Population Overshoot

State Population Estimates in 2005 [emphasis mine]

The Associated Press
Thursday, December 22, 2005; 6:06 AM

Population estimates in 2005 and percent change from 2004 in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the entire United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

State 2005 Population Percent Change
Ala. 4,557,808 0.7
Alaska 663,661 0.9
Ariz. 5,939,292 3.5
Ark. 2,779,154 1.1
Calif. 36,132,147 0.8
Colo. 4,665,177 1.4
Conn. 3,510,297 0.3
Del. 843,524 1.6
D.C. 550,521 -0.7
Fla. 17,789,864 2.3
Ga. 9,072,576 1.7
Hawaii 1,275,194 1.0
Idaho 1,429,096 2.4
Ill. 12,763,371 0.4
Ind. 6,271,973 0.7
Iowa 2,966,334 0.5
Kan. 2,744,687 0.4
Ky. 4,173,405 0.8
La. 4,523,628 0.4
Maine 1,321,505 0.5
Md. 5,600,388 0.7
Mass. 6,398,743 -0.1
Mich. 10,120,860 0.2
Minn. 5,132,799 0.7
Miss. 2,921,088 0.7
Mo. 5,800,310 0.7
Mont. 935,670 0.9
Neb. 1,758,787 0.6
Nev. 2,414,807 3.5
N.H. 1,309,940 0.8
N.J. 8,717,925 0.4
N.M. 1,928,384 1.3
N.Y. 19,254,630 -0.1
N.C. 8,683,242 1.7
N.D. 636,677 0.1
Ohio 11,464,042 0.1
Okla. 3,547,884 0.7
Ore. 3,641,056 1.4
Pa. 12,429,616 0.3
R.I. 1,076,189 -0.3
S.C. 4,255,083 1.4
S.D. 775,933 0.7
Tenn. 5,962,959 1.2
Texas 22,859,968 1.7
Utah 2,469,585 2.0
Vt. 623,050 0.3
Va. 7,567,465 1.2
Wash. 6,287,759 1.3
W.Va. 1,816,856 0.2
Wis. 5,536,201 0.6
Wyo. 509,294 0.7
Nation 296,410,404 0.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

I figure the huge jumps in California and Texas are due to border crossings (those that they counted).

Low population density states, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska represent large geographical areas and very low population ratios.

There are a few other low population states, but they are much smaller geographically and surrounded by much higher population density states.

Something not so obvious, the total is 296,410,404 counted persons, which is off by a guestimate factor of 20% or more. There is NO WAY that 300 million counted persons can be fed post crash. And this only represents the United States. What about Mexico with it’s teeming millions? Canada?

I suggest that you think on this factual number long and hard. Our devestated environment cannot possibly support this number of people without petroleum. Not even close. Maybe 3 – 10 million. Maybe.

Die off. Soon to be a fact of life. Starvation. Rioting. War. Pillage. Plunder. Population overshoot. It’s a fact.

Natural selection is about to make itself known. It’s called survival of the fittest, meanest, baddest and most ruthless. If you’re not making preparations, I suggest you do.

admin

admin at survivalacres dot com

5 thoughts on “Population Overshoot

  • December 23, 2005 at 11:18 am
    Permalink

    I’d like to address a little “inconsistency” I have seen in countless essays about the die-off.

    First, if “die-off” is inevitable, then you cannot prepare for it. If everyone “prepared” for it, we’d still die off.

  • December 23, 2005 at 11:30 am
    Permalink

    And finally, even though it’s true that urban and suburban areas have more people, if we use the estimate that the destroyed ecosystem cannot support any more than 10 million people, even the rural areas are overpopulated. The rural population is still over 50 million in this country.

    I can think of no place that hasn’t “overshot.”

    As Dale Allen Pfeiffer pointed out:

    “I do not advocate heading for the hills. Those hills are already occupied and are less likely to accept newcomers.”

    Obviously, Pfeiffer might be making an extremely generalized assumption, but he does make a point that others in this forum have also made (such as NordicThora.)

    This also shows the other fantasy that’s been posted on other websites–that somehow it will be possible to have a “utopian” hunter-gatherer world in a beautiful ecosystem once the die-off is over.

  • December 27, 2005 at 5:40 am
    Permalink

    The problem in surburban / urban areas is two-fold. Population density and water. Growing food there is quite possible, but probably not possible in the quantities required.

    Rural areas have better access to water, in general. Anyone who doesn’t “advocate heading for the hills” doesn’t know what he is talking about, or has never lived in the country to understand the huge difference between what is possible here (I do) and what is possible there (in the city). I have lived in both places and frankly, would not advocate anyone staying in the city.

    The hills are not “occupied” as Dale seems to be believe, curious why he’d make such a statement.

    Regarding population numbers, the ecosystem in a hunter / gatherer lifestyle couldn’t support more then a few hundred thousand, so yes, we are in serious overshoot regarding rural dwellers if they think they can revert to primitivism and live off the land. I don’t advocate this either, what a great way to wipe off the rest of the remaining creatures.

  • December 30, 2005 at 11:42 am
    Permalink

    It’s interesting too. Dale, after all, lives in the country himself.

    It’s also interesting that some cities have parts of them that are quite rural within their limits (and some suburbs). My grandparents lived on a 4-acre property on the “edge” of the city of Cincinnati with a forest and access to various creeks with water on their property.

    My uncle owned 1 acre of land along a hill in a well-forested area and had the rights to water on his side of another creek in the “edge” of Indianapolis. He was surrounded by horse breeders and farmers.

    Now he lives in a suburban development right on the border of farmland and forests. Across his land are miles of cornfields and hilly forested areas, and there’s even an ostrich herder who sells ostrich meat in his development (along with common forested areas which residents sometimes harvest for wood).

    Interestingly, many “upper-class” suburbs in the Chicago metro area are quite rural. One affluent suburb has a density of approximately 140 people per square mile and everyone who lives there, by zoning requirements, has at least 5 acres of land. Agriculture does go on around them as well.

  • December 30, 2005 at 11:43 am
    Permalink

    Of course, while those areas might be semi-rural themselves, they still have another problem–their proximity to an urban area.

Leave a Reply