Lifetime fertility rates in the U.S. varied widely by state and racial/ethnic group, and only two states had a total fertility rate above the level required to sustain a population, researchers found.South Dakota and Utah were the only two states in 2017 with a total lifetime fertility rate above 2,100 births per 1,000 women, the rate needed to keep a population level in the absence of immigration. The Mount Rushmore State topped the ranking with 2,227.5 lifetime births per 1,000 women, reported T.J. Mathews, MS, and Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, of the CDC.But even these rates seemed to be driven by racial and ethnic differences in total fertility rate, with no state reporting a total lifetime fertility rate above "replacement level" for non-Hispanic white women in 2017, the authors wrote in National Vital Statistics Reports.Lifetime fertility rate is defined as "the expected number of births that a group of 1,000 women would have in their lifetimes according to the current age-specific birth rates," and thus, it also measures the potential growth of the population, the authors noted.Researchers examined 2017 birth certificate data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, which contained self-reported information on mothers' race and Hispanic origin.
>>337662Good, we need less people so we can stop global warming. Right shilibs?
Overall, the total lifetime fertility rate for the U.S. as of 2017 was 1,765.5 per 1,000. The District of Columbia had the lowest 2017 total fertility rate at 1,421.0 per 1,000. Compared to South Dakota, this was a difference of 57%, the authors said.The national rate for 2017 represented a drop from the CDC's 2016 analysis, which put the figure at 1,820.5 per 1,000. The rate last stood at 2,100 or above in 1971.Utah also boasted the highest total fertility rate among non-Hispanic white women (2,099.5) -- just a shade below population replacement level.By contrast, total fertility rates for non-Hispanic black women were at or above population replacement level in 12 states, with the highest total fertility rate in Maine (4,003.5).Total lifetime fertility rates for Hispanic women were at or above population replacement level in 29 states. The highest was in Alabama (3,085.0).Number of births was small for some groups, the authors noted, which is a potential limitation to this data.
>>337664Why are you yelling at that pile of straw?
>>337664literally what is wrong with the population going down. Hasnt everyone been afraid of "overpopulation" forever? How is this a bad thing?
Great, next we need to work on asia, japan is already with the program but india and china need to be dealt with
>>337699>How is this a bad thing?Something something white genocide, blah blah fear mongering, yadda yadda look at this unsourced info graphic that completely sways the retards on /pol/ and /r9k/
>>337699"Overpopulation" has always meant too many non-white people. It's just human nature to think that it's always all those other people who are the problem.
>>337699> literally what is wrong with the population going down. Hasnt everyone been afraid of "overpopulation" forever? How is this a bad thing?Indeed; the fewer people there are the better life will be for each individual.Only Useful Idiots for Wall Street shekel shufflers are promoting this propaganda about “falling birth rates!”. The Global Corporate Elite wants us to breed like rats so that wages and benefits will be continually depressed, it’s the same reason the Elites are pushing for open borders, while they live in gate communities patrolled by hired guards...
>>337699it's bad for our elderly overlords to have less workers
Are people actually still concerned about overpopulation? Other then strains on fossil fuel based infrastructures which will eventually be replaced, most other resources associated with population growth can be handled in the long term. 62% of the world's arable land isn't even used for cultivation, and deasalinization could deal with shrinking water reserves in interior land areas. There surely isn't a lack of space, especially in North America, really only tiny areas with already high population densities would be hurt by a growing pop. If one wants to argue that a growing pop would push greenhouse gas emissions to critical global warming levels, I'd argue we're already fucked anyway, regardless if climate change is man-made or natural, and at this point we can only really prepare to live in the newer world.
>>337703You shitting me? You a dumbass? China had the one-child policy that only just got relaxed to a two child policy.
>>337699>>337724as long as ALL the jobs in America get automated before this generation's youth becomes elderly, it's not a bad thing.But in the next 100 years? there's still going to be a demand for able bodies.It's a matter of population control. The government will probably end up importing immigrants to fill the gap.Unsurprisingly, the same thing is going on in China.
>>337759we should focus on a century of faster and more efficient instead of bigger and better. i'd rather live in a future where my kids drive electric rather than they cant drive at all.
>>337662> in the absence of immigration.Well, that would be a problem IF thousands of immigrats weren't begging to be part of our nation.> with no state reporting a total lifetime fertility rate above "replacement level" for non-Hispanic white women in 2017Aw. Poor whitey might have to share.
>>339200> Breed like disgusting roachesFaggot detected.
Less population is good for the environment but that the fall in fertility rate primarily hit whites is a concern. Among the various races, Whites are among the few with a with a fully developed consciousness. If they fall to a low level, not only will the progress of human civilization halt but concern for the preservation of environment will vanish.
>>337709Western countries, where the majority of white people live, are some of the highest per-capita contributors of CO2 emissions in the world. The problem has never been too many people; it's always been too many people demanding the fatass Western lifestyle.
>>339258> per-capita contributors of CO2My negro, South americans are the highest contributers to de-forestation, africans are responsible for near extinction of multiple species on the continent, Asians are responsible for almost depleting the oceans of fish and we could go on like that. Cherry picking a single problem with a single stats that you pulled out of your ass doesn't make it a truth. Sooner or later there will be too many people. There is a number. I do not know what that number is but there is one. Yes, maybe we already reached that number.
>>339258Saudi Arabia is number 1
>>337664What's not so good is the reason for the drop in fertility rates. Sperm counts have fallen dramatically (more than 50% in the last 40 years), probably due to environmental contaminants.
>>337699>literally what is wrong with the population going down. Hasnt everyone been afraid of "overpopulation" forever? How is this a bad thing?The welfare state will collapse, and statists wont be able to bribe their kids with future promises of free stuff
>>337662>Lifetime Fertility Rates Short of Replacement in Nearly All Statesenjoy the Genetic ood amerifats..
>>337662just import more people from the third wold. problem solved.
>>337699Population drop is bad for the GDP, so politicians import foreigners to make up the difference and then some. So while we are having fewer children, our population is still expanding, housing prices are still rising, cities are still over crowding and our need for energy is still expanding. Environmentalists ought to do something about this.
>>339264And meanwhile America, Europe, and China are still the highest contributors to CO2. You can complain about brown people killing dead animals all you want but the facts still remain the same
>>339988Maybe not Europe, most likely some other brown shithole. But, point still stands
>>337699Because when population goes down, they use this as an excuse to import millions of third worlders who turn the country into the one they left.