British obsession with population growth

[smelly_legend]

isn't this to do with the more poor you are the more kids you will have to continue yer genetic code? When you get loaded you have less kids ?

 

[drunkenmaster]

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



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.

You equated the levels of polution to approaching a radioactive level.

It's like talking about the temperature outside and saying it's getting so hot it's approaching a plane. One has NOTHING to do with the other, the level of pollution is completely independent and separate to what the pollution is made of.

Pollution does not reach a point where if there is enough of it, it becomes radioactive. If the source of pollution is radioactive, it is radioactive if it's a low level source of pollution or a large source.


AS for your general understanding of the entire subject of the thread we all doubt it.

You on one hand say we must have growth to cover costs and it's important for the economy yet you also post links suggesting the population growth will stop in 50 years....... these are diametrically opposed arguments yet you're making them and not linking the two.

By your own idea of the population growth stopping in 50 years, the economy will get screwed in 50 years when the growth stops. Is it better to fix this problem now, with the current population or to walk into a known problem in 50-100 years when the population has doubled?

An inefficient, non working economy that IS failing and is ONLY propped up by exponential population growth that can quite obviously not continue indefinitely is not one we should strive to save. We should plan for the model to fail NOW and fix it rather than ignore it, have it fail anyway, but have it fail with no plan in place and with a vastly higher population to support once it all goes to crap.

There is entirely no need for population to grow higher, it's a detriment to every part of life.

We live in smaller and smaller houses, with more and more people per house stuffed into ever more polluted cities, all because of population growth.

The current model is 100% unsustainable, the only intelligent course of action is to make a plan and fix it now rather than be forced to fix it later when the consequences will be much much worse.

 

[Tefal]

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.

you know we cant feed ourselves right now? uk barely produces about 50% of our food and isn't even capable of producing 100% without crazy measure like vertical farming on a scale that would put most of our cities to shame.

Somalia starving your right isn't an issue. the UK Russia china and America all starving at the same time though?

yeah they aint gonna just sit back and let it happen we'll kill each other.

 

[Jokester]

you know we cant feed ourselves right now? uk barely produces about 50% of our food and isn't even capable of producing 100% without crazy measure like vertical farming on a scale that would put most of our cities to shame.

Somalia starving your right isn't an issue. the UK Russia china and America all starving at the same time though?

yeah they aint gonna just sit back and let it happen we'll kill each other.

We live in a largely single global economy. It's cheaper to grow food elsewhere and import it in a lot of cases.

 

[Destination]

We live in a largely single global economy. It's cheaper to grow food elsewhere and import it in a lot of cases.

Aye, and when it isn't we die or starve, as they'll keep the food they make, as they need it.
That's the point, the world continuing growth has to be slowed.
You can't keep relying on more and more as the original OP suggested.

 

[Destination]

you don't understand what radiation is do you?

He appears to understand it to the same degree as he understands population growth.

 

[Jokester]

Aye, and when it isn't we die or starve, as they'll keep the food they make, as they need it.
That's the point, the world continuing growth has to be slowed.
You can't keep relying on more and more as the original OP suggested.

Food is down the list of things that will run out first. Water and energy (at least cheap energy) are the two everyone should be worried about.

 

[Amp34]

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?

England (as opposed to the UK) is the second most densely populated larger nation (i.e. excluding city states) in Europe, only exceeded by Malta...

With Scotland, Wales and NI we aren't much better, being within the top 5. There is very little "nature" left in the UK. Even the "desolate" moors, highlands and peaks are heavily managed and farmed for sheep and deer. As I've mentioned several times in the past on here NONE of the UK National Parks actually "qualify" as national parks by international standards, being heavily industrially modified areas of the country rather than untouched pristine areas.

 

[Amp34]

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.

A question for you then. How do you intend to feed and house the 150 million people living in the UK in 2114? What about the 300 million in 2214?

Those numbers aren't a population explosion, they would in fact be a lower growth rate than we have had over the last 200 years... All of which pale in comparison to the population growth in Africa I mentioned earlier.

Or is it just another thing we just pass on to future generations as "their" problem, like we have for the last 100?

 

[Amp34]

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.

Same, although I think even having "just" two children would still be reasonably sustainable, as long as the vast majority had a maximum of two, then we would have a slow, sustainable reduction in population.

Alliteratively a single child would probably be ok. Either way it's worth remembering the biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and/or environmental damage you can do is to not have kids... reducing the number of miles you drive, times you fly or recycling more are just tiny pin*****s in comparison.

 

[Dave M]

A question for you then. How do you intend to feed and house the 150 million people living in the UK in 2114? What about the 300 million in 2214?

Those numbers aren't a population explosion, they would in fact be a lower growth rate than we have had over the last 200 years... All of which pale in comparison to the population growth in Africa I mentioned earlier.

More to the point, what am I going to do in 20 years when I'm 4 meters tall? And this is not some made up number, in fact it is slightly less than my height growth in the last 20 years!

 

[Amp34]

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?

For your first point see my earlier post about population density. Add to that the fact we as a well educated, rich western nation need to be leading the charge rather than telling others to do what we don't want to. Your suggestion of continued expansion is just not sustainable no matter what way you look at it!

On the second point current projections suggest a peak at around 2100 and a population of 11 Billion. Unfortunately the 9Billion figure has been overtaken. That's basically adding another half onto the population of the world over the next 100 years.

Adding that many more people to a world already struggling under the impact of the 7.5 billion we have right now is catastrophic. That's before we contemplate the affect of the growing middle classes mentioned earlier. Billions are being born into poverty that will never be solvable.

 

[Zethor]

You equated the levels of polution to approaching a radioactive level.

It's like talking about the temperature outside and saying it's getting so hot it's approaching a plane. One has NOTHING to do with the other, the level of pollution is completely independent and separate to what the pollution is made of.

Pollution does not reach a point where if there is enough of it, it becomes radioactive. If the source of pollution is radioactive, it is radioactive if it's a low level source of pollution or a large source.

There's a context and I posted some links too. Coal ash has radioactive elements but, in normal circumstances, they aren't dangerous. However, in some areas in China, coal ash polution is so high that those radioactive elements pose a threat to human health and the environment.

AS for your general understanding of the entire subject of the thread we all doubt it.

It's good that you 'all' have a spokeperson now, makes things easier.

You on one hand say we must have growth to cover costs and it's important for the economy yet you also post links suggesting the population growth will stop in 50 years....... these are diametrically opposed arguments yet you're making them and not linking the two. .

Growth has already stopped in the developed countries, for the most part, which is why they take in immigrants (the economies need them). In 50 years, the world's population growth is expected to stop as well. There are no contradictions here...

By your own idea of the population growth stopping in 50 years, the economy will get screwed in 50 years when the growth stops. Is it better to fix this problem now, with the current population or to walk into a known problem in 50-100 years when the population has doubled?

The developed economies won't be screwed in 50 years when did I say that? Fix what problem? The population growth in Nigeria? How exactly does that affect you?

An inefficient, non working economy that IS failing and is ONLY propped up by exponential population growth that can quite obviously not continue indefinitely is not one we should strive to save. We should plan for the model to fail NOW and fix it rather than ignore it, have it fail anyway, but have it fail with no plan in place and with a vastly higher population to support once it all goes to crap.

There is entirely no need for population to grow higher, it's a detriment to every part of life.

Developed economies are efficient, they do work and they don't need exponential growth. They need a slow growth because their life expectancy is growing slowly.. What do you not understand?

We live in smaller and smaller houses, with more and more people per house stuffed into ever more polluted cities, all because of population growth.

Houses are getting smaller in London, in example. but they aren't getting smaller in the Highlands, in example. Population growth has nothing to do with it, it's simply money gravitating toward money.

The current model is 100% unsustainable, the only intelligent course of action is to make a plan and fix it now rather than be forced to fix it later when the consequences will be much much worse.

What is this model you speak of? Can you elaborate?

you know we cant feed ourselves right now? uk barely produces about 50% of our food and isn't even capable of producing 100% without crazy measure like vertical farming on a scale that would put most of our cities to shame.

UK can and does feed itself, as well as throwing roughly 50% of the food it uses... Why would you want to produce all food locally, are you afraid the world will magically revert to antiquity?

Somalia starving your right isn't an issue. the UK Russia china and America all starving at the same time though?

yeah they aint gonna just sit back and let it happen we'll kill each other.

Would you explain why the UK, Russia, China and America will suddenly start starving and the relation to the low population growth of these countries?

 

[Amp34]

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.

Yep, a couple of the weapons being used by charities trying to slow the population growth and bring many out of poverty is education* and empowerment of women. It's a win all round, unfortunately they are fighting against centuries of cultural norms.

*both in terms of school and in terms of educating on contraception and where poverty comes from.

 

[Tefal]

UK can and does feed itself,

no it doesn't not even remotely close
it buys food from others. and when they need food they aint gonna sell it top us or when somone offers them more they aint gonna sell it to us what then?

as well as throwing roughly 50% of the food it uses... Why would you want to produce all food locally, are you afraid the world will magically revert to antiquity?

No im afriand that china russia and america will be able to pay more and out bid us tbh.

or china will just invade/take over north Africa and then we wont be able to buy our food there like we do now.

Would you explain why the UK, Russia, China and America will suddenly start starving and the relation to the low population growth of these countries?

because the countries they buy food from will be eating it themselves.

 

[Amp34]

More to the point, what am I going to do in 20 years when I'm 4 meters tall? And this is not some made up number, in fact it is slightly less than my height growth in the last 20 years!

Logic fail there.

But seriously if Zethor insists our population needs to keep growing for our way of life to function we will need to keep at least something resembling the past rate of population growth (in the UK it's been pretty steady) so I don't think those numbers are that far off what would be needed for our current model to be sustained.

EDIT: As a good illustration of the point http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18854073 (note only England and Wales, not Scotland, which has around 8 million).

Population in England and Wales grew from about 46 million in 1960 to 56 million in 2011 and have almost doubled since 1911...

 

[Zethor]

no it doesn't not even remotely close
it buys food from others. and when they need food they aint gonna sell it top us or when somone offers them more they aint gonna sell it to us what then?



No im afriand that china russia and america will be able to pay more and out bid us tbh.

or china will just invade/take over north Africa and then we wont be able to buy our food there like we do now.

China, Russia and America are all growing slowly, why would they need more food and pay more for it?

because the countries they buy food from will be eating it themselves.

http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/food/food-global.html

Let's see.. the main UK imports come from The Netherlands (not growing), Spain (not growing), France (not growing), Ireland (not growing), Germany (not growing). Given these facts, please explain why these countries, which have stagnating populations, will suddenly start eating all the food themselves?

 

[Amp34]

The developed economies won't be screwed in 50 years when did I say that? Fix what problem? The population growth in Nigeria? How exactly does that affect you?

They will be competing for resources we need to keep our way of life going...

Developed economies are efficient, they do work and they don't need exponential growth. They need a slow growth because their life expectancy is growing slowly.. What do you not understand?

Perhaps you should actually look up exponential growth... A growth rate of 2%, as is the target for the UK economy, means the economy would double in size in around 30 years... and double again in another 30, double again in another 30...

As an example if the UK's population grew by 0.5% a year from now, assuming 65 Million, then in 2114 the population will be 107 million...

What is this model you speak of? Can you elaborate?

The current economic model the whole of the western world runs on...

UK can and does feed itself, as well as throwing roughly 50% of the food it uses... Why would you want to produce all food locally, are you afraid the world will magically revert to antiquity?

Which is why during WW2 with 40 million people we almost starved to death, even with food still coming in from abroad.

Lets not forget the issues going on in Africa again. At the moment farmers are being forced of the land they have been farming for generations so the government can sell huge tracts of land to western (and Chinese) companies to grow food for us. These tracts are generally the most fertile in the regions and are great for us, not so great for the farmers pushed into poverty...

Would you explain why the UK, Russia, China and America will suddenly start starving and the relation to the low population growth of these countries?

For starters water shortages and poor land management causing desertification of their farmland. This causes a reduction in the amount of food they can grow in their borders, even though their populations are still expanding. This in turn means they need to import more food from abroad...

I don't know much about Russia but the US and China are both reaching a point where water is starting to become an issue. That issue is only going to get worse with climate change. Those two nations aren't the only ones. Many nations in Africa are having the same issue. The increase in the amount of cattle and other livestock is taking its toll on grassland in sub saharan Africa and land is increasingly becoming unfit for wildlife to graze, with the desert slowly prograding south over once reasonably fertile land.

Other examples include areas you wouldn't necessarily think of having an issue. Florida for example has experienced significant drops in ground water levels due to the intensive pumping by farmers in the state. Texas is having the same problem, to the point where many boreholes are becoming dry. California as already mentioned is in dire straits, with many of the lakes they pump water from almost gone (look into the Owens valley as an example).

 

[Destination]

Zethor, you don't happen to be a special advisor in economics to the labour party do you?
Sounding awfully like one.

How is continual growth as you have suggested ever going to work in the long term, when we simply can't make enough food or clean enough water, or supply enough power?

 

[Tefal]

China, Russia and America are all growing slowly, why would they need more food and pay more for it?




http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/food/food-global.html

Let's see.. the main UK imports come from The Netherlands (not growing), Spain (not growing), France (not growing), Ireland (not growing), Germany (not growing). Given these facts, please explain why these countries, which have stagnating populations, will suddenly start eating all the food themselves?

Did you read that thats the "value" not the quantity.

next time your in the fruit and veg isle at the supermarket have a look at the source Egypt will be the main one for you.


Also you keep saying that "well all these rich countries arnt growing" .


but you argument is they need to grow (and rapidly) or else they will be in dire straights social protection wise.

cant be both.