British obsession with population growth

[Zethor]

I was reading this article's (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29668563) comments section and it seems the top rated ones on any article that has anything to do with population/the environment always seem to say something about to the "unsustainable, out of control population growth" that will be our doom.

I'm not convinced that living on a crowded island is a sufficient explanation for this irrational and apparently wide spread belief, that goes as far as praising China's one child policy (which is creating huge long term problems) or its city planning (pollution in the big Chinese cities is close to radioactive levels in some areas).

The main issue developing countries are facing at the moment is insufficient population growth, which puts pressure on the social protection policies and increases immigration indirectly. They think population growth should be decreased and, at the same time, immigration too? That would have a catastrophic impact on the economy, pensions, you name it.. If the site was the Daily Mail, I wouldn't expect the readers to understand that but this is the BBC, where plenty of accurate information on the subject is available on a regular basis... Would someone enlighten me?

 

[Judgeneo]

Comments sections on the BBC are just as misinformed as the DM, and often have just as little to do with the article being commented upon. The only difference is at least on the BBC you get voted down for bad grammar and spelling.

I don't get the fear over population growth either. It comes with challenges, but they are easier to deal with than population decline.

 

[EdwardTeach]

It's not sustainable to have permanent population growth just to protect pensions etc. Where does it stop? If you don't think Britain is already overcrowded -(I do) then surely you would agree that there is some point beyond which it will become unpleasant, 100mil, 200mil.

 

[Tefal]

(pollution in the big Chinese cities is close to radioactive levels in some areas). ?

errrr?????


this statement makes me genuinely wonder if your drunk.

 

[wndsr]

I hear people say that the country is overcrowded or 'full' quite frequently, but how do they know? I have no idea either way, so where are they getting their information from?

 

[Destination]

is insufficient population growth, which puts pressure on the social protection policies and increases immigration indirectly. ... Would someone enlighten me?

It is completely unsustainable to suggest that ever increasing numbers are young are the way to pay for increasing numbers of old.
That is basically what you are suggesting, a pyramid scheme, by which we keep all massively larger numbers to the bottom to support the top.

When we don't make enough food here to support ourselves as it is, if everyone else did the same, there wouldn't be enough crop production worldwide to source enough to continue this.

 

[Jokester]

Yeah but no government wants to tackle the issue because it's a huge voter loser.

 

[Tefal]

The main issue developing countries are facing at the moment is insufficient population growth, which puts pressure on the social protection policies

My friend Mr Ponzi has an investment opportunity thats perfect for you!!!

 

[Amp34]

Unfortunately our current economic model relies on what is essentially exponential population growth. We need twice as many people to look after and pay for the previous generation as they reach retirement. This is just unsustainable, not just on a national level but at a world level as well.

We as a world don't have enough resources for this population explosion (and it is a population explosion), especially as the burgeoning middle classes of the developing nations are striving to be like the west. As an example of the problem if all the current population of the world we're living like us in the UK we would need the equivalent of around 3.5 "earths" to sustain us. Even future technology and advances in intensive farming/resource extraction are unlikely to help to that extent. And it gets worse, the UK is actually one of the least consuming nation in the west. Many other European nations use more resources per capita, let alone North america and Australia.

Unfortunately that means to actually maintain our standard of living (in the west) we have two options, reduce the world population to more sustainable levels or resign ourselves to the fact we need to force billions to stay in poverty (and that's not really going to help is it...). Otherwise, carrying on the rod we are now, we will have to resign ourselves to a reduced standard of living in the west.

Many of the problems in Africa (for example) can be traced to population growth. The main problems are not because there aren't enough people, more the population explosion of the last 50 years. The African population has gone from 100 million in 1950 to over half a billion 60 years later. That growth is mostly down to western medication and vaccination but has caused even more pressure on natural resources.

Water is one of the big examples, with drought being a major issue throughout many parts of Africa, with populations to great to be sustained by local resources. It's not just Africa, western regions like California are realising that even with western technology water is not infinite. In the long term California is ****** and having to pump resources from even greater distances, while those living in those areas are realising that transfer is affecting them and are becoming more and more vocal about California not being allowed it.

History is littered with examples of what over population and resources shortages do to civilisations. From South America to Europe to Asia there are reminders from multiple past civilisations of the war and collapse that happens when we reach this point.

That's all without going into the environmental effects out rampant destruction of the environment for unsustained population growth is doing. We have basically sterilised the UK and even current beacons of biodiversity are struggling. Just recently a study came out pointing to humans having almost halved animal life on this planet in 50 years... We share this planet, not own it, and as a smart creature have responsibilities to help protect this planet. An unsustainable population growth is not helping.

Unfortunately the real problem is not an increasing population in the UK, it's the unsustainable growth throughout the world. If you actually want to know more a quick google will provide plenty of referenced links and studies on the problem. Unfortunately it's not politically correct to really talk about it because it essentially means we have to change our whole system. Instead we try and stick small plasters over the gaping wounds - "climate change", "water scarcity", "deforestation", "flooding (directory related to overpopulation)", "food scarcity".

 

[Zethor]

It's not sustainable to have permanent population growth just to protect pensions etc. Where does it stop? If you don't think Britain is already overcrowded -(I do) then surely you would agree that there is some point beyond which it will become unpleasant, 100mil, 200mil.

It is completely unsustainable to suggest that ever increasing numbers are young are the way to pay for increasing numbers of old.
That is basically what you are suggesting, a pyramid scheme, by which we keep all massively larger numbers to the bottom to support the top.

When we don't make enough food here to support ourselves as it is, if everyone else did the same, there wouldn't be enough crop production worldwide to source enough to continue this.

With life expentancy and health care costs increasing, how could the state cover these expenses in the long term, without young people that continuously join the workforce? The population growth doesn't have to be explosive but it has to be positive. The only alternative is to stop proving care for the elderly and let them die. If you're not worried about that now, you will be when you join the ranks of the elderly in a few years.

errrr?????


this statement makes me genuinely wonder if your drunk.

http://jrr.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/283.full.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/03/idUS318418519320101003
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...ng-China-uranium-deposits/UPI-17121353520321/

 

[Destination]

With life expentancy and health care costs increasing, how could the state cover these expenses in the long term, without young people that continuously join the workforce? The population growth doesn't have to be explosive but it has to be positive. The only alternative is to stop proving care for the elderly and let them die. If you're not worried about that now, you will be when you join the ranks of the elderly in a few years.

And at what point does your pyramid collapse?
Would you not suggest promoting an alternative prior to the destruction of the planet?

 

[( |-| |2 ][ $]

Well said Amp34. I wish this topic would be discussed more.

When you hear about the ~50 billion chickens we eat a year. I'm considering not having children, it just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

 

[Cold_And_Miserable]

The Earth can sustain 1 to 1.5 billion humans to a decent middle class living standard.

More people means reduced living standards e.g. no meat, no cocoa, no coffee, fewer luxuries, no air conditioning, no reliable electricity grid, reduced wildlife/forests due to farmland expansion, increased crime/war over lack of resources.

 

[Zethor]

Unfortunately the real problem is not an increasing population in the UK, it's the unsustainable growth throughout the world. If you actually want to know more a quick google will provide plenty of referenced links and studies on the problem. Unfortunately it's not politically correct to really talk about it because it essentially means we have to change our whole system. Instead we try and stick small plasters over the gaping wounds - "climate change", "water scarcity", "deforestation", "flooding (directory related to overpopulation)", "food scarcity".

The complaints I mentioned refer to the Britain's population explosion, not the world's. That being said, models show the world's population will peak in ~50 years and then either stagnate or start to decrease. So, again, what are we so worried about here?

 

[Tefal]

That being said, models show the world's population will peak in ~50 years and then either stagnate or start to decrease. So, again, what are we so worried about here?

you know what that means right?

it doesn't just mean people go "oh lets stop having kids" it means they start staving to death.

And what people are worried about is this, what happens when you and your country is starving and desperate and another country has food?

Lets just say asking nicely goes out the window and with there still being about 50,000+ nuclear weapons rattling round let alone chemical or biological that decline in population is going to be a vertical line on the graph at times....

 

[Tefal]

http://jrr.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/283.full.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/03/idUS318418519320101003
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...ng-China-uranium-deposits/UPI-17121353520321/

you don't understand what radiation is do you?

 

[Jokester]

you know what that means right?

it doesn't just mean people go "oh lets stop having kids" it means they start staving to death.

Actually it does, all the evidence shows that population growth slows down as nations become better educated and wealthier and this is the main driver for the projections of the world's population stopping growing mid way through this century.

 

[Zethor]

And at what point does your pyramid collapse?
Would you not suggest promoting an alternative prior to the destruction of the planet?

It won't collapse, unless rules such as one child are imposed. Life expentancy will not increase forever, we will reach biological limits at some point which is when a stagnating population will be sustainable. With life expentancy increasing at the moment, population growth is mandatory.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually it does, all the evidence shows that population growth slows down as nations become better educated and wealthier and this is the main driver for the projections of the world's population stopping growing mid way through this century.

This, so much misinformation and stupidity in this thread,

 

[Zethor]

you don't understand what radiation is do you?

Why don't you try reading what I've initially stated and then writing a counter argument slightly more complex than a one liner?

And what people are worried about is this, what happens when you and your country is starving and desperate and another country has food?

Nothing world shattering happens, as seen in Somalia. If your country is starving, it's due to its extremely low levels of productivity not unsustainable population. If you can't feed your people, you can't go to war either.