pros and cons of splitting the US into 2 countries?

[mect]

The links posted say that as well.

So what's .5% of 1.4 billion?

And what's .7% of 333 million?

I didn't base my reply to you on mere percentages.

China is still adding roughly double the numbers as us.

And China is looking to up it too.

I suppose it depends on what you view as faster. Yes, in terms of raw numbers, China is growing faster. In terms of percent growth, the US is growing faster. Most people I've seen measure growth rate as a percent in order to normalize for differences in total population, which is what I was basing my statements on.

In terms of China wanting to up their population, that's a very mixed bag for them. On the one hand, they need to in order to offset their aging population. On the other, increasing their population isn't going to help anything in terms of them improving their standard of living.

 

[fskimospy]

I suppose it depends on what you view as faster. Yes, in terms of raw numbers, China is growing faster. In terms of percent growth, the US is growing faster. Most people I've seen measure growth rate as a percent in order to normalize for differences in total population, which is what I was basing my statements on.

In terms of China wanting to up their population, that's a very mixed bag for them. On the one hand, they need to in order to offset their aging population. On the other, increasing their population isn't going to help anything in terms of them improving their standard of living.

Why would a larger population inhibit improvements in standard of living?

 

[Amused]

I don't see either side being willing to give up the entire midwest and let the other control the breadbasket to the world. Nope, no way. The plains states would have to be split in half.

 

[mect]

Why would a larger population inhibit improvements in standard of living?

While it isn't a direct relationship and we can make improvements through efficiency, limited resources make it more challenging for large populations to achieve high standards of living. While there are many ways of measuring standard of living, many variables typically considered demand resources. Its pretty much agreed that there is no way the planet could support the entire world population living by America's standards. Now can resource consumption be improved upon without significantly affecting standard of living? Sure, depending on what a society values. But it makes the problems more challenging. If the global population was only 500 million for example, we probably wouldn't have very big concerns regarding cheap energy from fossil fuels. Due to the fact that its over 10x that, we instead have a significant problem. Providing the population with products ranging from food to electronics is similarly easier in terms of considering balancing environmental sustainability and resource extraction, production, distribution, and disposal. Basically, the world can only support so many people. And the more people it is trying to support, the lower the resources per capita for a given level of technology.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I suppose it depends on what you view as faster. Yes, in terms of raw numbers, China is growing faster. In terms of percent growth, the US is growing faster. Most people I've seen measure growth rate as a percent in order to normalize for differences in total population, which is what I was basing my statements on.

In terms of China wanting to up their population, that's a very mixed bag for them. On the one hand, they need to in order to offset their aging population. On the other, increasing their population isn't going to help anything in terms of them improving their standard of living.

Faster is faster. China has 5x our population, adds roughly double our number of people everyone, and is only .2 less us in that measurement.

"China isn't having many babies", well I guess if you want to look at a single metric and discount the above facts, you got me there!!! They're still having more than double our numbers each year.

China seems well aware of the problems of poplulation levels, as they already made changes to allow some couples to have two kids after taking steps to limit births for a while. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming decades. Their birth rate now is still a problem for them, which is why I said they're still looking to up it to try and get numbers that at least replinsh their current population levels.

 

[mect]

Faster is faster. China has 5x our population, adds roughly double our number of people everyone, and is only .2 less us in that measurement.

"China isn't having many babies", well I guess if you want to look at a single metric and discount the above facts, you got me there!!! They're still having more than double our numbers each year.

China seems well aware of the problems of poplulation levels, as they already made changes to allow some couples to have two kids after taking steps to limit births for a while. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming decades. Their birth rate now is still a problem for them, which is why I said they're still looking to up it to try and get numbers that at least replinsh their current population levels.

Units matter. Relative vs absolute matters. Which is growing faster? A small company of 100 hundred employees that adds another 100 employees, or a corporation of 200,000 employees that adds 200 employees? Perspective matters.

 

[Thebobo]

Which group of russians is trying to do this?

 

[pmv]

I suppose it depends on what you view as faster. Yes, in terms of raw numbers, China is growing faster. In terms of percent growth, the US is growing faster. Most people I've seen measure growth rate as a percent in order to normalize for differences in total population, which is what I was basing my statements on.

In terms of China wanting to up their population, that's a very mixed bag for them. On the one hand, they need to in order to offset their aging population. On the other, increasing their population isn't going to help anything in terms of them improving their standard of living.

I think the point is that in terms of _ability to influence the outside world_ the relationship to population numbers is kind-of non-linear. It's not necessary for individual Chinese to become substantially wealthier or to approach the levels of Westerners, for the total influence they can wield as a nation to increase substantially. More people = more influence, as long as the population increase doesn't cause surplus wealth per capita to fall too much. Crudely speaking.

Though if population increases create sufficient strains they can have an adverse effect on a nation's abiity to act externally. So it's not a linear relationship. China has for a very long time been turned inward and been hobbled by it's own internal problems, so it didn't have the external influence its sheer size might have merited. (Though is this not rather banal and obvious?). That's changed recently. Will it continue to change or will it switch back?

To me the worrying part is that it seems like the path to a happy outcome seems rather narrow. If things go too badly for China it might fall into chaos as it has done in the past. If they go too well they might stomp on some of the rest of us. And the higher the population the higher the stakes in both directions.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Units matter. Relative vs absolute matters. Which is growing faster? A small company of 100 hundred employees that adds another 100 employees, or a corporation of 200,000 employees that adds 200 employees? Perspective matters.

Lol, look at the size difference in your comparison. Is that how you see the numbers?

How about, a company of 100 adds .7 people versus 500 adds 2.5 people.

I asked you to do the math on the actual numbers a few posts ago, offered the same questions, so I can only assume you're not reading my posts.

So, .2 difference, sounds like so much, yet still means they're more than doubling our numbers, so "China isn't having many babies"....the proof is right there in front of you. And that's with policies in place to control poplulation.

 

[mect]

I think the point is that in terms of _ability to influence the outside world_ the relationship to population numbers is kind-of non-linear. It's not necessary for individual Chinese to become substantially wealthier or to approach the levels of Westerners, for the total influence they can wield as a nation to increase substantially. More people = more influence, as long as the population increase doesn't cause surplus wealth per capita to fall too much. Crudely speaking.

Though if population increases create sufficient strains they can have an adverse effect on a nation's abiity to act externally. So it's not a linear relationship. China has for a very long time been turned inward and been hobbled by it's own internal problems, so it didn't have the external influence its sheer size might have merited. (Though is this not rather banal and obvious?). That's changed recently. Will it continue to change or will it switch back?

To me the worrying part is that it seems like the path to a happy outcome seems rather narrow. If things go too badly for China it might fall into chaos as it has done in the past. If they go too well they might stomp on some of the rest of us. And the higher the population the higher the stakes in both directions.

I agree that China is going to increase in influence, but I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think the more external influence they are able to exert, the more influence the western world will have on China. I think this will likely lead to China following in the footsteps of Japan, Korea, and even Vietnam to an extent. America being the world's superpower hasn't always been a great thing for the rest of the planet either.

 

[mect]

Lol, look at the size difference in your comparison. Is that how you see the numbers?

How about, a company of 100 adds .7 people versus 500 adds 2.5 people.

I asked you to do the math on the actual numbers a few posts ago, offered the same questions, so I can only assume you're not reading my posts.

So, .2 difference, sounds like so much, ye still means they're doubling our numbers, so "China isn't having many babies"....the proof is right there in front of you. And that's with policies in place to control poplulation.

The size difference was to make a point. Why would I do the math on the raw numbers? I never contested that point. I also never said that there was a large difference between the US and China, just that China's growth rate isn't large (and is in fact as a percentage smaller than the US). The purpose of pointing out that China's growth rate was below that of the US was to emphasize that China isn't experiencing booming population growth. Which is supported by what you have pointed out, that they actually want to increase their population growth. The only countries I'm aware of that want to increase their rate of population growth are those with low rates of growth. If we are worried about countries due to population growth, India would be a much better focus than China.

Edit:
I do hope that India soon passing China's population doesn't lead to a population race between the two countries. That definitely would not be good for the planet.

 

[pmv]

I agree that China is going to increase in influence, but I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think the more external influence they are able to exert, the more influence the western world will have on China. I think this will likely lead to China following in the footsteps of Japan, Korea, and even Vietnam to an extent. America being the world's superpower hasn't always been a great thing for the rest of the planet either.

Oh, no disagreement there really. Though it's possible it could turn out to be a bad thing. But primarily it's an _unknown_ thing and something 'we' in the West don't really have a lot of control over.

 

[mect]

Oh, no disagreement there really. Though it's possible it could turn out to be a bad thing. But primarily it's an _unknown_ thing and something 'we' in the West don't really have a lot of control over.

While we might not have control over China's increasing influence in the world, America could prepare for it by not pissing off every ally we have and treating the rest of the world as our inferiors. Might be nice to have some friends down the road.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I’m simply saying that plenty of places have nice climates and fortuitous geography and are not as successful as California.

Forgot to circle back on this point. If those nice places were also the staging area for rapid industrialization to support a theater of operation during a global world war, they would be equally fortuitous. The development in Hawaii relative to other island nations would be another data point.