0 over the next 40 years. I'll believe it when I see it!

In addition, they are projecting a rise in life expectancy of about five years over the next 45 years. I doubt those numbers will materialize. Why the most obese generation in human history is projected to significantly outlive their parents is a mystery to me!

With large-scale structural unemployment among the young, there isn't going to be any political will to increase legal immigration, or turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. That structural unemployment isn't going to go away for a decade, or more. At the current rate of job creation, it isn't going away ever. If we have a double-dip recession, the structural unemployment problem will only be worse, and, more illegals are apt to leave the county.

[opebo]

I don't desire to have more people.

Agreed, blindly wishing for a bigger population really doesn't help anything.

Thats fer dam sure - just wishing won't do it, you gotta bareback, boys.  Bareback like the future depended on it.

[Χahar]

In addition, they are projecting a rise in life expectancy of about five years over the next 45 years. I doubt those numbers will materialize. Why the most obese generation in human history is projected to significantly outlive their parents is a mystery to me!

Because every generation does just that, perhaps?

[opebo]

In addition, they are projecting a rise in life expectancy of about five years over the next 45 years. I doubt those numbers will materialize. Why the most obese generation in human history is projected to significantly outlive their parents is a mystery to me!

Because every generation does just that, perhaps?

Actually it is unlikely in the US will have any more increase in the life expectancy, not really because of obesity alone (which is really a symptom) - more because of the impoverishment of the vast majority of the population.

[ilikeverin]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

[Zach Vega]

The life expectancy should at least double, if not triple or quadruple during this century. Why? By the mid-2030s, longevity extension technologies and non embryonic stem cell pharmacies will be commonplace.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there. 

[BigSkyBob]

In addition, they are projecting a rise in life expectancy of about five years over the next 45 years. I doubt those numbers will materialize. Why the most obese generation in human history is projected to significantly outlive their parents is a mystery to me!

Because every generation does just that, perhaps?

Every generation has been taller, until this generation. Better nutrition has lead to increasing heights until it reached its genetic limits. The same process is approaching for life expectancy.
Sure, life expectancies could go a bit higher still, but, any gains in medicine are being overwhelmed by poor lifestyle choices such as obesity.

[BigSkyBob]

The life expectancy should at least double, if not triple or quadruple during this century. Why? By the mid-2030s, longevity extension technologies and non embryonic stem cell pharmacies will be commonplace.

1)  Any meaningful life-extension technology will have such political consequences that it will be subject to ban. For instance, who is going to pay for people's expected 135-year retirement?

2) It is equally likely that giant mirrors in space will be reflecting light away from the planet than life expectancy will rise to 200 years by 2040.

[ilikeverin]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there. 

Okie doke.  If you put a billion people in the Continental US, you get 320.5 people/mi², which puts our density right between modern Poland and modern Thailand (and between Florida and Pennsylvania in modern US states).

Look, there can be legitimate arguments against overpopulation, but "we don't have enough room" certainly isn't one of them!  I can't recall the original source of this fact, but I've run the numbers to confirm my memory of it, and you can fit the whole world's population in the state of Texas if you pack them in at the density of New York City.

[BigSkyBob]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there. 

Okie doke.  If you put a billion people in the Continental US, you get 320.5 people/mi², which puts our density right between modern Poland and modern Thailand (and between Florida and Pennsylvania in modern US states).

Look, there can be legitimate arguments against overpopulation, but "we don't have enough room" certainly isn't one of them!  I can't recall the original source of this fact, but I've run the numbers to confirm my memory of it, and you can fit the whole world's population in the state of Texas if you pack them in at the density of New York City.

No, it was you could place everyone in a single-family home on a modest lot within the state of Texas. I would still be significantly less dense than NYC.

[ilikeverin]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there. 

Okie doke.  If you put a billion people in the Continental US, you get 320.5 people/mi², which puts our density right between modern Poland and modern Thailand (and between Florida and Pennsylvania in modern US states).

Look, there can be legitimate arguments against overpopulation, but "we don't have enough room" certainly isn't one of them!  I can't recall the original source of this fact, but I've run the numbers to confirm my memory of it, and you can fit the whole world's population in the state of Texas if you pack them in at the density of New York City.

No, it was you could place everyone in a single-family home on a modest lot within the state of Texas. I would still be significantly less dense than NYC.

No, that's not right.  Like I said, I actually did the numbers.  There are about 7,000,000,000 people alive right now; Texas has 268,581 mi² of land.  7 billion over 268,581 is about 26,063 people/mi², which is very close to the density of NYC (27,532 people/mi²).

[Zach Vega]

The life expectancy should at least double, if not triple or quadruple during this century. Why? By the mid-2030s, longevity extension technologies and non embryonic stem cell pharmacies will be commonplace.

1)  Any meaningful life-extension technology will have such political consequences that it will be subject to ban. For instance, who is going to pay for people's expected 135-year retirement?

2) It is equally likely that giant mirrors in space will be reflecting light away from the planet than life expectancy will rise to 200 years by 2040.

1) Just abolish the current systems. It's not the government's role anyway.

2) Probably 100 years by 2040. Probably 250-300 by 2100.

[BigSkyBob]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there.  

Okie doke.  If you put a billion people in the Continental US, you get 320.5 people/mi², which puts our density right between modern Poland and modern Thailand (and between Florida and Pennsylvania in modern US states).

Look, there can be legitimate arguments against overpopulation, but "we don't have enough room" certainly isn't one of them!  I can't recall the original source of this fact, but I've run the numbers to confirm my memory of it, and you can fit the whole world's population in the state of Texas if you pack them in at the density of New York City.

No, it was you could place everyone in a single-family home on a modest lot within the state of Texas. I would still be significantly less dense than NYC.

No, that's not right.  Like I said, I actually did the numbers.  There are about 7,000,000,000 people alive right now; Texas has 268,581 mi² of land.  7 billion over 268,581 is about 26,063 people/mi², which is very close to the density of NYC (27,532 people/mi²).

I guess we are both right. Here is an analysis I found on the internet:

"Texas=268,820 sq miles
268,820 sq miles=172,044,800 acres
8 houses per acre=1,376,358,400 houses
5 people per house=6,881,792,000 people"

P.S. Staten Island is a built-out suburb that is officially within NYC. Arguably, the same is true of Queens.

[memphis]

A billion people? Where will we fit them all?

Eh.  Our population density, assuming the size of the US stays constant, would be 263.6 mi^2, which is somewhere between modern day Ohio and California, right about at modern day Cuba.  That's not so bad.

That number might be misleading, since Alaska take up so much space and not many people are going to be living there. 

Not just Alaska. The whole center of the country lacks enough water to support a large population. And people in the East have planned for growth so badly that water issues are becoming a concern even though they shouldn't be.

[Frodo]

Anyone care to revisit their earlier comments? 

[blagohair.com]

It won't happen.  Scientists who follow population trends will tell you that population growth rates are slowing down in the US and they will soon be similar to population growth rates in European countries (where population growth rates are in many cases negative).

Once a society reaches a certain level of development population growth rates slow down as we move from a manual labor-based economy to an economy where women can contribute as much as men.  Women are no longer seen as breeding machines and children enter the workforce at a much later date than they would in a manual labor economy in order to acquire education and training (and are therefore seen more as a burden than a helping hand).  All this leads to the number of children per women to decrease steadily and while life expectancy rates continue decreasing, there comes a point where the replacement rate becomes equal to 2 and the population stabilizes. 
In the US of course either due to immigration from developing countries or due to the much greater presence of religion in certain regions of the country, the replacement rate is still relatively high, but it has been decreasing. 

[BigSkyBob]

Population predictions 90 years out is like oxycodone for demographers.  I find it very unlikely that the U.S. population will be anywhere near 1 billion at any point in the 21st century.

In the 1930s, demographers were predicting that the U.S. population would peak in 1960 and fall after that.  And they weren't stupid for thinking it.  The birth rate had been falling for decades and the number of births had declined from its peak of just over 3 million in 1921 to 2.3 million by the early 30s.  Throughout the supposedly prosperous 1920s, births in America fell nearly every year and fertility rates reached record lows.  By 1933, the number of children the average American woman had reached levels about the same as today:  2 children per woman.

Births slowly rose from 2.3 million to 2.5 million by 1938... then the baby boom really began.  Little attention is given to the true beginning of the baby boom that began in 1939 because of the massive spike that occurred beginning in 1946... but births grew from 2.5 million to a record 3.1 million in 1943 before falling back to 2.9 million in war torn 1945.  Births then hit a record 3.4 million in 1946 and 3.8 million in 1947.  After that, they fell and leveled off for a few years, but began rising again.  The first use of the term "baby boom" was coined in 1951.  By 1954, more than 4 million babies were born in the U.S. each year... a level that was sustained until 1965.

The total fertility rate peaked at 3.9 children per woman in 1957.. the highest rate since the 19th century.

At this point demographers believed the nation would continue to grow at an incredible rate.  But then came the baby "bust".  Births fell from 4.3 million in 1959 to 3.5 million in 1968.  There was a brief boom in 1969 and 1970, attributed to young people having babies to avoid the draft.  Births plummeted to 3.1 million by 1973 and the total fertility bottomed out at 1.6 children per woman in 1976.. the lowest rate in American history.

Since then, the fertility rate has slowly grown back to 2 children per woman, and reached 2.1 in 2007.  That represented 4.35 million births, breaking the previous record set exactly 50 years prior.

What's the point of all this?  It's waaaaaaay to early to predict 90 years out.  I'd say we have a good chance of the population reaching upwards of 600-700 million... but I think 500 million is a good bet.  And it's possible we might only make it to 400 million and then slowly decline thereafter.

I still think fertility rates will continue to rise for the next decade or so, and births will generally increase over time. [/b] American attitudes towards children and child bearing have become more positive in the past 30 years.  Today's younger generation are not nearly as pessimistic or cynical as our parents were at this age... and this will make a difference in birth numbers.[/b]  Already prior to the recession, there was a boomlet.  Births in my area increased 40% from 1995 to 2008 with most of that increase since 2004.  The elementary schools are already at capacity and my local community voted down building a new school.. so it looks like portable classrooms will be back in just as they were in the boom in the early 90s... and in the 1970s before that.

Then again an increasingly large number of young men want to live the college party lifestyle into their 30's rather than settling down. At a minimum, this represents fertility delayed. The demographic truism is "fertility delayed is fertility denied." 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Then again, declines in fertility may be rendered moot if and when there is an ability to increase the vocational and reproductive life of enough people.


I am guessing 400,500,600m for the US and 8,9,10b for the Earth by 2030,2050 and 2100 respectively.