Hacker News Reader

Comment by biomcgary | Hacker News Reader

The paper has a strong anti-immigration implication for the US, if you think energy use is inherently dangerous (since it historically correlates with CO2 production). According to the paper, the US has the largest energy consumption per unit of population growth. Thus, to save the world, we must limit US population increases more than increases in other countries. US government policy to reduce population growth can target reproduction and/or immigration. Of the two, which do you think will have more support in the current climate (pun intended)?

Personally, I think making energy less environmentally costly is a better route than worrying about population size.

View on HN

All US population groups other than post-1965 immigrants have below replacement fertility. If you really care about energy use, stopping mass immigration is the only choice -- reducing population growth among core Americans is moot.

And the East Asian and European immigration could continue -- those national origin immigrants assimilate to American birthrates or lower immediately. It's the Central Americans, Caribbeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans that are driving all long term population growth.

And now I see why the opening paragraphs warn about political incorrectness. Comment readers, please just ignore that aspect.

This reasoning is spurious, I feel. We know that illegal immigration happens; we also know that wealth and happiness, especially education and stability for women, results in lower birth rates. Attempting to stem immigration means that instead of immigrants being happy, stable and educated they will be poor, marginalized and unstable. This will push up birth rates. In addition, preventing immigration only helps if the immigrants use more resources here than they do in their nation of origin - this is not clear. Are those immigrants with high birth rates even burning fuel at the rate of a typical American? Let's know that first before we start banning them.

> All US population groups other than post-1965 immigrants have below replacement fertility.

U.S. Mormons have greater-than-replacement fertility rates, making Utah top the nation's fertility rates. (Posting as WildUtah, you should know this!)

I wasn't thinking of religious groups, but yes. The Mos (and the Amish) are keeping it up.

That is equivalent to saying that humans that are not Americans should live in squalor so that there is more environment left over for resource-greedy Americans.

Living in their own countries instead of America doesn't mean living in squalor unless they choose to make their own lands squalid.

If Americans were to reduce their energy consumption to the level of the immigrants' home countries they would probably consider it living in squalor.

Or make energy consumption more efficient?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com