The United States Is Growing – And Shrinking

At the dawn of the 21st century the United States had about 300 million people, and could add 50 million by 2030. Still, some parts of the US will lose population as more people move to the city.

The Urban Institute’s map of regional population shifts illustrates this. Although Maine won’t see any population growth overall, the population of southern Maine is growing. Northern Maine’s population, however, is shrinking. It’s all about where the jobs are (and are not).

Take a look at the Urban Institute’s map. The rust belt from Upstate New York to Ohio, and down the Appalachians into Kentucky stand out as an area in decline. The Dakotas down to central Texas and New Mexico also stand out.

Texas is poised for a population boom, but it will be concentrated in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio triangle (Austin is in the middle). The coastal South and the West Coast, as well as most major urban areas in the Heartland, are also expected to grow significantly.

It’s not just the United States. The greater Tokyo area has almost 36 million people, but the countryside is emptying out. Some rural Japanese schools are running out of students.

In the mid-20th century, researcher John B. Calhoun made several attempts to create a mouse utopia. He constructed an enclosed area capable of housing 5,000 mice. There was plenty of food, no predators, and the original 8 mice (half male, half female) were disease free. Calhoun thought the mouse population would rise rapidly, then level off, and the mice would have a groovin’ good time with nothing to worry about.

But it went horribly wrong. Every.single.time. (He did this several dozen times.) The problem is that the mice would gather in clusters, while other areas were abandoned. Eventually the overcrowding and competition for resources led to violence among the males. The females stopped bearing young, and some killed their pups.

And then there were the “beautiful ones.” These non-aggressive males withdrew to the abandoned areas to live as hermits. They spent much of their time grooming, hence the nickname.

At first Calhoun wondered if the population decline would level off, enabling mouse society to stabalize as violence decreased. But no. Extinction was the fate of every mouse “utopia.”

What does this mean for humans? Generalizing from one species to another is tricky at best, especially considering that humans are much more intelligent (though Douglas Adams might disagree).

This doesn’t mean the apocalypse.

Still, there are striking parallels. There’s plenty of food on this planet to feed everyone, we no longer have natural predators, and while disease hasn’t been entirely conquered we’ve made enormous strides in medical science.

In addition to crowding into cities and the decline of the countryside, there’s the plummeting birthrates in Europe and Japan to below replacement level, which is expected to result in a population decrease.

But there’s more. In Japan there’s a group of young men called the “grass eaters” or “herbivore men” (草食男子, soshokukei danshi) who live as urban hermits, do not seek sex with women (or men), and who are rumored to spend more than the average man on grooming products. It’s hard to say how numerous they are, but there are enough of them to catch the West’s attention. Will the “beautiful ones” phenomenon come to Europe or America?

On the other hand, there’s contrary evidence. Crime, already low in Japan, has been decreasing. But if Calhoun’s mouse experiment applied equally to humans then crime in Japan should be increasing.

And that’s cause for hope. If humans follow some of the patterns from Calhoun’s experiment but not others then there’s an opportunity for humans to continue thriving.

Advertisements

Messin’ With Texas

I’ve never been to Texas, though I hope to visit someday. You can’t help but hear a lot about it. Being the second largest state, Texas has a huge impact on everything from presidential elections to textbooks.

And Texas is growing fast. The US Census claims the overall Texas population will grow by 6.7 million people over the next 15 years to 33.3 million, but the state of Texas believes it could be more.

And it’s not just a booming population – it’s a shifting population. Today, 80% of Texans identify as white, though this drops to 44% for non-Hispanic whites. Those who identify as Hispanic or Latino are 38% of Texas’s population.

But Looming Boom: Texas Through 2030 by Texas A&M University shows that in just a few years Hispanics will overtake non-Hispanic whites (table 2). By 2030 half of all Texans might be Hispanic. And unlike the northeast, Texas will remain a younger state.

Because younger and Hispanic voters are more likely to vote Democratic, liberals have hopes of Turning Texas Blue.

This is overly optimistic, however, because Anglos are more likely than Hispanics to vote. And Hispanics are a younger demographic, meaning less of the population is of voting age. Besides, Hispanics are a more diverse group than some might realize – they’re more conservative than Anglo Democrats.

That is, Anglo Texans are solidly Republican which makes Democratic inroads difficult. But the GOP may find it easier to appeal to conservative Hispanics – though this will require softening the Republican attitude toward immigration.

We won’t see any change in Texan voting patterns in the 2016 presidential election. And while there probably won’t be much of a shift in 2020’s election, wonks looking at the fine print may notice a glitch in the Matrix.

Even in 2024 most Texans will likely vote for a Republican president because Anglo voter turnout will probably still exceed Hispanic voter turnout.

But the 2028 election should be interesting. I’m guessing that by then Texas will be purple, meaning it will be a swing state like Florida and Ohio are now. This means Republicans can still carry Texas in 2028, but they’ll have to work harder.

Beyond 2028, Texas will probably remain purple, but it will never be Massachusetts or California.

US History from a Latino Perspective

European colonization of what is now the United States starts with the English landing in Virginia and Massachusetts.

Well, not so fast, says Felipe Fernández-Armesto. In his book, Our America: A Hispanic History of the United States, Fernández-Armesto points out that in 1508 Puerto Rico became the first permanent European settlement in what is now US territory. St. Augustine, Florida and Santa Fe, New Mexico are also Spanish settlements predating the English.

Fernández-Armesto challenges us to read American history, not east to west, but north to south: as Mexico expanded into Tejas, California, Colorado and points between, it ran up against US manifest destiny.

The Mexican territory of Tejas, for example, had an illegal immigration problem: white Anglos were moving into the land they mispronounced as Texas, and they brought black slaves with them despite slavery being illegal in Mexico. There were wars (remember the Alamo?) culminating in the Mexican-American War, which Anglo-Americans have mostly forgotten, but which Mexicans and Mexican-Americans remember as well as Southerners remember the Civil War.

Following US acquisition of what is now the Southwest, property owned by Mexicans was confiscated, programs of forced Anglicization were imposed, and racial discrimination (including lynchings) began.

Yet, today we hear people asking, where did all these Hispanics come from?

Fernández-Armesto closes his book by explaining “Why the United States Is – and Has to Be – a Latin American Country” :

…the perspective advocated in this book [is] the United States as a country with a Hispanic past as well as a Hispanic future. Migrants from Hispanic America need not be feared as intruders: they can be welcomed as homecomers. Their language need not be treated as a threat, but relished as an enhancement and embraced as an opportunity. …In the United States we must make pluralism work because, paradoxically perhaps, it is the one creed that can unite us.

p.352-353