Which is why absent immigration, U.S. population growth would stabilize.
I believe we have enough genius
We have the potential for as much genius as we would ever need among the current population.
The trick to having geniuses around is to provide an experience of life that nurtures and inspires the genius latent in many men.
History shows that out of relatively small populations great concentrations of genius can arise.
America's founding fathers furnish one example: The very small population of Colonial America furnished those men (likely in good part precisely because the population was small and the continent so large).
Small Hungary contributed an unusually large percentage of early atomic scientists.
Renaissance Florence gave the world many geniuses, also born from a tiny population within the span of a generation.
Time and again we see this flowering of genius seemingly all out of proportion to the size of the population that spawns it.
If you need more genius, you set the stage for it, and it will arise.
America's founding fathers were inspired to their genius and love of liberty by their experience of living so near to wilderness.
The environment brings out the genius in men.
I believe we have enough . . . land to spare for those who need more elbow room.
No we do not.
The very best places are all filled and then some.
I for one, have no use for any land that has not the seacoast on one side and forests, meadows, and mountains on the other.
And apparently Americans feel that way too, because the coastal areas of America are packed to the gills with people, and still they crowd in more.
You have that in California, but you have to be very rich to fully enjoy it. (Buy on Stinson beach, beyond the gate for owners only..) We left CA after it became clear that we could not go to the coast from inland without spending several hours each way on the road. You are correct about too many people, correct that immigration contributes, but not correct that stopping immigration would in any wany open the roads to the coast. There are too many people like yourself who want this very limited resource.
Florida too, is rife with development on the coast, while inland land is plentiful, and yes they have enough orange groves too. However, to get to the beach via car, you have to spend hours driving and looking for a place to park (Sarasota).
I like the idea of a stable population, that will take reform of all our tax and financial institutions. (Everything today is based on growth.) I prefer a capitalistic approach to distribution of the resources. A way will be found. Regards, KC
I'm a California native. I lived there for nearly 40 years. It's too crowded. My house was only 5 miles from the beach, yet I rarely bothered going. I can recall attending a total of 10 activities on the beach in my lifetime. More severely ingrained is years of sitting in traffic for 40 to 70 minutes in a 7 mile commute to work. That's 40 to 70 minutes EACH WAY. Screw that. I live in Idaho now. No traffic. My "commute" is a 30 foot walk from my bedroom to my office. I drive less than 1,000 miles per year compared to over 1,000 miles per month when I lived in San Diego. My wood burning stove keeps the house nice and comfortable. Neighbors still burn leaves in the Fall. The streets are uncrowded. The snow covered mountains are a 10 minute drive away.
There are plenty of forests, meadows and mountains here. If I'm really hot for some water, the lakes and rivers are just fine. The locals are happy to water ski and jet ski on the local lakes and reservoirs. When the snow arrives, they bring out the snow mobiles, alpine skis and cross country skis. Take a drive from San Diego to Pocatello on I-15. You'll change your mind about "crowding". It's only the people who insist on piling on top of each other in coastal areas who believe things are crowded.