The Changing Demographics of America

The United States population will expand by 100 million over the next 40 years. Is this a reason to worry?

  • By Joel Kotkin
  • Smithsonian magazine, July-August 2010, Subscribe
View More Photos »
Population growth places the United States in a radically different position from that of Russia Japan and Europe.
Population growth places the United States in a radically different position from that of Russia, Japan and Europe. (Q. Sakamaki / Redux)

Photo Gallery (1/15)

The portion of the population that is currently at least 65 years old (13 percent) is expected to reach about 20 percent by 2050.

Explore more photos from the story


Video Gallery

Tomorrow's Population

How will populations change in the United States over the next 40 years?

Q & A: Joel Kotkin

Related Links

Related Books

The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050

by Joel Kotkin
Penguin Press, 2010

More from Smithsonian.com


Estimates of the United states population at the middle of the 21st century vary, from the U.N.’s 404 million to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 422 to 458 million. To develop a snapshot of the nation at 2050, particularly its astonishing diversity and youthfulness, I use the nice round number of 400 million people, or roughly 100 million more than we have today.

The United States is also expected to grow somewhat older. The portion of the population that is currently at least 65 years old—13 percent—is expected to reach about 20 percent by 2050. This “graying of America” has helped convince some commentators of the nation’s declining eminence. For example, an essay by international relations expert Parag Khanna envisions a “shrunken America” lucky to eke out a meager existence between a “triumphant China” and a “retooled Europe.” Morris Berman, a cultural historian, says America “is running on empty.”

But even as the baby boomers age, the population of working and young people is also expected to keep rising, in contrast to most other advanced nations. America’s relatively high fertility rate—the number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime—hit 2.1 in 2006, with 4.3 million total births, the highest levels in 45 years, thanks largely to recent immigrants, who tend to have more children than residents whose families have been in the United States for several generations. Moreover, the nation is on the verge of a baby boomlet, when the children of the original boomers have children of their own.

Between 2000 and 2050, census data suggest, the U.S. 15-to-64 age group is expected to grow 42 percent. In contrast, because of falling fertility rates, the number of young and working-age people is expected to decline elsewhere: by 10 percent in China, 25 percent in Europe, 30 percent in South Korea and more than 40 percent in Japan.

Within the next four decades most of the developed countries in Europe and East Asia will become veritable old-age homes: a third or more of their populations will be over 65. By then, the United States is likely to have more than 350 million people under 65.

The prospect of an additional 100 million Americans by 2050 worries some environmentalists. A few have joined traditionally conservative xenophobes and anti-immigration activists in calling for a national policy to slow population growth by severely limiting immigration. The U.S. fertility rate—50 percent higher than that of Russia, Germany and Japan and well above that of China, Italy, Singapore, South Korea and virtually all the rest of Europe—has also prompted criticism.

Colleen Heenan, a feminist author and environmental activist, says Americans who favor larger families are not taking responsibility for “their detrimental contribution” to population growth and “resource shortages.” Similarly, Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, compared different conservation measures and concluded that not having a child is the most effective way of reducing carbon emissions and becoming an “eco hero.”

Such critiques don’t seem to take into account that a falling population and a dearth of young people may pose a greater threat to the nation’s well-being than population growth. A rapidly declining population could create a society that doesn’t have the work force to support the elderly and, overall, is less concerned with the nation’s long-term future.


Estimates of the United states population at the middle of the 21st century vary, from the U.N.’s 404 million to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 422 to 458 million. To develop a snapshot of the nation at 2050, particularly its astonishing diversity and youthfulness, I use the nice round number of 400 million people, or roughly 100 million more than we have today.

The United States is also expected to grow somewhat older. The portion of the population that is currently at least 65 years old—13 percent—is expected to reach about 20 percent by 2050. This “graying of America” has helped convince some commentators of the nation’s declining eminence. For example, an essay by international relations expert Parag Khanna envisions a “shrunken America” lucky to eke out a meager existence between a “triumphant China” and a “retooled Europe.” Morris Berman, a cultural historian, says America “is running on empty.”

But even as the baby boomers age, the population of working and young people is also expected to keep rising, in contrast to most other advanced nations. America’s relatively high fertility rate—the number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime—hit 2.1 in 2006, with 4.3 million total births, the highest levels in 45 years, thanks largely to recent immigrants, who tend to have more children than residents whose families have been in the United States for several generations. Moreover, the nation is on the verge of a baby boomlet, when the children of the original boomers have children of their own.

Between 2000 and 2050, census data suggest, the U.S. 15-to-64 age group is expected to grow 42 percent. In contrast, because of falling fertility rates, the number of young and working-age people is expected to decline elsewhere: by 10 percent in China, 25 percent in Europe, 30 percent in South Korea and more than 40 percent in Japan.

Within the next four decades most of the developed countries in Europe and East Asia will become veritable old-age homes: a third or more of their populations will be over 65. By then, the United States is likely to have more than 350 million people under 65.

The prospect of an additional 100 million Americans by 2050 worries some environmentalists. A few have joined traditionally conservative xenophobes and anti-immigration activists in calling for a national policy to slow population growth by severely limiting immigration. The U.S. fertility rate—50 percent higher than that of Russia, Germany and Japan and well above that of China, Italy, Singapore, South Korea and virtually all the rest of Europe—has also prompted criticism.

Colleen Heenan, a feminist author and environmental activist, says Americans who favor larger families are not taking responsibility for “their detrimental contribution” to population growth and “resource shortages.” Similarly, Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, compared different conservation measures and concluded that not having a child is the most effective way of reducing carbon emissions and becoming an “eco hero.”

Such critiques don’t seem to take into account that a falling population and a dearth of young people may pose a greater threat to the nation’s well-being than population growth. A rapidly declining population could create a society that doesn’t have the work force to support the elderly and, overall, is less concerned with the nation’s long-term future.

The next surge in growth may be delayed if tough economic times continue, but over time the rise in births, producing a generation slightly larger than the boomers, will add to the work force, boost consumer spending and generate new entrepreneurial businesses. And even with 100 million more people, the United States will be only one-sixth as crowded as Germany is today.

Immigration will continue to be a major force in U.S. life. The United Nations estimates that two million people a year will move from poorer to developed nations over the next 40 years, and more than half of those will come to the United States, the world’s preferred destination for educated, skilled migrants. In 2000, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an association of 30 democratic, free-market countries, the United States was home to 12.5 million skilled immigrants, equaling the combined total for Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Japan.

If recent trends continue, immigrants will play a leading role in our future economy. Between 1990 and 2005, immigrants started one out of four venture-backed public companies. Large American firms are also increasingly led by people with roots in foreign countries, including 15 of the Fortune 100 CEOs in 2007.

For all these reasons, the United States of 2050 will look different from that of today: whites will no longer be in the majority. The U.S. minority population, currently 30 percent, is expected to exceed 50 percent before 2050. No other advanced, populous country will see such diversity.

In fact, most of America’s net population growth will be among its minorities, as well as in a growing mixed-race population. Latino and Asian populations are expected to nearly triple, and the children of immigrants will become more prominent. Today in the United States, 25 percent of children under age 5 are Hispanic; by 2050, that percentage will be almost 40 percent.

Growth places the United States in a radically different position from that of Russia, Japan and Europe. Russia’s low birth and high mortality rates suggest its overall population will drop by 30 percent by 2050, to less than a third of the United States’. No wonder Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has spoken of “the serious threat of turning into a decaying nation.” While China’s population will continue to grow for a while, it may begin to experience decline as early as 2035, first in work force and then in actual population, mostly because of the government’s one-child mandate, instituted in 1979 and still in effect. By 2050, 31 percent of China’s population will be older than 60. More than 41 percent of Japanese will be that old.

Political prognosticators say China and India pose the greatest challenges to American predominance. But China, like Russia, lacks the basic environmental protections, reliable legal structures, favorable demographics and social resilience of the United States. India, for its part, still has an overwhelmingly impoverished population and suffers from ethnic, religious and regional divisions. The vast majority of the Indian population remains semiliterate and lives in poor rural villages. The United States still produces far more engineers per capita than India or China.

Suburbia will continue to be a mainstay of American life. Despite criticisms that suburbs are culturally barren and energy-inefficient, most U.S. metropolitan population growth has taken place in suburbia, confounding oft-repeated predictions of its decline.

Some aspects of suburban life—notably long-distance commuting and heavy reliance on fossil fuels—will have to change. The new suburbia will be far more environmentally friendly—what I call “greenurbia.” The Internet, wireless phones, video conferencing and other communication technologies will allow more people to work from home: at least one in four or five will do so full time or part time, up from roughly one in six or seven today. Also, the greater use of trees for cooling, more sustainable architecture and less wasteful appliances will make the suburban home of the future far less of a danger to ecological health than in the past. Houses may be smaller—lot sizes are already shrinking as a result of land prices—but they will remain, for the most part, single-family dwellings.

A new landscape may emerge, one that resembles the network of smaller towns characteristic of 19th-century America. The nation’s landmass is large enough—about 3 percent is currently urbanized—to accommodate this growth, while still husbanding critical farmland and open space.

In other advanced nations where housing has become both expensive and dense—Japan, Germany, South Korea and Singapore—birthrates have fallen, partly because of the high cost of living, particularly for homes large enough to comfortably raise children. Preserving suburbs may therefore be critical for U.S. demographic vitality.

A 2009 study by the Brookings Institution found that between 1998 and 2006, jobs shifted away from the center and to the periphery in 95 out of 98 leading metropolitan regions—from Dallas and Los Angeles to Chicago and Seattle. Walter Siembab, a planning consultant, calls the process of creating sustainable work environments on the urban periphery “smart sprawl.” Super-fuel-efficient cars of the future are likely to spur smart sprawl. They may be a more reasonable way to meet environmental needs than shifting back to the mass-transit-based models of the industrial age; just 5 percent of the U.S. population uses mass transit on a daily basis.

One of the urban legends of the 20th century—espoused by city planners and pundits (and a staple of Hollywood)—is that suburbanites are alienated, autonomous individuals, while city dwellers have a deep connection to their neighborhoods. As the 2001 book Suburban Nation puts it, once suburbanites leave the “refuge” of their homes they are reduced to “motorist[s] competing for asphalt.”

But suburban residents express a stronger sense of identity and civic involvement than city dwellers. A recent study by Jan Brueckner, a University of California at Irvine economist, found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement; compared with residents of high-density urban cores, people in low-density suburbs were 7 percent more likely to talk to their neighbors and 24 percent more likely to belong to a local club.

Suburbs epitomize much of what constitutes the American dream for many people. Minorities, once largely associated with cities, tend to live in the suburbs; in 2008 they were a majority of residents in Texas, New Mexico, California and Hawaii. Nationwide, about 25 percent of suburbanites are minorities; by 2050 immigrants, their children and native-born minorities will become an even more dominant force in shaping suburbia.

The baby boom generation is poised for a large-scale “back to the city” movement, according to many news reports. But Sandra Rosenbloom, a University of Arizona gerontology professor, says roughly three-quarters of retirees in the first bloc of boomers appear to be sticking close to the suburbs, where the vast majority reside. “Everybody in this business wants to talk about the odd person who moves downtown,” Rosenbloom observes. “[But] most people retire in place. When they move, they don’t move downtown, they move to the fringes.”

To be sure, there will be 15 million to 20 million new urban dwellers by 2050. Many will live in what Wharton business professor Joseph Gyourko calls “superstar cities,” such as San Francisco, Boston, Manhattan and western Los Angeles—places adapted to business and recreation for the elite and those who work for them. By 2050, Seattle, Portland and Austin could join their ranks.

But because these elite cities are becoming too expensive for the middle class, the focus of urban life will shift to cities that are more spread out and, by some standards, less attractive. They’re what I call “cities of aspiration,” such as Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Charlotte. They’ll facilitate upward mobility, as New York and other great industrial cities once did, and begin to compete with the superstar cities for finance, culture and media industries, and the amenities that typically go along with them. The Wall Street Journal noted that commercial success has already turned Houston, once considered a backwater, into “an art mecca.”

One of the least anticipated developments in the nation’s 21st-century geography will be the resurgence of the region often dismissed by coastal dwellers as “flyover country.” For the better part of the 20th century, rural and small-town communities declined in percentage of population and in economic importance. In 1940, 43 percent of Americans lived in rural areas; today it’s less than 20 percent. But population and cost pressures are destined to resurrect the hinterlands. The Internet has broken the traditional isolation of rural communities, and as mass communication improves, the migration of technology companies, business services and manufacturing firms to the heartland is likely to accelerate.

Small Midwestern cities such as Fargo, North Dakota, have experienced higher than average population and job growth over the past decade. These communities, once depopulating, now boast complex economies based on energy, technology and agriculture. (You can even find good restaurants, boutique hotels and coffeehouses in some towns.) Gary Warren heads Hamilton Telecommunications, a call center and telecommunications-services firm that employs 250 people in Aurora, Nebraska. “There is no sense of dying here,” Warren says. “Aurora is all about the future.”

Concerns about energy sources and hydrocarbon emissions will also bolster America’s interior. The region will be pivotal to the century’s most important environmental challenge: the shift to renewable fuels. Recent estimates suggest the United States has the capacity to produce annually more than 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass, or fuels derived from plant materials—enough to displace 30 percent of the current national demand for petroleum fuels. That amount could be produced with only modest changes in land use, agricultural and forest-management practices.

Not since the 19th century, when the heartland was a major source of America’s economic, social and cultural supremacy, has the vast continental expanse been set to play so powerful a role in shaping the nation’s future.

What the United States does with its demographic dividend—its relatively young working-age population—is critical. Simply to keep pace with the growing U.S. population, the nation needs to add 125,000 jobs a month, the New America Foundation estimates. Without robust economic growth but with an expanding population, the country will face a massive decline in living standards.

Entrepreneurs, small businesses and self-employed workers will become more common. Between 1980 and 2000 the number of self-employed individuals expanded, to about 15 percent of the work force. More workers will live in an economic environment like that of Hollywood or Silicon Valley, with constant job hopping and changes in alliances among companies.

For much of American history, race has been the greatest barrier to a common vision of community. Race still remains all too synonymous with poverty: considerably higher poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics persist. But the future will most likely see a dimming of economic distinctions based on ethnic origins.

Since 1960, the proportion of African-American households at or below the poverty line ($22,000 annually for a family of four in 2008 dollars) has dropped from 55 to 25 percent, while the black middle class has grown from 15 to 39 percent. From 1980 to 2008, the proportion who are considered prosperous—households making more than $100,000 a year in 2008 dollars—grew by half, to 10.3 percent. Roughly 50 percent more African-Americans live in suburbs now than in 1980; most of those households are middle class, and some are affluent.

The most pressing social problem facing mid-21st-century America will be fulfilling the historic promise of upward mobility. In recent decades certain high-end occupation incomes grew rapidly, while wages for lower-income and middle-class workers stagnated. Even after the 2008 economic downturn, largely brought on by Wall Street, it was primarily middle-class homeowners and jobholders who bore the brunt, sometimes losing their residences. Most disturbingly, the rate of upward mobility has stagnated overall, as wages have largely failed to keep up with the cost of living. It is no easier for poor and working-class people to move up the socio-economic ladder today than it was in the 1970s; in some ways, it’s more difficult. The income of college-educated younger people, adjusted for inflation, has been in decline since 2000.

To reverse these trends, I think Americans will need to attend to the nation’s basic investments and industries, including manufacturing, energy and agriculture. This runs counter to the fashionable assertion that the American future can be built around a handful of high-end creative jobs and will not require reviving the old industrial economy.

A more competitive and environmentally sustainable America will rely on technology. Fortunately, no nation has been more prodigious in its ability to apply new methods and techniques to solve fundamental problems; the term “technology” was invented in America in 1829. New energy finds, unconventional fuel sources and advanced technology are likely to ameliorate the long-prophesied energy catastrophe. And technology can ease or even reverse the environmental costs of growth. With a population of 300 million, the United States has cleaner air and water now than 40 years ago, when the population was 200 million.

The America of 2050 will most likely remain the one truly transcendent superpower in terms of society, technology and culture. It will rely on what has been called America’s “civil religion”—its ability to forge a unique common national culture amid great diversity of people and place. We have no reason to lose faith in the possibilities of the future.

Adapted from The Next Hundred Million by Joel Kotkin. © 2010. With the permission of the publisher, The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.


Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.



 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (30)

We did, in fact, at one time, used to be the greatest nation in the world. We had the best educational system in the world, the highest standard of living, number one in most industries and the most technically advanced nation in the world. Of course, these things were in the pre-diversity days of America, when the old red, white and blue was roaring like a lion and national identity and patriotism was strong. These things have gradually eroded over the past 45 years to where they no longer exist. It is obvious to all but the most dim witted that we are in terminal decline and have been for some time. An extra 100 million, mostly illiterate third worlders added to the population will exacerbate that decline much more quickly, although I find it hard to believe that we won't crash long before we reach that number.

Posted by Robert on February 16,2013 | 09:56 PM

Did he say that whites and Asians scores are high and blacks and Latinos are lower? Sounds like a southern white dude talking.

Posted by Willie on February 5,2013 | 07:42 PM

You cannot just state that a certain nation is "best" with no shred of proof. This jingoistic line of thinking, that America is the "greatest" nation in the world, only tends to lead towards one conclusion: America is exceptional, to the point where it has the "right" to bypass the sovereignty of other nations.

Posted by Ryan on January 22,2013 | 12:35 PM

America will look like Brazil in 50 years, including the favelas. You can't take millions of illiterate Mexicans in, plop them down among other Mexicans - and expect to achieve on par with other Americans and more affluent immigrants. The dumbest parts of America are growing. Standardized testing shows unambiguously that test scores of White kids and Asians remain high. Though test of Latinos and Blacks are improving - they are doing so at a very slow rate. In short - the expansion of the 'lower performers' is dragging the average test score down. As go the test scores - the nation will go as well. Enjoy your cardboard box homes, drug cartels, massively corrupt officials, and gated communities.

Posted by james on November 8,2012 | 12:51 PM

Rodger you are wrong. people will emigrate to the US from Europe, because America is the best nation ever.

Posted by Jewish Phillistine on October 8,2012 | 10:23 PM

i love how positive this article was. But we should add some new jobs, and yea Max Baer is pretty kool!

Posted by Jewish Phillistine on October 8,2012 | 10:09 PM

I love Max Baer

Posted by Jack Silver on October 8,2012 | 09:51 AM

What a great read! I considered actually subscribing to the Smithsonian after reading this. How interesting to read fact-based opinion that leaned a different direction than opinion on this subject generally tends to lean. I felt like I had some very valuable perspective and insight I would not have otherwise garnered granted to me. Thanks, Mr. Kotkin.

Posted by Brett Stone on May 1,2012 | 12:02 AM

I'm on the negative population-growth side but I think Kotkin is merely trying to rationalize what he predicts is coming in terms that are hopeful. If I'm right then much of the critique of the author is killing the messenger. I think the Mainstream's definition of the good life and the way it works is based on "growth"-what some of us see as a ponzi scheme to others is what keeps this lifestyle going. The difference between us is how far into the future we project and our values of the profit and loss. Being old enough to have seen the world population double and expecting it to triple in my lifetime what I value, biodiversity, is mostly losing. But then I don't want to live "the good life" that depends on ever more sprawl and throw away consumption. The backdrop to Kotkin's article are the shadows of all our societal problems and solutions: planning for what is expected vs what we ideally want and who are the "we", resource depletion and innovation, immigration in the face of job loss, quality of lifestyle-upward mobility, racial inequity, care of the elderly, education...... We have policies in place addressing all these issues. Mostly they are dominated by special interest groups or the policy of postponement. We've gotten a huge wake up call in the past few years. But most of us want to go back to business as usual. If business doesn't pick up we'll have to figure something else out. As painful as it sounds that may be the only way that will lead to changes that will be more environmentally and socially sustainable.

Posted by mike ashlock on April 12,2012 | 10:29 AM

America's demographics are in worse shape than any other country in the Western world. The historical population is around 65 percent and falling. It doesn't take a PHD to figure out that many people will emigrate to Europe and other Western countries as the country continues its downward decline into second world and then third world status.

Posted by Rodger on February 13,2012 | 12:56 PM

It is good that Smithsonian presents a range of views, however a person doesn't have to be some twitchy-eyed conspiracy theorist to ponder why it always seems to be the same dozen writers, like Joel Kotkin, who perpetually blanket the mainstream media with arguments in favor of what is essentially the philosophy of the cancer cell and the locust swarm. The difference for humans is that thankfully we can benefit by having learned the basics of ecology, mathematics and the history of fallen civilizations--or not.

Posted by Thomas Michael Andres on January 6,2012 | 12:10 AM

This author assumes the population growth will consist of educated, civic-minded individuals. The truth is that immigrants overwhelmingly lack education and are impoverished. The working class is already stretched too thin in supporting or subsidizing this class of people, so who is going to support the additional masses? Immigrants leaving a geographical area of poverty and massive crowding will LOWER the standards of living of the areas they migrate to, not INCREASE them. Water, power, freeway gridlock, and food sources cannot keep up with the demand. Our poor children and grandchildren will be living in beehive-like conditions with rationed water and power and their quality of life will be dismal with this author's rose-colored glasses projections.

Posted by Melanie on July 1,2011 | 03:36 PM

I actually do know who my neighbors are. So, I believe that you are speaking gibberish.

Posted by dot on January 24,2011 | 09:39 AM

I let my subscription lapse because of this article.

The the traffic, the crime, the lack of water, the government, the enormous factory schools, illegal immigrants (how do you like not knowing your neighbor's identity), the lack of identity (kids today feel like a number), the poor food quality (go visit a cattle feedlot), the regulations, the deviants, the crowds, the taxes, the rules, the constant bickering, the issues, globalization, lack of job security, excessive competition, the thousand-and-one-things we must do everyday are already OVERWHELMING! And Kotkin wants another 100 million?

Obviously he's not thinking about water quality, the importance of birds, quiet (which allows young minds to rest and ponder), how we will need 200 million to take care of that extra 100 million, pollution, space, identity, political calm (which will decrease as population increases)...nor the massive complications of disease, religion... I think I'll stop before my morning is ruined.

WHere does this mentality come from? His way of thinking is like a virus I would like to escape.

More is less and less is more.

Posted by Nan on November 17,2010 | 09:16 AM

A very interesting article but I think the author needs to get certain facts straight - a growth in population is NOT what the US needs. Justifying population growth based on profit economics is like justifying how many people died because of explosive Ford Pintos through statistics. Sorry, but you're way off base.

I found the survey results amusing.

The Earth's population is already too large and putting too much pressure on too many different sensitive areas. Technology or no technology, it can only go on so long before the billions that currently search for food and clean water are joined by billions more. We're seeing losses in too many areas to be able to sustain much more.

Add to the mix the whole issue of humans' overall impact on the environment, and it's a recipe for disaster.

You will see not only China and India rise, but also, I suspect, Indonesia. In South America, I expect a new player to emerge (if the US stops playing God there, that is): Brazil.

Posted by Glenn McGrew on November 2,2010 | 07:32 AM

I wholeheartly agree with most of the reasons, already noted, why Joel Kitkin is so misguided. Unfortunately, most human beings will welcome his shortsighted reasoning. So many of us will continue to take our wonderful planet for granted, never accept the principle of biodiversity, continue to consume natural resources at an alarming rate, and then continue with our selfish and self-centered lives. I can't help but be pessimistic.

Posted by tom blair on October 10,2010 | 11:12 AM

For some perspective, the alarmists posting here who still buy into Paul R. Ehrlich's theories in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" should refer to the October 2006 article in Smithsonian by Joel Garreau, titled "300 Million and Counting". http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/10022841.html

Growth, in and of itself is not bad, or politically incorrect (at least not since the 70's). I for one am glad my wife and I did not take Ehrlich's poorly thought out advice.

Young parents today should not become today's "Eco heroes", but focus on becoming better parents.

Posted by Terry Earley on August 18,2010 | 04:49 PM

National binding referendums should be employed to give strict direction to Congress regarding growth issues. One foundational issue: Shall persons holding elective offices henceforth be forbidden to sell influence by means of accepting bribes in the form of campaign donations? Bribery by any name is still bribery. Our present system permits big money to make sad jest of "government of, by, and for the people". What other forms of bribery are recognized as being legal by misconstruing the First Amendment? Methinks the answer is "none".

Posted by G.P. Felton III on August 16,2010 | 07:22 AM

I am stunned by the overwhelming pessimism of Smithsonian's readership, as displayed in the comments to this article. If the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, our cultural "elite" is in the forefront of fearfulness. Time for an attitude readjustment, methinks!

Posted by Chuck Haberlein on August 15,2010 | 10:36 AM

In about 1970 David Brower,a pioneer environmentalist, cautioned that a U.S. population of about 150 million is optimal for a healthy environment. That number has more than doubled since then. Edward O. Wilson, a respected Harvard biologist and twice winner of the Pulitzer Prize predicts that at the present rate, half of all the plants and animals living today will disappear by the end of this century.

Sadly, these changes are already upon us. Songbird numbers have fallen significantly in recent years. Wildlife habitat has declined sharply. Mountain lions and bears are already finding it difficult to share this "New Suburbia" with humans.

Joel Kitkin has overlooked many of these realities. But many who are more astute than Kitkin will tell you that the U.S. environment has already passed the tipping point in a downward spiral.

Posted by Lew Vavra on July 29,2010 | 05:06 PM

Ready, set, cancel my subscription to Smithsonian Magazine for publishing the irresponsible piece by Joel Kotkin suggesting that the world will be better place with another 100 million Americans. 6.8 billion humans on planet Earth and counting at a rate of 204,383 per day or 74.6 million per year...

Posted by J.W. Miller on July 27,2010 | 12:30 AM

Optimism is a wonderful thing and most of what was written in the 40th anniversary issue was optimistic. I like realism better. Rather than relying on future technology to bail us out while we keep going the way we have for the last 100 years, a more realistic picture is painted in a documentary called: “The Age of Stupid” at snagfilms.com.
To believe one hundred million more people in this country are a good thing because they will be the ones who will pay for the aging population, borders on being delusional. We have no meaningful jobs now. Mostly service jobs which pay minimum wages. Standards of living will continue to fall steeply.
At our present course, the acidity of the oceans will double in just a few years, wiping out most marine life. We may have had cleaner air in 2005, but thanks to a few politicians, the major air and water polluters were exempted from the Clean Air and Clean Water Act a few years ago (gaslandthemovie.com). We may not have runaway inflation, but even 10% per year will cut the value of money in half in less than 5 years (shadowstatistics.com). To believe the US will continue to be the world leader is another pipe dream. All we have is our military might and what has that accomplished in a third world country like Afghanistan? Our insatiable thirst for cheap energy has been artificially nourished by the energy companies who have every interest to maintain that addiction. We are not the solution, we are the problem. The earth is the only home we have and ever will have. If you think the Moon or Mars will be viable, consider the costs. We will be spending trillions of dollars to house a few thousand people there, but we cannot clean up our own mess on earth? If we don’t take care of it, insects will replace us. Nature will have no problem in continuing without people. We have to make a choice: Are jobs more important than life? Are corporate profits all that matter? Is greed our only driving force? Let’s choose wisely.

Posted by Kurt Luttenbacher on July 25,2010 | 04:48 PM

“READY SET GROW” is a continuation of the philosophy of growth that has produced the alarming degradation of the planet that we are finally recognizing today. More people, more cars, more freeways, more oil spills, more deforestation, and the degradation goes on and on. There are solutions to the planet’s problems and if we don’t finally wake up and pursue them, we are doomed to experience the disastrous consequences.

William Nellor
Santa Rosa, California

Posted by William Nellor` on July 23,2010 | 04:57 PM

Legal immigration is a good thing when it is focused on the national interest and the interests of American citizens and our legal guests.

Since 1965, though, our policies have been oriented to family reunification, a warm, fuzzy goal to be sure, but one that also increases the drain on our social support systems as mom and pop follow to join the recent arrival. The U.S. Dept. of State estimates that another six family members follow to join each initial immigrant over subsequent 20 years. That is independent of births here to those immigrants. Modern immigrants are largely not a self-sustaining culture; the old requirement of an affidavit of support by the sponsor is gone.

Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. We haven't whipped it yet because we keep importing reinforcements for the other side.

Posted by Kent Lundgren on July 21,2010 | 03:38 PM

You have to have growth or you end up where Europe almost is and China is now headed: a huge number of elderly with fewer workers to support them. Once you create a generation, you have to find a way to support them as they move through the python. Yes something is worse than growth: wrecking 2 generations with insufficient support for elderly and extraordinary demands on a younger generation's workers.

Kotkin's point is that it's going to happen, nothing other than a huge calamity will stop it, and we need to understand the good/bad points.

Posted by Mike on July 21,2010 | 12:34 PM

I just finished Joel Kotkin's contribution to your 40th Anniversary issue. Although I hope to keep an open mind to all of his rosy assertions and predictions, I must first ask him this: Please name one problem facing humanity that can be solved or at least eased or mitigated by increasing the world's population.

Gregg Clemmer

Posted by gregg clemmer on July 15,2010 | 06:15 PM

With the continued mass immigration Joel Kotkin wants, our population could be half a billion Americans by 2050 and a billion by the end of this century. And then what? This is not inevitable. We can stop and reverse our population growth by ending subsidies to big families and vastly reducing immigration. If we fail to act, surging population growth will make it far more difficult to cope with global warming, the end of fossil fuels, and shortages of everything from agricultural land to water.

If we allow our population to double, we will need to roughly double our entire infrastructure of buildings, roads, and utility works. Who will pay for all that? It would mean roughly doubling the acreage of animal habitat, farmland, and open space lost to construction.

If you believe immigration is a racial issue, consider this: It is the native-born African-Americans who are continually shoved to the rear of the hiring line by a flood of cheap, exploitable foreign labor. Trying to improve the per-capita income, open space, and other quality of life indicators for our own citizens while accepting a tsunami of needy foreigners is like trying to bail out a boat with a big hole in the bottom.

Posted by Thomas P. McKenna on July 15,2010 | 02:34 PM

Joel Kotkin in "Ready, Set, Grow" acknowledges that “Without robust economic growth but with an expanding population, the country will face a massive decline in living standards.” Still, he somehow manages to conclude that adding 100 million more people by mid-century will be good news for the American economy. What is he thinking? At present, we have 7.5 million fewer jobs than we did in December 2007. Just to keep up with population growth we should have added 3.1 million jobs in that period. That means we are more than 10 million jobs in the hole. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that to get back to the pre-recession unemployment rate we will need to add 325,000 jobs a month for the next four years. We don’t need more people; we need more jobs.
William Ryerson
President
Population Institute and Population Media Center

Posted by William Ryerson on July 14,2010 | 03:55 PM

The world is changing and some of us are working to build the capacity in minority communities to build the leadership that will be necessary to influence our communities, and local, state and national government.

Posted by Jaime Martinez on July 13,2010 | 05:37 PM

From Economics 101 to this article all I hear about is growth, growth, growth. Our economy will be adversely impacted if we don't grow. How about a little more focus on the quality and broadness of growth? The average wage adjusted for inflation hasn't changed in ~15 years. What does that say about our growth? Do we have lower high school drop-out rates or better income distribution when we have growth?

Growth for growth's sake does not necessarily mean improved lifestyle. For example China is growing faster than the US but Chinese factory workers are protesting long work hours are demanding higher pay.

Posted by wavedeva on July 9,2010 | 11:03 PM



Advertisement


Advertisement

Follow Us





First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store