Population growth
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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,

So is your line.

which won't happen.

Easy to claim.

Even he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is to bring
the third world into the first.

That should be CLAIMS, not admits.

The likelihood of that happening however is, well, about zero.

It isn't the only way to see population increase stop.

We had that in the past, before agriculture was invented.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards

Yes.

at an ever increasing rate.

No, that is a lie.

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.

Malthus ran the same line. He was just plain wrong about
that with the numbers between his time and ours. In fact
we are doing a hell of a lot better job of feeding people
now than we did in his time when famine was endemic.

Its gone now except when the place has imploded in
the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or
some fool like Kim Jong Il is allowed to rule the roost.

There just isn't enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Don’t need land anymore. Hydroponics doesn’t bother
with productive land at all anymore. Works fine.

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’s a lie. You CHOOSE to import the rest, a different matter entirely.

And as WW2 showed, while you lot were importing much more
before the war, no one starved when you couldn’t do that anymore.

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.

That assumes that agriculture doesn’t get any more productive.

Stupid assumption. And half of that increase is migration
anyway. They still have to eat even if they stayed home.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death.

Bull****. That isn't how China did it.

And that just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time

Correct. Even China was never that stupid.

before it's far too late.

That how Malthus mindlessly hyperventilated.

Even you should have noticed that we eat a hell of a lot
better than they did in his day, in fact so well now that
we have an obesity epidemic now instead of famine.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is on
the wall,

That's what Malthus claimed.

and it's as well to read it.

Turned out the purported writing on
the wall was just mindless graffiti.

Population growth
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

Have fun explaining why those in HongKong don’t.

Population growth
 

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

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

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

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.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

Only amongst the indigenous population. It's more than made up for by immigration
and the children they have. Hence a forecast that Britain's population is set to
increase by over 15% in just the next 12 years.

It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but wholly pie-in-the-sky.

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.

No, that's completely wrong. It has so far kept up with increasing population as
more and more land has been brought under the plough. But there's a finite limit to
the amount of productive land the earth has, and we're reaching it. Britain's green
and pleasant land will be able to produce enough food to feed just half its
population by 2030.

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.

That's all very hippy. Peace will reign, man, and the world will live as one.

What are you on?

Returning to earth, perhaps you'd tell us where we will find all the new, productive
arable land we'll need to grow the crops. Do we dig up the Amazon rain forest, or
what?

There is no appreciation of
the problem, no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

Let's see. In 1960 the world's population was just 3 billion. In just 55 years
since then, it has rocketed to 7 billion. By 2050 it will be 10 billion. By 2100,
it could be 16 billion.

Malthus was right. He did not forecast immediate apocalypse as some assume, and may
even have been out as regards the time frame he himself envisaged. He just stated
general principles, and those are as valid today as the were in 1779 when he wrote:

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of
population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,
that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of
mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in
the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But
should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics,
pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and
tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine
stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of
the world."

His vision hasn't materialised yet, but 'the power of population' certainly has.
The rest will follow.

Population growth
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

He was just plain wrong. Real living standards have improved
out of sight since his time, and we just don’t see famines anymore.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed.

That is unknown because it isn't clear how
much better food productivity can become.

Is it infinite?

Corse not, and doesn’t need to be.

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially,

Birth rates are in fact falling EVERYWHERE now.

exceeds the number you come up with?

There is no fixed number. Never has been. When we
invented agriculture the number that could be fed
improved out of sight over hunting and gathering.

The industrial revolution improved the
productivity of agriculture out of sight again.

Population growth
 

Indy Jess John wrote
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.

Doesn’t matter what you believe.

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.

Perfectly possible to grow food in the
same way the Netherlands does now.

You might in the short term, but not over thousands of years.

If it works in the short term, it
will work over thousands of years.

Plus the fact that much of the world's power generation capabilities will
be in the frozen bit.

Just build nukes instead.

That will cut production

Not when they are replaced by nukes.

and the number of greenhouses that can be heated.

Not when they are replaced by nukes.

Population growth
 

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells"
wrote in :

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.

Never mind your figures are made up, but why the hell not?

There just isn't enough land that can be productively cultivated.

There is, besides productivity can be increased.

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.

You could do better if pressed (but there is no need to).

How exactly?

Some facts to make you think: The largest exporter of agricultural
goods in the world are the USA. Which country do you reckon is no. 2?
Wait for it: The Netherlands.

They're actually number 3 but I'm not quibbling. Who is number 5? Britain. But we
still need to import 40% of all the food we consume, and that will rise to 50% by
2030.

The Netherlands are not *net* exporters. They, like Britain, are huge net
importers. What they export are high value crops like tomatoes and flowers, not
stuff the world actually depends on to eat, like wheat, which they have to import.

One of the most densely populated countries on earth, a quarter of it
is taken up by what is basically one giant metropolis. But it cannot
only sustain itself, but even export groceries (and tulips :).

No, it is far from being self-sufficient, just like Britain.

Granted
they import food as well, as bananas and coffee don't grow in northern
climate, but their import/export balance is close to zero.

No it isn't. They export about $19.8 million of agricultural products, but import
about $49.5 million.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...rters-map.html

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...l-imports.html

That means
in theory the Netherlands could feed their comparatively large
population on that small surface, even in an adverse northern climate
where plant growth basically stops for a few months each year.

Which is nonsense.

Not just that, they enjoy one of the highest living standards at the same time.

They won't when the food runs out and there's nothing to import.

And don't say that it goes at the expense of nature. The Netherlands
are not an environmental wasteland, but a overall pleasant place and
even a popular tourist destination.

All it takes is for the rest of the world to adopt Dutch style
agriculture (or any other method of increasing productivity). Of course
that takes work, but it's doable. It's just a thought experiment
though, the actual challenge is much easier.

You can't live on tomatoes and tulips.

Population growth
 

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart
wrote in :

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.

You don't have to assume an infinite planet to know that malthusianism
is a fallacy.

If we continue to use *anything*
finite at an ever-increasing rate, we must eventually run out of it.

No, that is a fallacy. Besides the premise is wrong, we're not using
things at an ever increasing rate.

How very strange when the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so.

Are we each using 50% less? Eating 50% less food?

Population growth
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

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

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

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.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

Only amongst the indigenous population. It's more than made up for by
immigration and the children they have. Hence a forecast that Britain's
population is set to increase by over 15% in just the next 12 years.

It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but wholly pie-in-the-sky.

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.

No, that's completely wrong.

Nope, he's right. That's why we no longer see famines except
where the place has descended into the most obscene levels
of civil war and civil chaos or some fool like Kim Jong Il has
been allowed to rule the roost.

It has so far kept up with increasing population

In fact has done a lot better than just keep up with increasing population.

as more and more land has been brought under the plough.

That isn't the reason we no longer get any famines in
the Indian subcontinent or SE Asia or anywhere else either.

But there's a finite limit to the amount of productive land the earth has,

You don’t even need productive land anymore.

and we're reaching it.

Nope.

Britain's green and pleasant land will be able to produce enough food to
feed just half its population by 2030.

Bull****. Its perfectly possible to be as productive
as the Netherlands currently is and feed everyone.

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.

That's all very hippy. Peace will reign, man, and the world will live as
one.

What are you on?

Its obvious what you are on.

Returning to earth, perhaps you'd tell us where we will find all the new,
productive arable land we'll need to grow the crops.

Don’t need that, operate like the Netherlands does.

Do we dig up the Amazon rain forest, or what?

Operate like the Netherlands does.

There is no appreciation of
the problem, no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

Let's see. In 1960 the world's population was just 3 billion. In just 55
years since then, it has rocketed to 7 billion. By 2050 it will be 10
billion. By 2100, it could be 16 billion.

And clearly the Netherlands and HongKong work fine with higher densitys than
that.

Malthus was right.

Nope, he was just plain wrong. In fact real living standards
improved out of sight all over the entire world since his
time with a massive increase in population and we just
don’t see any famines at all anymore except where etc.

He did not forecast immediate apocalypse as some assume, and may even have
been out as regards the time frame he himself envisaged.

In fact he got it completely wrong and real living standards improved
dramatically instead of getting worse.

He just stated general principles, and those are as valid today as the
were in 1779

Like hell they are.

when he wrote:

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature.

And we have now eliminated famine except where etc.

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to
produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or
other visit the human race.

It didn’t. We didn’t even see another Black Death or anything like it.

The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They
are the precursors in the great army of destruction,

We have in fact seen the great army of creation instead.

and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in
this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and
plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens
of thousands.

Doesn’t happen anymore except with HIV/AIDS which is trivially avoidable.

Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in
the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of
the world."

In fact we have eliminated famine except where etc.

His vision hasn't materialised yet,

In fact we have seen the exact opposite of what he predicted.

but 'the power of population' certainly has.

And we are now seeing birth rates falling EVERYWHERE etc.

The rest will follow.

Nope.

Population growth
 

Norman Wells put finger to keyboard:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message

Birth rates are dropping world wide now except in places where its now
so low that that place is right down in the noise.

World population is still increasing by 50% every 40 years or so. That
can't continue for ever, and I think you're deluding yourself if you
think it won't.

Kinda contradicting yourself there.

Population growth
 

Funnily enough I heard it on LBC and a shorter version on their other
stations news.
Sounds like the indigenous population had better get their fingers out, or
maybe something else out....:-)



The facts are obvious from history of course. When infant mortality was
high, and there were no social services, people had to have more children to
maintain the population and to help as the older members got older.

It normally takes a couple of generations for the practice to slow down.
Unfortunately, many of the people in most developed countries are not
having enough children to maintain the population of tax payers to supprt
the next generation in tax paying. the solution is to import from cultures
and countries where the birth rate is still high.
I believe all this stuff from the Catholic Church about no birth control
was a thinly veiled attempt to get people with their views in the majority.

Nothing new really.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways. If
the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know. I suspect
that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill