BBC Trust approves Project Canvas
 

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:01:11 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Stephen" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:13:43 +0100, "Anth" wrote:


"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:06:15 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, June 28th, 2010 at 22:46:25h +0100, Nostradamus wrote:

at your local government licensed Cannabis Superstore.

Only the myopic think that such a thing could not happen.

http://www.reuters.COM/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325



Well one thing's for certain the next 30 years are going to be very
different from the ones that preceded them, by 2040 we will probably
need
a
new opiate of the masses and our brains hard wired to be able to cope
with
the brave new world that awaits us!

It's going to need to be cheap considering the millions about to be
thrown on the dole, and then given no money.


To be honest with you IMV the whole of the Western world he's going to be
in
for one big shock as the realization sinks in that the lifestyles that we
have known and loved for the last 60 years will soon become a thing of the
past, i.e. can you see how this country is comfortably going to sustain
70,000,000 plus people within another 20 years?

have a look at the population density of the UK compared to other nice
to live in countries - a 10 to 15% rise doesnt seem such a big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

maybe more of a problem for all those crammed inside the M25.......


So you're quite happy then in the knowledge that a city the size of Bristol,
along with all of the necessary infrastructure will be provided by any UK
government every single year for bloody the next 20 years?
IMHO even if that were possible, I don't think it could be achieved without
a lot of 'bloody' opposition.

i didnt say that, but no i dont like that idea.

You implied the increase to 70m is enough to change the country
completely, and I pointed out a 10% change is unlikely to have that
effect.

Also if you measure population density rather than absolute numbers
then there are more densely populated countries elsewhere in the world
/ Europe with a higher standard of living, so more people on the same
sized island is not intrinsically disastrous.

"The UK's leading sustainable development NGO warns that the UK will
struggle to meet the needs of a population officially projected to reach 70
million by 2030. This is nine million more than in 2008: the equivalent of
adding one city the size of Bristol every year.

Since we have had population growth for a long time and havent started
a new city from scratch since the "new towns" in the 1950s i suspect
this is just meant to illustrate the issue.

anyhow doesnt changing demographics such as fewer families living
together already cause a bigger change in home numbers and their
resource use?

It analyses the implications in a new report, Growing Pains: Population and
Sustainability. Britain will need new houses, schools, hospitals and other
infrastructure to support millions more people. Demand for food, water and
other resources will increase, along with waste and pollution."

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/press-release/growing-pains

from that page you quote, they in turn quote a report:

* The Office for National Statistics National Population Projections,
2009, projects that the UK population will rise from an estimated 61.4
million in 2008 to 70.6 million in 2030.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas....asp?vlnk=8519

so 9.2m over 22 years.

the caveats in the report are worth reading in FAQ
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...008/NPPFAQ.pdf

"The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to
support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century,
and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than
30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and
available to all members in the OPT Journal."

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html







--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

BBC Trust approves Project Canvas
 

"Stephen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:01:11 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Stephen" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:13:43 +0100, "Anth" wrote:


"Albert Ross" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:06:15 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, June 28th, 2010 at 22:46:25h +0100, Nostradamus wrote:

at your local government licensed Cannabis Superstore.

Only the myopic think that such a thing could not happen.

http://www.reuters.COM/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325



Well one thing's for certain the next 30 years are going to be very
different from the ones that preceded them, by 2040 we will probably
need
a
new opiate of the masses and our brains hard wired to be able to cope
with
the brave new world that awaits us!

It's going to need to be cheap considering the millions about to be
thrown on the dole, and then given no money.


To be honest with you IMV the whole of the Western world he's going to
be
in
for one big shock as the realization sinks in that the lifestyles that
we
have known and loved for the last 60 years will soon become a thing of
the
past, i.e. can you see how this country is comfortably going to sustain
70,000,000 plus people within another 20 years?

have a look at the population density of the UK compared to other nice
to live in countries - a 10 to 15% rise doesnt seem such a big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tion_d ensity

maybe more of a problem for all those crammed inside the M25.......


So you're quite happy then in the knowledge that a city the size of
Bristol,
along with all of the necessary infrastructure will be provided by any UK
government every single year for bloody the next 20 years?
IMHO even if that were possible, I don't think it could be achieved
without
a lot of 'bloody' opposition.

i didnt say that, but no i dont like that idea.

You implied the increase to 70m is enough to change the country
completely, and I pointed out a 10% change is unlikely to have that
effect.

Also if you measure population density rather than absolute numbers
then there are more densely populated countries elsewhere in the world
/ Europe with a higher standard of living, so more people on the same
sized island is not intrinsically disastrous.

"The UK's leading sustainable development NGO warns that the UK will
struggle to meet the needs of a population officially projected to reach
70
million by 2030. This is nine million more than in 2008: the equivalent of
adding one city the size of Bristol every year.

Since we have had population growth for a long time and havent started
a new city from scratch since the "new towns" in the 1950s i suspect
this is just meant to illustrate the issue.

anyhow doesnt changing demographics such as fewer families living
together already cause a bigger change in home numbers and their
resource use?

It analyses the implications in a new report, Growing Pains: Population
and
Sustainability. Britain will need new houses, schools, hospitals and other
infrastructure to support millions more people. Demand for food, water and
other resources will increase, along with waste and pollution."

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/press-release/growing-pains

from that page you quote, they in turn quote a report:

* The Office for National Statistics National Population Projections,
2009, projects that the UK population will rise from an estimated 61.4
million in 2008 to 70.6 million in 2030.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas....asp?vlnk=8519

so 9.2m over 22 years.

the caveats in the report are worth reading in FAQ
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...008/NPPFAQ.pdf


|

Well I certainly won't be around to be able to say 'I told you so', but my
own pessimistic view is that we won't be able to sustain our population at
its present level in the style they have grown accustomed to and come to
expect over the last 60 years, let alone an additional 10,000,000 extra
souls on this tiny overcrowded island of ours, at least not without some
kind of breakdown 'social cohesion' (sic) and a serious reduction in the
overall quality of life.
Although I'm no fan of the man, Paddy Ashdown gave a whole raft of reasons
to a BBC 'Question Time' audience a couple of years back, about why (like
myself) he believes that the halcyon days of 'Never Had It So Good' and
endless economic growth are gone for good, not only for the UK but for the
Western World in general.




"The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to
support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century,
and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than
30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and
available to all members in the OPT Journal."

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html

BBC Trust approves Project Canvas
 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:42:47 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


Well I certainly won't be around to be able to say 'I told you so', but my
own pessimistic view is that we won't be able to sustain our population at
its present level in the style they have grown accustomed to and come to
expect over the last 60 years, let alone an additional 10,000,000 extra
souls on this tiny overcrowded island of ours, at least not without some
kind of breakdown 'social cohesion' (sic) and a serious reduction in the
overall quality of life.

Which is of course already happening/has already happened.

Yes I'm relieved I won't have to live much longer.