digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at thedailygreen.com

'Baby Boomlet' - More Births Last Year Than During Baby Boom

thedailygreen.com — The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau show a fact I find startling: More babies were born in 2007 than even during the height of the baby boom....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • StingingNettle, on 07/17/2008, -36/+23What?! This is terrible. Native Americans would take everything into consideration. If there were to many and the earth could not provide they would plan, and if a women got accidentally pregnant they took from certain trees to naturally abort. They would think how do my actions effect the 7th generation ahead. We barely consider 7 hours ahead.

    I actually believe its morally wrong to have a kid now. We have to get back closer to nature and listen. We can choose this and prepare, or it will be forced on us and it will not be pretty.
    • saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -1/+11 Since we don't live directly off the land, It should easy now to have lots of kids, but Americans usually only have one or two. In fact, birthrate has a NEGATIVE correlation to GDP -- women in richer countries produce fewer children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate. ...
      • Screwy1138, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8The intelligent also strongly trend towards fewer kids. Which is scary as hell IMO.
    • UberNick, on 07/18/2008, -2/+12What issue of Highlights did you pull that ***** from?
      - Which Native Americans?
      - What kind of trees naturally abort? Like as a precursor to coat hangers?
      - 7th generation?
    • s0l0s0ul, on 07/18/2008, -4/+5Well, hopefully you are an only child, that way, with your philosophy, when you die, that will be the end of your family line, and we wont have to worry about ridiculous statements or ideas like these from your future offspring.
    • cscott530, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3Americans are so terrible at everything. Native Americans were so great. Europeans are never wrong.
      • NoCt1, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2***** right. Americans suck. Being american the only thing we are good at is Kicking ass and taking names. Even then we arent so good. However, We can ***** a country up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        /sarcasm
    • mchisari, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5
      Talking about "the Native Americans" is like talking about "the Asians." You're talking about a vastly diverse group of civilizations, many with opposing and conflicting values (some with a strict religious heirarchy, some almost vaguely agnostic, some with egalitarian economies, some with top-down heirarchies, etc). You cannot make blanket statements like that.
    • tjsgigante, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2Who are we to decide that there are "too many" for the Earth to provide for?
    • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -5/+1My parents had three kids and they where able to parent and educate them all. The current generation is too selfish to have children which is why they create all these fallacious arguments to approve of not having kids.
      • sodade, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1FAIL. Having children = just about the most selfish thing you can do.
  • RealmDown, on 07/17/2008, -4/+49Higher gas prices = more stay at home time = increase in baby production

    Makes sense to me.
    • drmobutu, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5Then those babies grow up to be United States Marines...
      ???
      Profit!
      • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -4/+7Profit?

        They go to wars and spend mass amounts of our tax money.
      • joshuagor44, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4The government profits, but maybe not financially.
      • drmobutu, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3"They go to wars and spend mass amounts of our tax money"...which, in turn, generates profit for Halliburton, Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc...

        Then the liberated oil generates profit for Exxon-Mobil, BP, etc...

        Then the oil companies re-invest some of their profit, by donating to Republican politicians, who pledge to keep the cycle going...

        Get it, now?



    • RubineBoy, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Einsteins equation!
    • drlha, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6Sadly the increase of births will lead to an increase of mini-vans as every mother decides her Honda Civic cannot contain her massive baby, and needs to upgrade to a 7 person people carrier to "feel safe".
      • worminater, on 07/18/2008, -9/+2your dumb.
      • drlha, on 07/18/2008, -1/+7worminater: "you're" dumb
      • Chompy, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1your fail
      • Salmar, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1I like my van. It's just me, the wife, and toddler, but the storage room is much needed and welcomed when traveling.
    • TheSpook, on 07/18/2008, -0/+7Hmmm, if you can't afford the gas, you're in for a shocker when you have to pay for the kid. Then again, our government gives away free money for the kids of deadbeats, but not for gasoline as far as I know (unless you're heating your house with it, which I wouldn't recommend).
    • JKAL, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5and I guess almost duplication of the population since the baby boom is not a significant factor in this equation?
      this is sensationalism at it's best, in fact the birth rate should be reported as low
      • puter, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4That's exactly what I was going to post.

        Of course there are a lot more babies, we have twice the population to produce them. This is precisely why population increase is exponential, there is absolutely nothing new in this article.

        Stupid article.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Okay, so gas prices only started spiking 3 months ago so if your theory were correct we should see the boom in about 6 months
    • doctechnical, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Not so much. More immigrants with higher breeding rates = mini-baby-boom. The fastest growing demographic in the US is in the Latino sector, which tends to have more children per family.

    • richmomz, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4The article overlooks the fact that the population now is much higher than it was in 1957, so birth rates in strict number terms is not that surprising. Per-capita the jump in birth rate in 1957 was still much higher.
  • megadan76, on 07/17/2008, -11/+37That's pretty weird.

    Our resources are going to be seriously stretched in 25 years if we keep going at this rate.

    How long until some major event wipes out a large portion of humanity? It seems inevitable.
    • eastwood24, on 07/18/2008, -4/+21It's the Malthusian collapse. "Left unckecked, populations will increase at geometric rates, while the resources needed to sustain such growth only increase at arithmatic rates" - Thomas Malthus. Eventually, we will hit a point where people will turn againist one another to surivive. I remember reading about a science experiment where they puts rats in a cage with an initial ample amount of daily food. Eventually they bred to the point where the cage was too small and food not enough, at this point they turned to murder and cannabalism.

      A good reference to the big picture of how population growth works:

      http://www.chrismartenson.com/exponential_growth
      • BDOUG, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Very informative link with nice simple graphics. Thanks for posting that. The one unfortunate side effect is I've now lost my will to live. Hey, at least I'm doing MY part. ;-)
      • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -0/+10The major fallacy of that argument is that as countries get wealthier the birth rate decreases.

        Look up the birth rates of Hong Kong, China, South Korea, Japan, Western European countries, even canada. They are well below the 2.1 replacement rate.

        Japan's birthrate last year of 1.32 and no net immigration will devastate this country if it continues.
        http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/IF08Dh01.html
      • hydroplane, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Eventually?
      • blast_flame, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Mathusianism is flawed as technology and as such availible resources increases exponentially too. For instance we design computers on computers now. This exponential growth is known as the law of accelerating returns, read a book or two by Ray Kurzweil to find out more.
      • l034me, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Isn't this what happened to the native inhabitants of Easter Island?
      • zer0nix, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1human beings will survive. however, the flawed culture that led to such strained circumstances may NOT survive, such as the case of the mayans. -the mayan population that saw disaster hit basically just got up and left; everyone deserted the old culture and the only thing that remains of the mayan civilization are remnants of the original language and ruins.

        it's not ironic that what led to the maya downfall was basically economic mismanagement; the people overharvested natural resources (trees), thinking blood sacrifices and prayer to god (the sun) would ultimately save them from a disaster they themselves caused and were keenly aware of. this is a pattern of egotism that has plagued human beings since before we could count and continues to threaten 'modern' civilizations today. it is trusting in inept, greedy, conceited, scheming (the latter years saw political division and turmoil), amoral leaders promising eternal wealth with no work or conservation or rational use of resources that forever leads to ruin.

        the ironic thing is, the coveted mayan trees eventually did grow back but the site of the mayan civilization lay completely abandoned for millenia. mayan religion even continues to this day, in miniscule pockets, though it is so lacking in historical and practical knowledge that modern practicioners rely upon foreign archaeologists to tell them what their own symbols mean and how to write in their language.

        the mayan civilization is dead. speaking symbolically, i hope it remains so for all time.
    • VigRoco, on 07/18/2008, -5/+8Oh, yes, more 'doomsday is approaching' tactics...
    • FutureGuy, on 07/18/2008, -2/+13There are a lot more people today then in 1957, so even with slightly more births it not going to significantly change the population. "And the 2.1-child per woman average means that the U.S. isn't doing much more than replacing its population."
    • s0l0s0ul, on 07/18/2008, -3/+11it IS inevitable! The plants are going to start attacking large crowds of people, causing them to walk backwards and kill themselves, so we will be forced to move around in small crowds. Someone should really make a movie about this.
    • RubineBoy, on 07/18/2008, -4/+4So what's the point? I really don't care that we are running out of resources. Not because I don't care about nature but because it seems like the only possible way to put a halt to our way of living as it is now.
      You can scream and shout about our oil reserves running out but what the hell. Do you think people will quit using oil and using an alternative clean energy just for that?! NOOOO
      They will use an alternative "clean" energy if they have no other choice. There is too much money involved.
      Same with food production, ... In the end nature will wipe out some of us to the bring balance to the world again because we are a species that cannot bring balance into it's own life without heavy measurements.
      And when the time comes people will cry and shout and being angry about what happens to the world around them but in the end it will be a good thing and they should understand they are the scarifies for the future people.
    • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3USA will happen to the rest of the world. many will die.
    • KingGorilla, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3The good thing is that within 25 years we'll have soylent red, yellow AND green
      • petebot, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1soylent green is PEOPLE!! it's PEOPLE!!
      • droford, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0I wonder what yellow and red are?

    • jameshighmore, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Does it?
    • Haecceity, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5It's amazing how people can't understand pretty straightforward articles, and how article authors can't understand the basic facts they write about. The US population today is about 1.5 times what it was in 1957, so the growth rate is actually much lower than it was then. And at 2.1 children per woman the growth rate is essentially zero, especially given that not all of those children will reproduce or even reach reproductive age.
  • nikkilynette7, on 07/17/2008, -6/+14There is technology that can take care of the water shortage. We can now turn sea water into drinkable water... it just costs money for the system and the product.

    There are also alternative fuels for the oil shortage... it just costs money for the new technology.

    We can do what we need to do to make this world a better place and continue to have healthy families. We just have to do what we know we need to do and always look for alternatives to better our environment.
    • VigRoco, on 07/18/2008, -11/+3There is no oil shortage, just our unwillingness to drill our own oil.
    • Bilabrin, on 07/18/2008, -3/+5No room on Digg for optomists! Doom and gloom only!

      I'm with you though. The harms of overpopulation can be overcome with technological breakthroughs. We can increase our population without scarring the land and tainting the waters.

      The problem is that it's easy to complain and hard to work towards solutions. So... everyone's a critic.

      Also there's this:
      http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i244/bilabrin/di ...
    • Screwy1138, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Agreed and dugg up.

      But also, there is a WHOLE GALAXY (and beyond) of resources out there. We simply need to prioritize where we're spending our money.
    • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -4/+7We can *now* turn sea water to drinkable water? Been in hibernation the last century?

      I am not worried about water or energy. Both are extremely abundant. Food however is not, there will be food shortages before anything else (except perhaps oil, but there are plenty of alternatives).
    • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1could have easily been done by now with the money wasted on war.
    • xxrealmsxx, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2The expense is a measure of scarcity. It is hard to put those technologies to good use and as such they are expensive. Your post makes no sense. We can't have our cake and eat it to, may civilizations in the past have failed because of over population and the environmental degradation that accompanies it, technology alone won't and can't save us.
  • Cuchanu, on 07/17/2008, -1/+48Well considering there are 130 million more people in the US then there was in 1957 I don't think this should surprise anybody. To put it crudely that's about 65 million more vaginae which as we all know have babies.
    • socialpyramid, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3Great points -- though the figures do provide a good case to discuss population and its impacts.
    • evil-doer, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6i came here to say the same thing. comparing apples and oranges here. per capita comparisons would have been more accurate.
    • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -13/+5Doesn't help that half the women nowdays are sluts/whores.

      Don't they say that 20% of girls now have an STD? I almost wish STD's were more deadly so people would give a little though before sleeping around with just anyone.
      • antoniuk, on 07/18/2008, -1/+13Takes two to make a baby junior. Would that mean half the men are sluts as well? Having a dick does not exempt you.

        I hope the last woman who you called a slut made you cry in a little ball in your parent's spare room you so now call your own.

        Have fun grudge spanking it to Tera Patrick you winner you
      • marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Repressed much?
      • allisonaxe, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1and yet none of them sleep with you, ExRe?
      • Cuchanu, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Hey guys lay off him he has statistics: 50% are whores, 20% have STD's.
    • JKAL, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2exactly, this is just another sensationalist article, this article should read "US birth rate low."
      If you adjust for the difference and calculate per capita then this article is pure BS.
  • Kruez, on 07/17/2008, -6/+15Somebody needs to teach these kids to pull out!
    • jbrand45, on 07/17/2008, -1/+9bag it before you shag it and need not worry about pulling out
    • pablo0713, on 07/18/2008, -18/+2Never bagged and never will. Will walk out on sex if I have to bag it. Just not worth it. Been on this planet for 36 yrs. No disease. No aids. Always pull out so no kids!!!!!
      • LynchBomb, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Never ejaculated while inside a woman?!

        You sir, are borderline virgin.

      • Andrwmorph, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Those sound like some famous last words to me.
      • theutopian, on 07/18/2008, -0/+390% of unwanted pregnancies are from pre-cum. The ***** that comes out during. Pulling out is not a bullet proof strategy.
      • jbrand45, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Always pulling out means you miss out on what could be argued is the best part.

        If you've lived 36 years and always pulled out . . . I feel bad for you.
  • saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -8/+22Overpopulation zealots are worried about "more mouths to feed", but they never seem to take in to consideration that each birth is two more hands to do the work that needs to be done. People don't just suck up supplies, they produce them (unless they are on welfare). There are more humans than ever, yet there are more than enough supplies to support art, literature, science, etc. Sure, there is only so much raw material, but these problems can be solved in time.
    • slvrbullet87, on 07/18/2008, -7/+10We already cultivate almost all of the fertile land, besides more people more space taken up. If you think overpopulation doesnt cause problems, go look at some pictures of Indian cities.
    • darkphenox, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8yes but its not like the frontier days when more hands= more food where every one had more then enough land, right now there is a limited amount of jobs and allot of them need training and education which teenagers do not have.
    • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8We are practically in the age where we can have robotic farms where nobody needs to do any work.

      Very few people produce food anymore. If you go and look at farms you'll notice that no longer are there 20 acre farms run by a 7 person family, but 20,000 acre farms run by 5 people with huge machinery.
      • marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1ExRe: Then please explain the illegal immigrant problem in America.
      • BDOUG, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Food is the least of our worries. In fact, food is way down the list of priorities in a despearate survival situation, too. Overpopulation creates a greaty reduced quality of life for everyone for a lot of reasons. There's no excuse for every couple thinking they have to crank out more than 2 kids (selfish gene being truly selfish here).
    • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Not if most people are in service industry. they do not produce anything except help other people suck up supplies.
      • saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1If they didn't produce anything of value, then who would pay them?
      • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1look at walmart they dont produce anything of value and they (barely) employ tons of people
    • InfiniteNothing, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2Do you enjoy urban sprawl? freeway congestion? Those are signs technology can't keep up. If you use any energy you are creating pollution. There's lot's of land but not that much good land. Also I think the water will run out before the food does.
    • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Overpopulation will become a major problem in the future. The population has grown exponentially with the arrival of modern technology, specifically related to agriculture, medicine, and sanitation. There are about 6x as many people today as there were 100 years ago.

      This has been no problem for you and me who have been in the wealthiest top 1% while the rest of the world lives in poverty. As recent as 2001 about half of the world lived under $2 a day. But this number has been dropping rapidly, espeically as nations such as China and India develop. The problem for us already in the top 1% is that when the rest of the world get wealthier, they compete for our consumption. More people means less to go around. We have already seen that this will have a profound effect on prices. Demand for oil in China alone has doubled since 2000, and look at the price of oil now. Energy demands will continue to be a problem as the population becomes more wealthy and I expect clean water to develop into a major issue.
      • saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1The number has been dropping rapidly because those people have been creating wealth through their labor. As others compete for our consumption, they also compete for our production. They are producing the goods needed to keep themselves alive.
      • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Oh I don't doubt that net productivity increases as the world becomes wealthier. The problem is there will not be enough resources to sustain this productivity increase.
        We will produce oil faster and in greater quantities if more nations are drilling. But what happens when the oil runs out? or fresh water? land?
        There are very few great uninhabited frontiers left for expansion. We will find that our world becomes increasingly crowded if population growth rapidly continues.
  • BaseballGuyCAA, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aY8-zknBKE
    • umbrellainabin, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1if this is a rick roll im gonna be pissed
    • Bisquick, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1That smart guy was the Computer Guy from the first episode of Burn Notice Season 2!
  • UltramegaOK, on 07/18/2008, -13/+6The machine revels in the knowledge that they will become part of the future labor force and taxpayers. Welcome to the world slave! I know I'm only 19, but I don't ever want children because they deserve more than becoming tax slaves for our corrupt government and corporations, which is what this country has turned into.

    As the world competes for food, oil, and other commodities it will be interesting to see how our government handles itself in the coming decades. I expect a few more wars.

    By the time we're old we'll be slaves to the Chinese, Arabs, or Russians. I predict that as the empire of America spirals further out of control we will see our government moving closer towards the formation of a North American Union where the resources of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will be combined to support our rapidly expanding population and quest to remain a world superpower.

    But then again, everything might work out alright. Ron Paul '12!
    And be sure to Wrap it before you tap it!
    • wiggles, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Ahh, to be young, cynical, fatalistic, and overly dramatic again...
  • WildBil, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6Cool!
    Cause I know that the way things are going, the mortality rate for stupid people is going to get higher..
    • slvrbullet87, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8The mortality rate for stupid people has plummeted in the last 50 years, everything has been made very safe, and doctors can do amazing things to heal the wounds morons cause themselves.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3what time is "ow, my nuts!" coming on tonight? i love that show.
  • dave11980, on 07/18/2008, -2/+32Perfect example of statistics inaccurately portraying facts. During the baby boom we went from 140 million to around 180 million depending on when you say the boom stopped. We are pushing around 300 million. Of course your going to have more births, we have more people. Guess what, China has more births than we do, it's not because they are more promiscuous, it's because they have more people to have babies.
    • marx2k, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2At least they're doing something about their population issues.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1I understand exponential growth but I don't see how the raw increase in houses to live, moths to feed, cars to drive is a bad measure.
  • italicdrones, on 07/18/2008, -12/+10More kids. Poorer education and parenting. An expanding population of idiots. Disconnected from nature, truth, etc..
    • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -5/+3My parents had three kids and they where able to parent and educate them all. The current generation is too selfish to have children which is why they create all these fallacious arguments to approve of not having kids.
      • schnikies79, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Having kids just to pass on your genes or have someone to take care of you when you get old is about as selfish as it gets.

        How many genuine examples of good reasons to have children do not involve you? There are a few, but usually it's because the parents want this or that.
      • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4its the people who DO have children that are selfish. there are plenty of people already.
      • laughandsing, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1People who have children aren't selfish.

        I'm glad that you two believe that though. We don't need more uncaring people on this planet.

        If the world has such a high population, why are you so against war. If all you're worried about is population control, war will inevitably solve that problem. More wars+more countries= more people dying.
  • kemp34, on 07/18/2008, -2/+23The birth RATE right now is much lower than in the baby boom. This article appears to be a form of fear mongering.
    • YukosEyes, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2The birth RATE may be lower, but the POPULATION is higher. What's your point, other than to ignorantly dismiss an important message?

      If the birth rate were the same or higher we would only have a GREATER sustainability issue; that does not mean there is no issue with sustainability with lower birth rates. Your "logic" is part of the problem.
      • kemp34, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Populations grow when birth rates are high. The higher the birth rate (i.e. very high birth RATE during baby boom) the more rapidly the population will grow. If the birth rate is low, the population will slow in growth or even decline. Clearly the RATE of births is very significant and to try to compare now to the baby boom is foolish because our current birth rates are barely growing the population, if at all. Your fear mongering "logic", or lack thereof, is the type of stuff used to pass policies that essentially enforce tyranny.

        If you want to encourage sustainability, worry less about total births, more about birth rates, and encourage fiscal conservatism, simple living and principled, environmentally friendly initiatives (global warming is the wrong fight, there are much better environment fights to be fought). Bypassing logic and fear mongering is not the path to change things for the better.
      • YukosEyes, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1You can have a low birth rate and still have population growth -- this exactly the situation we have. We need even lower birth rates to be sustainable.

        You can't see this because of your ideology.
  • HuskyPuzzle, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5I think my friend Tito could be responsible for this increase.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6your friend tito and his 30 friends that crossed the rio grande.

      btw, nice avatar. i bet you get all the girls.
      • bf01, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I'm sure I'll sound like a nut making up facts for this one.

        But I heard last week that the number of Mexican births this year in the US is now higher than the number of legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico this year. Someone back me up with a reference please.
      • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1@bf01:
        doesn't surprise me one bit. when people ask me where i live i hesitate on the houston part and just say mexico instead.
  • theadvinci, on 07/18/2008, -2/+8Moon and Mars... here we come!
  • funnyondigg, on 07/18/2008, -12/+6Half of them are babies born for ILLEGAL FENCE JUMPERS.
    • drlha, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6If they're born here, they're Americans.
      • eryximachus, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2That will end in the next decade.
      • drlha, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Maybe if the next president is Lou Dobbs. Otherwise it'll take a change in the constitution that I doubt will come.
      • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2In the technical sense of the word they'll be americans.

        But getting to the point of overpopulation, since the increase of births are coming from illegal immigrants they are having children here instead of their home country which will not effect world population at all. Which is the major fallacy of the article's point.
  • tillerman00, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6Stop *****!
    • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1when you start running the media you can put a stop the sensationalization of sex in sitcoms and advertising which should trickle into the general public. how about instead of just stopping the ***** we all start logically informing and teaching EVERYONE about all aspects of sex because parents aren't teaching their kids because they don't know any better themselves.

      the times they are a changing and they're changing for the worse.
      • saxmaster, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1You think people reproduce because the media tells them to?
      • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1people reproduce because they're immature, irresponsible and ignorant. if parents are unwilling to teach their children about sex (they shouldn't have children) where do you suppose the children learn? the answer is television. with all of the crap on mtv i can easily see where the youth of america can get their ideas of sex construed.

        unfortunately it all boils down to making money and not taking responsibility where the media is concerned.
    • umbrellainabin, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4NO
    • Protuhj, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Negative. Still waiting on the male version of the pill...
  • Azohko, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2This makes perfect sense, if lots of people were born in the past, than MORE people will be born in the future.
    Duh.
    • Screwy1138, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Please take your logic and go.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1did you get your degree in a box of cracker jacks?
    • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Rates have nothing to do with the size of the population.
  • katorga, on 07/18/2008, -5/+0I don't know the exact number, but the population was about half what it is today, so obviously we could support much higher birthrates at 300 million than at 150 million.
    • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Rates have nothing to do with the size of the population.
  • aupton, on 07/18/2008, -12/+15Having a kid today is selfish... The world is over populated !
    • chaos7, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4you are so right. and so many idiots don't even put into question if they should not have a kid for reasons beyond their personal ones.
      • laughandsing, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1Well when everyone starts caring about me, maybe I will take their thoughts into consideration. Until then, I will do what I want and what I feel is right.

        /btw I don't have any kids yet. But I will one day.
    • zeero, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3just because you are extreme nerds who will never get pussy let alone a girl to marry doesent mean the rest of us who can raise a family shouldnt have kids.
  • orlyfactor, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5Could it be that the world population is maybe, oh I don't know, ***** much larger than it was at the height of the baby boom?
    • TheSpook, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1***** much larger? I want to try that. Tips?
  • nofx1510, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Well the Millennial Generation is screwed in 20 years...... damnit.
  • dyreschlock, on 07/18/2008, -6/+4damn Mormons.
    • DeucesWild, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1LOL so true! I wish I could digg you more than once! Well at least you know who is digging you down haha.
  • joauri, on 07/18/2008, -2/+9"And the 2.1-child per woman average means that the U.S. isn't doing much more than replacing its population."

    That doesn't actually seem to be a bad thing.
    • dood, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah, exactly. What's wrong with just replacing the population? Why should we be concerned if our population isn't growing? I don't have any particular desire to live in a country with billions of people fighting for food and other resources.
    • DeFex, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Investors want an increase every year in profits, which means without population growth each person has to be ripped off more every year to make the extra money.
    • sodade, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Immigration plus our baby booming is doing more than replacing population. We are bursting at the seams as it is. I don't want to live in India, but the US is headed that way.
  • jamez, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2I have long believed that the 'baby boom' from post WW2 is nothing new. Emotions ***** with everyone every day--things happen and people reproduce. But the more people there are the more they reproduce, it's not rocket science and anyone that didnt anticipate this just could NOT have given it any thought, because it is incredibly obvious that another 'boom' would happen.
  • inajeep, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2***** *****.
  • kyletehgreat, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4If you actually read the article --it says. 2.1 kids/ woman. That's not much of an increase. Sure, there are more babies being born that in the baby boom. The population was smaller back then. But people these days just aren't having 5-7 kids.
    • Screwy1138, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Yeah, 2.1/woman, IIRC, is a downward trend in population. Our population growth is entirely supported by immigration.
  • dmark77, on 07/18/2008, -2/+9All these kids = more single moms looking for a new daddy when I just want to go out on a date.
  • highlymodified, on 07/18/2008, -4/+5Do I have to explain exponential growth to you people?

    P(t)=PE^rt , bitches. The stats are perfectly reasonable.

    Good? Absolutely not. Wrap it up.
  • Korbels, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6Uh... More people more births! BRILLIANT!
  • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -6/+6During the baby boom I doubt we had so many illegal immigrants giving birth here so their children have US citizenship.

  • JoshChan, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4talk about overpopulation in America... Dude you have just over 300 million people in a country the size of China!
  • Jazz837, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6This is one huge reason why my husband are are choosing not to procreate. There are too many damn people on this Earth!
  • WriterY, on 07/18/2008, -9/+6Hah! Laugh...Laugh...Laugh...Laugh...Laugh! Does anyone other than me think the increase may perhaps be due to the increased number of FILTHY, DIRTY Illegals, that simply come over to pop out babies so their children can re-populate the United States? And everyone will be speaking Spanish. Do the words CONQUISTADORS and LA RAZA ring a bell?
    • MrZaiko, on 07/18/2008, -8/+3Blame it on the immigrants...
      Tell that to a Native American... He will most likely spit on your face.

      Do pilgrim settlers(Immigrants) ring a bell *****????

      Ignorant pieces of ***** like you is what boost the Republican party.


    • eurodele, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1I tend to support the Amerinds. Like many American citizens, I'm probably part Amerind myself. However, the "Native American" nomenclature is a bit questionable. Certain anthropological finds (the Spirit Cave mummy, etc.) suggest that the earliest inhabitants of North America were more closely related to modern Caucasians than to the modern Amerinds...or for that matter, than to modern Mexicans, the group that seems to be on your mind here. (By the way, the Mexican birth rate is indeed much higher than that of American citizens, especially Caucasians, and we can no longer afford to function as Mexico's excess population reservoir. If Mexicans want to continue to have children at a rate beyond replacement, then they need to stay in Mexico.)
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1Actually, I think the problem comes from ignorant bigots.
  • Suzilla, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2Good news for the BushCo war machine -- fresh supplies of cannon fodder on the way.
  • executorzz, on 07/18/2008, -2/+82.1 chilren per female in a country is the replacement rate as stated in the article. How does that contribute to overpopulation?

    Overpopulation is one of the biggest fallacies being propogated today.

    In fact countries all over the world will be facing under population soon such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Western European states, Canada to name a few as their birth rates drop well below 2.1
    • urza, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Overpopulation is one of the biggest fallacies being propogated today. YES SO TRUE

      WATCH END GAME ALL!!!
    • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Overpopulation is not as big of a problem in the modernized countries you listed but it is in the third world and will be once these other countries develop.
      Read my reply to saxmaster.
  • urza, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2BS DO THE MATH ON POPULATION! we can hold 20 billion more people on earth see this image for your home work ...http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/24308/20042341203 ...
    390 000 (sq mi) = 249 600 000 acres = 26 sq arce Devide population 6,602,224,175 = 22 people per Acre and thats not building high rises
    • MrZaiko, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Yea but how can you feed those 20 billion?

      DO THE MATH
      • urza, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Easy with GM foods and ALT ENERGY stop lisening to Al Gore and the magic glowing box and get out your house and live...
      • eurodele, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Who needs alternative energy when 30 billion people, all glowing in the dark from the consumption of improperly tested superhigh-yield GM foods grown on postage-stamp-sized farms and in thimble-sized tanks, light up the continuous cityscape like a vast swarm of fireflies? We'll all need sunglasses not to go blind.
    • l034me, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Funny pic. The word New Mexico is not in quotes whereas Texas is in quotes, suggesting Texas is not real or is not its real name?
  • Hetman, on 07/18/2008, -3/+5Our birth rate is fine at 2.1 people per female. But the 20 million undocumented immigrants on the other hand is a major problem.
    • slayernine, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2The birthrate among immigrants is much higher around 3.6 on average.
  • mlvassallo, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3So if there were more births last year than the Baby Boom wouldn't it be an official Boom? Not a Boomlet?
    • theviceroy, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1no because its only one year, which is not yet a trend. I doubt it isn't the start of a trend though, and soon we'll be talking about the "neo-boom" or whatever the media will call it.
  • shoediva, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6I hope all these people have jobs so they can support these babies, and not us the tax payers.
  • welliwonder, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3disgusting
  • p51d007, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Good! With all the "giveaways" the government has planned for us, it will be nice that someone will be working to pay for it.
  • dood, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Vasectomies: They're cheaper than having a baby, and you can always adopt if you change your mind. The pain from the vasectomy is very temporary (and in my experience dull, more of an ache than anything else) but the benefits are permanent (in nearly all cases).
    • laughandsing, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Adoption is a very good option, but it is not the same as actually giving birth to a child.
    • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, both are good if you live in a wealthy country. In the 3rd world countries where most of the population lives and most of the population growth occurs these aren't exactly options you would want to choose.
      • dood, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Why wouldn't a vasectomy be a viable option in a 3rd world country? There would be fewer mouths to feed.
      • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2That's like saying "why don't all those starving Africans just go over to the supermarket and buy some food?"
    • sodade, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1If I was 18 today, I'd be snipping it off ASAP. Pregnancy is a weapon to get your money.
  • Soljer, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2One of my favorite quotes comes to mind:

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    Benjamin Disraeli, British politician (1804 - 1881)
  • blast_flame, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1I can't say I'm paticularly concerned about overpopulation. One thing I am however concerned about is those depopulation panic people getting in power and rolling back freedom and individualism in an effort to increase birthrates.
    http://www.reason.com/news/show/126855.html
  • slayernine, on 07/18/2008, -5/+2As Digg users I somehow doubt anyone here contributed to this number.


    Kinda hard to without losing your virginity
  • eurodele, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5I'd like to see a demographic breakdown. First, we do in fact have a population problem; there are simply too many people for this finite planet to sustain indefinitely, and more people will make the problem even worse. Secondly, those who understand this tend to breed less, thereby leaving most of the breeding up to those who do not. Reasonably assuming that this degree of understanding - the ability to recognize that a finite environment cannot support an unlimited number of inhabitants - is positively correlated with intelligence, what we have at the present time is a tendency for the less intelligent to outbreed the more intelligent. Unfortunately, the more people on earth and the higher the level of technology required to sustain them, the more critical the average intelligence level of the populace becomes. Given that numerous scientific studies show that intelligence is 60-80% genetic, this means that we are probably losing the kind of people (intelligent people) that we need to sustain the kind of people whose numbers are increasing (unintelligent people). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is a questionable situation, and that anyone who sanctions or promotes it is either mentally challenged or an enemy of humankind (and every other species as well).
    • cph1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't necessarily associate this with intelligence, more like economic standing.
  • reyalp, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3Article was half-way interesting until he blabbered about "climate change."

    Buried.
  • mrzack, on 07/18/2008, -3/+3it's mostly the illegal immigrants with their 2-3 lottery babies per family.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1Well I think it's all the ignorant bigots.
      • mrzack, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1it's the truth. can't handle it huh...?
  • dblespresso, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2I hope all of you fear mongering wackos dont procreate. It give me hope for the society that my children will inherit.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.