Population growth
 

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 21:28:46 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

The quote above from Andy (Vir Campestris) says "These days most final
salary pensions are public sector". I'm just pointing out that I and
quite a few others are in final salary schemes which aren't public
sector and funded by tax payers.

As the man said... most.

Population growth
 

On 02/11/2015 21:28, Peter Duncanson wrote:
Yes, but this part of the thread is about final salary schemes.

The quote above from Andy (Vir Campestris) says "These days most final
salary pensions are public sector". I'm just pointing out that I and
quite a few others are in final salary schemes which aren't public
sector and funded by tax payers.

Umm. I have a bit of final salary private sector pension I hope won't be
dead by the time I come to claim it. Perhaps I should have said new
ones... though a University scheme is a marginal case. I have a feeling
that the Govt. would bail out your scheme if it ran out of money; I have
less faith that they'd do that for me.

Andy

Population growth
 

On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years
or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs, which won't
happen. Even he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is
to bring the third world into the first. The likelihood of that
happening however is, well, about zero.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate. Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16
billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that
it can't possibly produce enough food for that many. There just isn't
enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest. That
proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected increase
to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an astonishingly
short 12 years from now.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is
on the wall, and it's as well to read it.

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Population growth
 

In message ,
newshound writes
On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate. Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16
billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that
it can't possibly produce enough food for that many. There just isn't
enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest. That
proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected increase
to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an astonishingly
short 12 years from now.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is
on the wall, and it's as well to read it.

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing in 1798, so it's certainly
not a new idea.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

Population growth
 

On 06/11/15 20:58, newshound wrote:
Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Yeah, right.

How are you doing there bud?

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...itics/Okay.png



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Population growth
 

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 21:16:26 +0000, John Hall
wrote:

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Not necessarily. All you can say for certain is that that particular
apocalypse hasn't happened YET! But then again, it depends on what
particular apocalypse you define ... For example, is extinction at
the hands of humankind of a great many of the other species on earth
an apocalypse? Clearly it is for the species concerned, as well as
others that rely on them, possibly even including ourselves. I
probably wouldn't use the word 'apocalypse' to describe it, though,
but words like 'calamity' and 'disaster', definitely.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing in 1798, so it's certainly
not a new idea.

Quite. Predicters of doom and gloom, whether religiously or
scientifically based, can always say: "It just hasn't happened yet!"

Human over-population is a problem, no matter how you look at it. It
may well be that if the general population of the world doesn't choose
to do something to curb it while acting as private individuals, then
governments will have to act forcibly to curb it.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Population growth
 

Java Jive wrote
John Hall wrote

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Not necessarily. All you can say for certain is that
that particular apocalypse hasn't happened YET!

We can also say that while famine was common in the century or two
before say 1945, we don't see that anymore except where the place has
imploded in the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or have
been stupid enough to let some fool like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

And even with the first of those, famine could still be eliminated
if we chose to air drop food into those areas instead of having
our own people distributing the food in those areas.

But then again, it depends on what particular apocalypse you define

Erlich didn't predict an apocalypse and neither did Malthus.

... For example, is extinction at the hands of humankind of
a great many of the other species on earth an apocalypse?

Nothing like what Erlich or Malthus go so completely wrong.

Clearly it is for the species concerned, as well as others
that rely on them, possibly even including ourselves.

We don't rely on any particular species anymore and never have.

I probably wouldn't use the word 'apocalypse' to describe it,
though, but words like 'calamity' and 'disaster', definitely.

But nothing like what Erlich and Malthus
were so mindlessly hyperventilating about.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing
in 1798, so it's certainly not a new idea.

Quite. Predicters of doom and gloom, whether religiously or
scientifically based, can always say: "It just hasn't happened yet!"

But when what they are predicting like famine is in fact
not seen anymore except etc and where it is still seen
can be quite readily fixed by say just executing some fool
like Kim Jong Il, they still have a problem with their claim.

Religious predictions of the end of the world are different in
the sense that the same considerations don't apply to them.

Human over-population is a problem, no matter how you look at it.

But its starting to look like it may be fixing itself and has
done already in the modern first world and much of the
second world now that birth rates are dropping world
wide except where they are already right down in the noise.

It may well be that if the general population of the world doesn't
choose to do something to curb it while acting as private individuals,
then governments will have to act forcibly to curb it.

Not if it ends up limiting itself without any action by
govt or any forcible action by individuals as it has in
the modern first world and much of the second world.

Not one modern first world country is even self replacing
now if you take out immigration, not even the ones that
were a real problem in the past population wise like Ireland.