Population growth
 

On 30/10/15 14:23, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
But as you say, most of the world has low population density. I think
famine is worst in Africa, but population density there is actually
quite low, and there's lots of land that could be cultivated.

I take it you have never ever been to Africa, nor bothered to research
your vapid opinions to ascertain whether there is any factual basis to them?

(hint: there isn't).


--
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
 

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

People use things. More people use more things. It's pretty much a
direct linear correlation.

The whole point is that this simplistic thinking is faulty.

If the population is ever-increasing, so too will consumption.

"Ever increasing" or even "exponential" growth is your premise, not
mine.

Population growth is likely to peter out.

That's a very pink and fluffy view of the world. But there's no
evidence of it happening,

Currently it's linear, so not exponential as you predict.

Do you know what an exponential graph looks like? If not, it's like this:

http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/F/...8e275/exp1.gif

Do you know what the world population graph looks like? If not, it's like this:

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu...opn_Graph2.jpg

Notice any similarity?

Here's a linear graph for comparison:

http://everythingmaths.co.za/maths/g...48e829e113.png

Can you see how different it is?

and there's no reason why it will

Yes there is. Rising living standards slow down population growth.
This is a well established causality.

No, at best it's a correlation. Causality has to be proved.

And there is not the slightest
hint that we're close to running out of anything.

Apart from land that can be productively cultivated.

And oil.

And helium.

And rare earths.

No to all of the above. Next?

Anything finite that is used will eventually disappear or be used to
capacity.

No, this is a fallacy. You never really think this through.

It cannot be otherwise.

Population growth
 

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

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate.

Which makes it a mathematical impossibility, unless you also have infinite
resources. We don't!

That's not a mathematical impossibility but a practical one. And that's my point,
as it was Malthus's. We will run out of food because we do not have an infinite
supply. Then people die until the food supply becomes adequate again.

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.

So we could not maintain the existing growth rate for that reason alone.

You've got it in one.

Population growth
 

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

Your mathematics appears to be different from mine. My understanding
is that if you only have a finite amount of something and you keep
using it, then you'll eventually run out.

OK that is the basic idea of malthusianism. It seems plausible at first
glance, but when examined closer it's naive.

No it isn't; it's absolutely inevitable. It's a matter of impeccable logic, you
see, not of opinion.

Let's spell out the errors:

- The earth is admittedly finite, but very very large in relation to
humanity an the stuff we consume. The idea that we might one day run
out of stuff is merely a theoretical concept that has achieved some
currency after the industrial revolution, because that has made some
people aware of certain processes. Assuming the theory is right at all,
the point may well be a million years ahead, so nothing to worry about
now and nothing we can plan for now.

No-one says oil will last a million years. Most say, at current usage rates, it's
somewhat shorter than that, at about 40 or 50 years. Helium, which is totally
irreplaceable, will run out in 100 years.

These are scary numbers. And they're not alone.

- The consumption of humanity is also finite. One day humans will
either die out or evolve into something different, so whatever we do
will not continue indefinitey.

We will die out, or a substantial number of us at least, through lack of food. It's
inevitable if the population continues to increase exponentially as it has. If you
think the world can feed 9 billion people, then we're OK until 2050. If you think
the world can feed 16 billion people, we're OK until 2100. But population growth is
inexorable and will continue until famine cuts us down to size. And that time is
not very far in the future.

- We have not ever run out of anything and there's not the slightest
sign that this point is around the corner.

Then you need to open your eyes to what scientists and economists have been saying
about such things as oil and helium. And to what I and others are saying about
food.

- Fuels and spacecraft excepted, anything we ever mined is still on the
planet, so not lost.

Not so. Helium for example just evaporates off into space never to return or be
replaced.

- We are not using the same stuff all the time. Every once in a while,
a technological revolution happened, and we stop using whatever
resources we were mining just then and suddenly change for something
else, which then will also be mined only for a limited time until the
next technological revolution happens.

Oh well, that's alright then. No problem. No need to be concerned about anything.
Someone will rescue us from whatever mess we've created.

You hope.

Population growth
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...
"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).

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.

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

But that's because 100% of the land mass is "flat" and has a benign climate.

Oh, and because it's not actually true anyway.

"A number of developed countries, including the UK, the Netherlands and Japan, are
already unable to meet the food requirements of their populations."

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...d-imports-2050

"The Netherlands (1124%), Belgium (317%), Japan (301%) and North Korea (527%) do not
have enough land resources to produce what they currently consume."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...ce.cld.iop.org

It exports, yes, but it imports far more.

Population growth
 

On 30/10/15 15:12, Norman Wells wrote:
"tim....." wrote in message
...
"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).

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.

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

But that's because 100% of the land mass is "flat" and has a benign
climate.

Oh, and because it's not actually true anyway.

"A number of developed countries, including the UK, the Netherlands and
Japan, are already unable to meet the food requirements of their
populations."

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...d-imports-2050


"The Netherlands (1124%), Belgium (317%), Japan (301%) and North Korea
(527%) do not have enough land resources to produce what they currently
consume."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...ce.cld.iop.org


It exports, yes, but it imports far more.


Lies are the stock-in-trade of the green leftycnuts


--
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 9:11 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
"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?

I believe that would be 'one'.

Consider that, of an average 100 million sperm released, highly
active, forward travelling, (none circular, as deformed sperm does),
that only 100 sperm may get anywhere near to the egg.





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.


How about, 14% increase of awareness, as a species? It doesn't have to
be doom and gloom.

But, when it does come to traffic on the roads, it is very clear that
the average 5 person car is the burden. 6 cars over 100 meters may be
carrying just 5 people?

On the motorways this waste of space increases greatly. Now, there's a
moot point. The slower the traffic the denser the populated road space.
The faster the traffic, the less time using the road space. Hmmm....?



--
One click voting to change the world.
..https://secure.avaaz.org/en/index.php
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

Phase Conjugate Waves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wwdmwv0zk

....and, Why You Know Nothing
http://www.delusionalinsects.com/sty...-32/index.html

Startpage - The PRIVATE Search Engine!

Population growth
 

On 30/10/2015 14:23, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

But as you say, most of the world has low population density. I think
famine is worst in Africa, but population density there is actually
quite low, and there's lots of land that could be cultivated. What's
lacking there is not space or the right climate, but a developed
economy that makes tractors and fertilizer available.

Rhodesia used to have a huge production surplus and it fed most of
Africa. Then came independence and things went downhill.

It was politics that destroyed it, and politics that will make sure it
stays destroyed. Africa would rather starve than give its farms back to
people who knew how to make the land productive. And the people who
understood the land have been off it so long that the memory of how to
do it has pretty well died off, along with the people with that knowledge.

Jim

Population growth
 

No because most of the people are just like us. they say they are Christian
and then go out and act like heathens!

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! :-)
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
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.

Clearly isn't working in Italy.

Nothing new really.

"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

Population growth
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Cap
writes
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

In this morning's LBC Nick Ferrari phone-in, a phoner-inner made a very
good point.

He pointed out that encouraging the immigration of young workers, so that
their taxes could provide funding for the increasing number long-living
old folks, was actually a ponzi pyramid scheme.

It isn't. Essentially because it doesn't collapse in the end.

Even if the immigrants can find homes and work, they themselves will
eventually join the ranks of long-living old folks - thus requiring more
immigrants to come and work to pay taxes etc etc, ad infinitum.

Yes, but that doesn't may it a ponzi scheme.

Society has ALWAYS worked like that. The only difference now
is that while ever the place isn't self replacing on population
because the birth rate is too low for that, immigrants have to
replace some of the kids born to the natives that didn't happen.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.
There's no doubt the present generation have done very well but it's not
exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my house is worth
£50,000 or £500,000!