Limits of Growth in 88 years

I've blogged on this subject several times, but I don't remember putting it up for a poll.

In November of 2006 Mexico's Consejo Nacional de Población released a report predicting that Mexico's population would stabilize at 123 million by the year 2042. The US Census report agrees with the stabilizing prediction for Mexico, but says it will probably be in about 2052 and will be about 149 million people.

The US Census bureau in 2009 released a projection that said that if all immigration, legal and illegal stopped the population would stabilize in 50 years at 323 million. Actual predictions for various immigration scenarios were 400 to 460 million with 423 million the official projection.

So Mexico will in the lifetime of the younger people on this blog will stabilize in population. Right now, stabilization of the US population at any point is not predicted. Of course, many countries in Europe are already stabilized. Hungary reached peak population as far back as 1981.

(1) Using the census estimate, stabilizing the population in 50 years will mean cutting off immigration
(2) Stabilizing in 88 years (by the end of the century) will require some action
(3) The third option is essentially a formula which the government would have to abide by. Natural Increase= (births-deaths). If immigration were limited to half the natural increase, there would be some control. Right now immigration is projected to be greater than natural increase by 2030, but in reality since illegal immigration is so difficult to determine, it may already be higher today. Under this plan immigration would be gradually rolled back.

2012 projections
4,293,433 births
2,633,180 deaths
1,660,253 /2
830,126


(4) The fourth option is to continue as we've been doing today. The current legal immigrants are 1.66 million to be reduced to 1.20 million by 2050.

If one of the major political parties consider that they would be advantaged electorally by immigration, stabilisation may not be given the priority it deserves.

Quote: victorimmature

If one of the major political parties consider that they would be advantaged electorally by immigration, stabilisation may not be given the priority it deserves.

Most of us think that growth is the norm for the world. In reality, over half of the world lives in countries live in with low total fertility rate (TFR). It's not just Europe and Japan anymore.

Without fertility, population growth is only sustained via immigration.

Country	TFR	Pop in millions
China	1.55	1,343
United States	2.06	314
Indonesia	2.23	248
Brazil	2.16	206
Russia	1.43	138
Japan	1.39	127
Mexico	2.27	115
Vietnam	1.89	92
Germany	1.41	81
Turkey	2.13	80
Iran	1.87	79
Thailand	1.66	67
France	1.96	65
United Kingdom	1.91	63
Italy	1.40	61
Burma	2.23	55
Korea, South	1.23	49
South Africa	2.28	49
Spain	1.48	47
Colombia	2.12	45
Ukraine	1.29	45
Argentina	2.29	42
Poland	1.31	38
Algeria	1.74	35
Canada	1.59	34
Morocco	2.19	32
Peru	2.29	30
Uzbekistan	1.86	28
Saudi Arabia	2.26	27
Korea, North	2.01	25
Taiwan	1.16	23
Australia	1.77	22
Romania	1.30	22
Sri Lanka	2.17	21
Chile	1.87	17
Netherlands	1.78	17
Cuba	1.45	11
Portugal	1.51	11
Greece	1.39	11
Tunisia	2.02	11
Belgium	1.65	10
Czech Republic	1.27	10
Total		3,847

Quote: pacomartin

The US Census bureau in 2009 released a projection that said that if all immigration, legal and illegal stopped the population would stabilize in 50 years at 323 million. Actual predictions for various immigration scenarios were 400 to 460 million with 423 million the official projection.

Not sure what point are you working - is it too many or too few?

I'm mostly on the "shouldn't worry about it" side, but the continued growth amongst less civilized nations is still a cause for concern.