Population growth
 

"RayL12" wrote in message ...
On 29/10/2015 9:06 PM, GB wrote:
On 29/10/2015 18:03, Adrian wrote:

And the Chinese population's dropped since 1979 has it? Oh, wait. It
hasn't. It's 40% higher than it was - in a country with net migration of
1.5m annually...

Many countries have a very high young population. For example
Mozambique, where 45% of the population is under 15. There's population
growth built in in these countries even if they implemented radical
birth control policies.

So, the Chinese one child policy has been very effective, despite their
population growing. Their proportion under 15 is now just 16% (cf UK:
18%), which is why they have relaxed the policy.

http://kff.org/global-indicator/popu...-under-age-15/

I remember reading a report or, maybe I saw it on TV, that showed changing
conditions in the vitality and virility of sperm in men was dependant upon their
living standards.

Observations showed that men of communities of high stress and high mortality
produced more active sperm, while, men in areas of easy living and contentment
less so.

Ignoring all other factors of population influence, this would suggest that
population control is programmed within us.

Can you tell us just how many active sperm it takes to make a baby?

It seems that we are not alive unless we have a little stress?

10M extra people in Britain over the current 7xM? That means I may notice an
extra 0.14 people walking about? Lord help us!

They'll probably have to walk because of the 14% increase in traffic and the
consequent increase in congestion they'll cause on all modes of transport.

Population growth
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:

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.

Which makes all attempts to control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions futile.

It puts it in perspective certainly.

Population growth
 

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population, which is
increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?

Population growth
 

On 30/10/15 08:04, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:45, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:


Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


As someone mentioned this morning, the whole idea of an increasing young
financing the old is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The world's
population has increased massively within a couple of centuries and is
unsustainable whether people like the alternatives or not.

+20 billion or so.....

All those who say that 'limits to growth' is tosh because we haven't yet
reached any remind me of the man falling passed the 30th floor of an
office block replying, on being asked how he was doing 'Okay so far'

The current migrant crisis is the first sign of the ground rushing up to
meet us.


--
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, 30 Oct 2015 08:09:24 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in
times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality over
and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture. It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living
standards.

Whatever value the Malthusian limit may have at any time, it can never
be infinite, because we don't live on an infinitely big planet. Our
planet is big, but it's not that big. If we continue to use *anything*
finite at an ever-increasing rate, we must eventually run out of it.

The only way we can stabilise the system is by ensuring that the birth
rate equals the death rate, and our total energy use equals whatever
is coming from the Sun. That's the easy bit. It's the requirement for
global cooperation to put it into practice that may defeat us.

Rod.

Population growth
 

Indy Jess John wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening
and will continue to happen?

We are due another ice age.

Yes.

That will have a huge impact on food production.

Nope, not anymore.

That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Nope.

Whether than brings the human population down to below critical numbers
and humans become extinct remains to be seen.

Didn’t extinct humans the last time and won't this time either.

Population growth
 

On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:

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.

And you haven't taken into account the need to build on some of this
arable land in order to house the increase.

Jim

Population growth
 

On 30/10/15 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
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.

That is what they are trying to achieve with the whole 'green' thing and
the rise of political correctness and the fascism of the Left.

Rather than Hitler's National Socialism it will be UN International
Socialism, but the jackboots, informers, secret police and death camps
will all be there just the same.

I think they are looking at about 2020:-)


--
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 30/10/15 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Wolfgang is a Cornucopian, and a believer in perpetual growth, despite
the fact that nothing in the known universe lasts, or grows, forever.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?


See my .sig below..Wolfgang is almost certainly a socialist.



--
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 30/10/2015 09:34, Rod Speed wrote:
Indy Jess wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening
and will continue to happen?

We are due another ice age.

Yes.

That will have a huge impact on food production.

Nope, not anymore.

That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Nope.


I don't believe you.

With ice approaching from both poles, the major food sources (American
prairies, Argentinian pampas, large areas of the EU) covered in
permafrost at least, if not a kilometre of ice, you are not going to
grow enough in the bits left unless there is a reduction in the mouths
to feed. You might in the short term, but not over thousands of years.

Plus the fact that much of the world's power generation capabilities
will be in the frozen bit. That will cut production and the number of
greenhouses that can be heated.

Jim