Brave New Century

Current immigration levels have grave demographic and environmental implications. It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. [1] R.E.M. On January 13, 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau released its latest population projections, as it does every few years. This time, perhaps prompted by the changing century and new millennium, the Bureau took an even longer view than usual. Its demographers aimed their spotting scope of methodologies and assumptions at the distant demographic horizon toward which the vessel United States of America is heading. They peered all the way to the year 2100. [2] What they saw over the coming century is truly ominous: demographic iceberg looms ahead. The most probable scenario, according to Census, is more than doubling of an already huge population that ranks third in the world, surpassed only by colossuses China and India. But unlike the crew members of the RMS Titanic who spotted an iceberg from the crows nest on that cold April night in 1912, the Census Bureau demographers expressed no particular alarm at their own findings. Far from it. Instead they offered soothing reassurances about where the country's population is headed. Principal author Frederick Hollmann told the Washington Post, Our projections in 2100 will give us population density one-quarter of the United Kingdom. We'll still be sparsely populated country among the industrialized countries of the world. [3] He may as well have said: Smooth sailing ahead. Steady as she goes! Certainly no alarm was sounded, no urgent advisory issued that the nation had better change course, and soon. Yet if Census' complacency contrasted with that of Titanic's iceberg spotters, the widespread apathy of the press, politicians, the general public, and even environmentalists to these projections is similar to that of the doomed luxury liner's passengers moments after it grazed the iceberg--the party continues, and the band plays on. Optimism reigns, at least on the surface. After all, the United States of America, like the Titanic, is unsinkable. In the glow of generally prosperous times, mesmerized by apparently limitless technological possibilities, why should Americans care if the U.S. population doubles or even quadruples by the end of the new century? The Projections As usual, the Bureau released three sets of projections, the lowest, middle, and highest scenarios from 1999 to 2100. The trends are obvious. From current U.S. population of about 275 million, the most conservative projection shows population surpassing 300 million before 2025, cresting at 313 million in 2050, before beginning to decline by 2100 toward roughly the same size as our present population. In the middle, considered the most probable, rapid growth continues, and by 2100, population will have doubled. The highest projection shows population growing more than exponentially, as growth increases from 1.2 to 1.5 percent per year, quadrupling our numbers in 100 years. In the more moderate scenario, annual growth rate declines very gradually from 0.92 percent in 2000 to 0.69 percent in 2100. Yet actual annual population increase rises from 2.5 million in 2000 to 3.8 million in 2100, because the base against which the percentage is applied has swollen so much. Paradoxically, rather like Alice in Wonderland, the closer we seem to get to zero population growth, the further away we actually get. The United States grew by 200 million people in the 20th century; the middle series projects 300 million more in the 21st. Consider the huge variation between the lowest and highest projections. The highest projection is four times greater than the lowest, and the middle projection is twice the lowest. The two extreme projections are based on lower and higher assumptions about the major determinants of population change: fertility, mortality, and immigration. The Bureau cautions, of course, that neither the lower nor the higher projection is likely scenario, but instead they are presented to illustrate a degree of uncertainty around the central series. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.