Author Topic: What is the future for Europe? (Read 1867 times)

Lizking · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:12:39 PM »

You said it yourself-the pop is 5 per square mile.

SLO · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:13:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have disagreements with the direction europe is taking and I express them.

I have disagreements with the direction the U.S of A is taking and I express them.

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:21:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
You said it yourself-the pop is 5 per square mile.

Apparently you make the assumption that all states are now populated to the maximum they can support.

Is that what you are really trying to say?

That IF Wyoming could support more than 5 people per mile they'd already be there?

Again, "support" has a very different meaning depending on the person you ask.

I'm sure someone from Malibu has a different idea of minimal "support" than someone from Cody, Wyoming.

Lizking · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:23:50 PM »

No, the states are not at maximum level yet, and by support I mean supply the water, roads and electricity they need. Using that criteria(which is both basic and valid), there are large parts of the country that are overpopulated.

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:37:35 PM »

Roads can be built; easily in fact. If anyone felt the need.

Wyoming annually did about $5 billion in energy (petroleum, coal and ng) in the early 90's. Their electricity is mainly generated in coal fired plants and as noted, they have LOTS of coal.

They get 70% of consumed water from snowmelt, a renewable resource and fairly steady in supply. They have a large amount of untapped water in both alluvial and bedrock acquifers.

While the locals probably feel that 5 per mile is getting kinda crowded, Wyoming is nowhere near the maximum level of people it could support.

I'm sure in the distant past someone like you said there's absolutely no way Manhattan Island could support over 1.5 million people. I think they say that's roughly 67,000 people per squard mile.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:42:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
Well if America grows by 43%. (Where are all these babies coming from?)

Mexico and Asia.

And Mexican women allready in the USA, and I dont mean to play on sterotypes here, it's just true that young Hispanic families are having many more children than other groups.

Lizking · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2004, 09:53:15 PM »

Well, I won't argue, since I don't know enough to, but I did notice you left out the most important of item needed. As an example, in southern Louisiana, you can support 10 cows per acre on natural forage. In Central Texas, it is 10 acres per cow.

Pei · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:24:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Immigration trends were factored into the study, most US gains are from that.

But the point being a reduction on immigration restrictions from Asia and Africa would see a vast increase in numbers arriving in Europe.

This is the study quoted in CNN
http://www.prb.org/pdf04/04WorldDataSheet_Eng.pdf

It's interesting to note certain things:
Euro average = 88% by 2050

but this breaks down by region

Northern Europe = +8% (inc. UK at +10% which will be entirely immigrants or children of recent immigrants)
Western Europe = -1%
Eastern Europe = -19%!
Southern Europe = -7%

I would think the large drops in Eastern and Southern Europe come from people emmigrating, mostly to Western and Northern Europe and especially from new EU countries to old ones.

It would be interesting to see a break down of the US by states. I'd bet you most of those increases would be in states close to the Mexico border and certain large ports of entry.

I also wonder where saturation point is: the UK has a total population of just under 60 million, in an area smaller than many US states.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:34:42 PM »

Whatever way you cut it Europe's overall population is predicted to drop 8% in 2050. Thats a huge issue when the rest of the world is growing so quickly. I imagine its a particukartly vital issue in europe considering the additional fact of Europe's rapidly ageing population and Europe's generally very high level of government handouts to its citizens. Who will pay for all that with such a dramatic decline in population?

Nilsen · « **Reply #24 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:36:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Europe is becoming one entity, the EU is a clear sign of that. As a whole your poulation is rapidly declining, which is going to be a huge problem to your relevance in the world.

What do you think about that? Or are you just trying t0o change the subject and ignore the issue?

Quit trolling grun. had a drink tonight?

How would you like it if i called the entire american continent USA?

One last time. Europe consist of individual nations. Do not mix EU with Europe.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #25 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:37:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pei

I would think the large drops in Eastern and Southern Europe come from people emmigrating, mostly to Western and Northern Europe and especially from new EU countries to old ones.

The net change of such migration on Europe's total poulation is 0 - so it's quite irrelevant in thsi argument about Europe's overall population decline.

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:38:59 PM »

Most important to a Texan, maybe. Besides, I didn't "leave it out", you did. I was merely addressing the items you raised.

Remember, Wyoming is where men are men and sheep are nervous.

Wyoming is usually either #1 or #2 in wool production in the US.

But seriously folks, cattle are Wyoming's #1 livestock product. On North Highland Prairie (Wyoming), 4 acres are required to produce 1 AUM of forage on this range type. AUM is defined as the amount of forage a cow and calf consume in 1 month (about 800 lb of air-dry forage). Maybe you got too many cows in Texas?

Trust me.... Wyoming isn't anywhere near overpopulated yet. Not that they need or want anymore folks. Just keep stackin' 'em higher and wider in the big cities. Works for everybody.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #27 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:40:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Quit trolling grun. had a drink tonight?
How would you like it if i called the entire american continent USA?

One last time. Europe consist of individual nations. Do not mix EU with Europe.

I'm not trolling.

Europe is setting itself up for irrelevance in this rapidly growing world.

The worlds total population will rise 45% by 2050. Europe's will fall 8%.

Arent you worried? Arent you curious why?

Or are you just trying to avoid the subject by challenging my motives for asking the uestion?

Nilsen · « **Reply #28 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:43:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm not trolling.

Europe is setting itself up for irrelevance in this rapidly growing world.

The worlds total population will rise 45% by 2050. Europe's will fall 8%.

Arent you worried? Arent you curious why?

Or are you just trying to avoid the subject by challenging my motives for asking the uestion?

not avoiding the subject. just trying to get you to undertand what europe is. it is not like the USA with one goverment. We are different nations with different immigration policies. therefore i can not answer for europe as one entity.

demaw1 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:50:08 PM »

Believe me grunherz, in a few years europe will be far from irrelevant.