I don't think it's a debate. We were just trying to find out what we agree on. Those guys are just doing a little research, and I'm reporting what I have observed. We seem to have it pretty well ironed out at this point. I don't have anything else to add and I doubt that they do either. Any further discussion would have to do without me, because I won't be near a computer for more than two weeks.

I think a forum is a good place for discussion, debate, and maybe even a friendly disagreement. But, you're the man. If anything I say seems like it might offend somebody, use that delete button.

I made the mistake of using an out-dated buzz word like population explosion, and as you said, Stephen read it as "doomsday scenario prophecy." I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Howard

> > When the rate of increase is decreasing, there is still an increase.
>
> Why are you arguing the very thing Stephen and Dave have been explicitly making crystal clear? When you say this in response to Dave saying, "Yes, that's still growth. But growth at a much slower and still declining rate," what point are you clarifying?
>
> Stephen seems to have interpreted your initial post on the subject as a doomsday scenario prophecy, which is what ignited this debate. I don't think that's really the point you were trying to make. Yet you continue to seemingly argue with Stephen and Dave as if it were, and using points of agreement as rebuttals. So what's the deal? I just can't figure out your side of this conversation. Are you just ruminating on how much more crowded the country is today? That's kind of what I think, but then again your original post included the line: "They used to warn us about a population explosion. People laughed about it like they do now when global warming is mentioned. But the explosion happened. It's still happening." And the point here is that, no, the population explosion is *not* still happening.
>
> A decrease in the rate of increase is still an increase, yes. But "decreasing increase" doesn't equate to "explosion." Moreover, it suggests that the problems caused by rapid population growth will be alleviated naturally in time -- possibly even to the point where the situation reverses itself, and we start to see a population decline.
>
> True, we can't predict something so complicated decades in advance. Our population might go into decline, and then again maybe there will be a second explosion. What we *do* know is that there isn't a population problem in the United States *now*.