Population growth
 

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
 

On 29/10/2015 15:19, Bill Wright wrote:
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

You mean, I guess, Office of National Statistics (ONS). I read the
Guardian report, we really need the link to ONS.

What struck me from the Guardian report is how the growth rate has come
down from some of the 1960's forecasts.

Population growth
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:19:28 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

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.

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

This coverage of the story, I presume?

(Apparently untrustworthy) native British broadcaster...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

(Apparently more trustworthy) immigrant Australian-American broadcaster...
http://news.sky.com/story/1578194/uk...-74-3m-by-2039

Given that you say "apparently", can we take it that you're comparing the
BBC and Sky reports, and assuming that the Sky report _must_ be accurate
and the BBC report _must_ be "distorting the facts"?

After all, if you'd actually checked back to the source ONC (Who? Do you
mean the ONS?) report, you wouldn't say "apparently".

I'm intrigued to know how there can be such certainty two decades in
advance, though...

So let's have a look, shall we?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/na...jections/2014-
based-projections/sty-2.html

The most likely report on the ONS's own website, dated today, doesn't
even contain a mention of the year 2035 on the precis page...? But it
does give a figure of 6.6m over a "zero-net migration" estimate, over 25
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.

Population growth
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:55:48 +0000, newshound wrote:

What struck me from the Guardian report is how the growth rate has come
down from some of the 1960's forecasts.

Especially Enoch Powell's?

Population growth
 

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?
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!

Andy C

Population growth
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

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

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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.

Population growth
 

Bill Wright wrote

Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration.

Yes, not one modern first world country is even
self replacing if you take out immigration and in
many ways Britain has more of a problem with
that than most others, essentially because so
many of you leave there for other places and have
been doing that for a hell of a long time now.

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.

Population growth
 

Andy Cap wrote
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?

Essentially the places that attract lots of immigrants like
Germany are rather more economically successful than
where they are coming from. That's why they migrate.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

The real answer has to be working for longer,

I doubt most would agree on that.

better spreading of available resources

That was attempted in western europe in the previous
century but didn’t really work out too well at all.

Japan has a MUCH more even spread of wealth,
but has a massive problem with an aging population
anyway, essentially because they have one of the
lowest immigration rates in the entire world now
and has seen a shrinking population for quite a
while now.

or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Can't see too many of the voters being very keen on a result like that,
particularly in their dotage when they have very high medical costs.

There's no doubt the present generation have done very well

Yes, real living standards have improved out of sight, particularly
for those say in the bottom 25% of the population.

but it's not exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my
house is worth £50,000 or £500,000!

Sure, but most do care about real living standards.

Population growth
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

Globally, it works like that. In many countries - including the UK and,
even more so, Germany - it's the opposite. The young aren't expanding
enough to pay for the elderly.

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

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

****ing isn't the problem, it’s the ****ing
that produces kids that is the problem.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success,

They have in fact been very successful
indeed at limiting most to just one kid.

and big knock-on effects.

Yes, they are looking at 20M single men who are single for their entire
life.

But that wasn’t that uncommon in the west
in the 19th century so may work out fine.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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.

Population growth
 

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:42:58 +1100, 78lp wrote:

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

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

****ing isn't the problem, it’s the ****ing that produces kids that is
the problem.

Mmm. Perhaps you hadn't heard that quite a few religious leaders are less
than keen on willy-wellies?

The Chinese government have tried - with little success,

They have in fact been very successful indeed at limiting most to just
one kid.

Strange how there's an average national fertility rate of 1.66 children
per woman - versus the UK's 1.9.

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...

Then there's Wugong province. The most successful at implementing the
policy... and now facing a major demographic timebomb.

Oh, and btw - have you not heard today's news? The one child policy has
been officially "extended" to two...

Population growth
 

Bill Wright wrote:

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.

It was on BBC radio before I went to work this morning, and it's a
headline item on the BBC 6pm news just now ...

Population growth
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:42:58 +1100, 78lp wrote:

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

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

****ing isn't the problem, it’s the ****ing that produces kids that is
the problem.

Mmm. Perhaps you hadn't heard that quite a few religious leaders are less
than keen on willy-wellies?

They get no say in the most populous countries.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success,

They have in fact been very successful indeed at limiting most to just
one kid.

Strange how there's an average national fertility rate of 1.66 children
per woman - versus the UK's 1.9.

Still FAR more single child families than in the UK.

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...

Then there's Wugong province. The most successful at implementing the
policy... and now facing a major demographic timebomb.

Oh, and btw - have you not heard today's news? The one child policy has
been officially "extended" to two...

And plenty have decided that one is all they want too.

And with a surplus of something like 20M single males,
they will mostly not have any kids at all.

Plenty of the women won't have any too.

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 15:19, Bill Wright wrote:
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

Its been on the BBC too.
Its nothing new anyway and its a prediction that has a large error
margin too.

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

Its been very successful, too successful, now they are facing and aging
population and a lack of workers.


The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


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


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 18:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

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.

It was on BBC radio before I went to work this morning, and it's a
headline item on the BBC 6pm news just now ...


Yes, quite a long report of Radio 4. I'm pleased. However they
absolutely minimised any mention of immigration being the cause.

Bill

Population growth
 

"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.

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.

Sorry, but humans will be no different. 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.

Population growth
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2015 18:03, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

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.

It was on BBC radio before I went to work this morning, and it's a
headline item on the BBC 6pm news just now ...


Yes, quite a long report of Radio 4. I'm pleased. However they absolutely
minimised any mention of immigration being the cause.

Covered that the same as Sky did.

Population growth
 

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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?

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

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

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

The truth is, it's out of control

Not anymore. Even the most populous country imposed quite
a bit of control and did that so effectively that they have had
to relax that control because of the downsides of that control.

and exponentially rising.

In fact not one modern first world country is even self
replacing now on population if you take out immigration
and that is true of quite a bit of the second world too.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

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.

Human populations don’t work like that.

Sorry, but humans will be no different.

They already are. Not one modern first world country is even
self replacing now on population if you take out immigration.
Those are by definition the countrys with much more plenty
than anywhere else and we don’t in fact see them do anything
like outstrip their food supply, or see anything even remotely
like widespread famine in the modern first world, and nothing
even remotely like the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines in the modern first world.

Human populations are in fact VERY different to animal populations.

There is no appreciation of the problem,

There is no appreciation by you and your ilk how things are changing.

no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a position, or
would be allowed, to do anything about it.

How odd that China did in fact realise that they had a problem,
and did something very real about it, so effectively that they
have had to relax that doing something about it because of the
downsides they have got with that rather gung ho approach.

And even now they are STILL not self replacing even if every
couple does have two kids. And that clearly isn't going to happen.

Population growth
 

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/

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 19:09, [email protected] wrote:

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.

The payments will, nevertheless, always be a transfer from the working
population to the non-working population. If things get too dire for the
workers, they will rebel/go on strike/whatever, so they get more of the
cake. So, don't be too complacent.

Population growth
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:09:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean some
kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary. Congratulations.
Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on it,
and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a pension
of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current retired folk".
It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 22:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:09:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean
some kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary.
Congratulations.

That is not a real pension scheme. That's a scam. All such should be
banned.

Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on
it, and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a
pension of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current
retired folk". It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

Companies should not be providing schemes for their own workers; it's
hardly their core business after all. The only sustainable type of
pension scheme is a personal one. You pay into a pot, and that pot is
invested for you. When you come to retire, the pot has a value that
relates to the economic situation at the time. If that is dire, then
your pension isn't worth much. But it'll be up to you what you do and
how/when you cash it in.

I don't know whether the state pension is properly funded in this way
or not, but I suspect it's just another Ponzi scheme, like the defined
benefit/final salary ones. Certainly this triple lock business is a bad
idea.


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

Population growth
 

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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?

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

And in future it will come from a rather high birth rate in the future.

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

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

No, that's nonsense. It can only come from a rather high birth rate from now until
2050.

The truth is, it's out of control

Not anymore. Even the most populous country imposed quite
a bit of control and did that so effectively that they have had
to relax that control because of the downsides of that control.

Even in the times of that restriction, world population was increasing by 50% every
40 uears or so. Relaxation of that restriction in the most populous nation on earth
can only make the global situation worse.

and exponentially rising.

In fact not one modern first world country is even self
replacing now on population if you take out immigration
and that is true of quite a bit of the second world too.

World population, and hence the number of mouths to feed, doesn't depend on the
first world, which is pretty insignificant. The massive increase in popluation is
coming from the third world. And it will continue.

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.

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

Human populations don’t work like that.What evidence, if any, do you have for
that? You see, all the actual evidence ofpopulation increase worldwide indicates
otherwise.

Sorry, but humans will be no different.

They already are. Not one modern first world country is even
self replacing now on population if you take out immigration.

Those are by definition the countrys with much more plenty
than anywhere else and we don’t in fact see them do anything
like outstrip their food supply, or see anything even remotely
like widespread famine in the modern first world, and nothing
even remotely like the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines in the modern first world.

Since we're considering world population, what may be happening in the first world
is vastly outweighed by what's happening in the third world. World population
*overall* is expanding exponentially, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it
won't continue to do so in future. If it does, we will run out of food. It's
absolutely inevitable.

Human populations are in fact VERY different to animal populations.

No they aren't. They're actually very much the same. And it's a problem that has
no current appreciation nor any feasible solution.

There is no appreciation of the problem,

There is no appreciation by you and your ilk how things are changing.

Stop hiding your head in the sand and tell us why the population is still expected
to increase to 10 billion from the present 7 billion by 2050. That can only be
because of an enormously excessive birth rate overall.

no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a position, or would be
allowed, to do anything about it.

How odd that China did in fact realise that they had a problem,
and did something very real about it, so effectively that they
have had to relax that doing something about it because of the
downsides they have got with that rather gung ho approach.

And even now they are STILL not self replacing even if every
couple does have two kids. And that clearly isn't going to happen

Are you advocating worldwide legal penalties for having 'excess' children then?

If so, how would you propose to establish and enforce the rules worldwide?

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

Population growth
 

"GB" wrote in message
...
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.

They have relaxed it because of the downsides with the one child
policy, particularly support for aging parents and grandparents etc.

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

Population growth
 

GB wrote
[email protected] wrote

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.

The payments will, nevertheless, always be a transfer from the working
population to the non-working population. If things get too dire for the
workers, they will rebel/go on strike/whatever,

Most often they just choose to no work as much because
they end up with less in their pocket after tax etc.

so they get more of the cake.

That normally doesn’t happen. The total tax
most pay just keeps increasing as time goes on.

So, don't be too complacent.

It'll keep working fine so long as the country
continues to accept quite a lot of immigrants.

Even in places like Japan that doesn’t, you
don’t actually see the non working population
ending up worse than they did in the past.

Population growth
 

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


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Population growth
 

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.

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!



....Ray.

--
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 29/10/2015 7:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:

Not until you manage to persuade people that they really don't enjoy
****ing.

The Chinese government have tried - with little success, and big knock-on
effects.

Its been very successful, too successful, now they are facing and aging
population and a lack of workers.


The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


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


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.


Not to forget the Polio and cancer vaccine.

'Doctor Mary's Monkey'. Now there's a story to open the mind.


....Ray.

--
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
 

"[email protected]" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/10/2015 22:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:09:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean
some kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary.
Congratulations.

That is not a real pension scheme. That's a scam. All such should be
banned.

Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on
it, and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a
pension of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current
retired folk". It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

Companies should not be providing schemes for their own workers; it's
hardly their core business after all. The only sustainable type of
pension scheme is a personal one. You pay into a pot, and that pot is
invested for you. When you come to retire, the pot has a value that
relates to the economic situation at the time. If that is dire, then
your pension isn't worth much. But it'll be up to you what you do and
how/when you cash it in.

I don't know whether the state pension is properly funded in this way
or not, but I suspect it's just another Ponzi scheme, like the defined
benefit/final salary ones. Certainly this triple lock business is a bad
idea.


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

I know it isn't when the govt is the employer.

Population growth
 

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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?

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

And in future it will come from a rather high birth rate in the future.

That is unlikely given that birth rates are dropping everywhere now
except when the birth rate is down so low that its right in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

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

Basically because its coming off a rather higher birth rate in the past.

No, that's nonsense.

We'll see...

It can only come from a rather high birth rate from now until 2050.

That's not correct. That increase is due to the rather higher birth
rate in the past that produced more who can have children.

The truth is, it's out of control

Not anymore. Even the most populous country imposed quite
a bit of control and did that so effectively that they have had
to relax that control because of the downsides of that control.

Even in the times of that restriction, world population was increasing by
50% every 40 uears or so.

That comment was about China, not the world. The
birth rate in China is nothing even remotely like out
of control, too much in control in many ways.

Relaxation of that restriction in the most populous nation on earth can
only make the global situation worse.

Sure, but the birth rate in China is clearly not out of control.

and exponentially rising.

In fact not one modern first world country is even self
replacing now on population if you take out immigration
and that is true of quite a bit of the second world too.

World population, and hence the number of mouths to feed, doesn't depend
on the first world, which is pretty insignificant.

Yes, but when the most populous country, China,
has in fact a hell of a lot of control, that line
about exponentially rising is just rhetoric as
is your previous claim that its out of control.

It clearly isn't in the modern first world, or much
of the second world, and in the most populous
country, China. And in ALL the rest the birth rate
is dropping except where its now so low that its
right down in the noise.

The massive increase in popluation is coming from the third world.

Depends on whether you are claiming that India and China
are third world countrys. Most wouldn’t agree with that.

And it will continue.

But at a lower birth rate than we have seen in the recent past.

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.

Still a better result than if the birth rates
had not started to drop EVERYWHERE.

That can't continue for ever,

And it wont if birth rates continue to drop EVERYWHERE,
except where its so low that its right down in the noise now.

and I think you're deluding yourself if you think it won't.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

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

Human populations work completely differently.

Human populations don’t work like that.

What evidence, if any, do you have for that?

Just gave it to you below.

You see, all the actual evidence ofpopulation increase worldwide indicates
otherwise.

That is a lie.

Sorry, but humans will be no different.

They already are. Not one modern first world country is even
self replacing now on population if you take out immigration.

Those are by definition the countrys with much more plenty
than anywhere else and we don’t in fact see them do anything
like outstrip their food supply, or see anything even remotely
like widespread famine in the modern first world, and nothing
even remotely like the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines in the modern first world.

And we no longer even get famine due to population numbers
anywhere in the world anymore. We only see famine where the
place has deteriorated into the most obscene levels of civil war and
civil chaos and its no longer possible to feed them properly from
outside the area which is experiencing famine due to drought etc.

Since we're considering world population, what may be happening in the
first world is vastly outweighed by what's happening in the third world.

Still blows a damned great hole in that claim of yours that
times of plenty produces big increases in population with
the inevitable result of famine and collapse of population.

Human populations just don’t work like that anymore
and its very arguable indeed that they ever did.

World population *overall* is expanding exponentially, and there is no
evidence whatsoever that it won't continue to do so in future.

Irrelevant to your claim about what times of plenty produce.

Not with humans it doesn’t anymore.

If it does, we will run out of food.

How odd that we don’t see famine anymore except when
the place has imploded in the most obscene levels of civil
war and civil chaos, even with the population increasing
exponentially.

It's absolutely inevitable.

See above.

Human populations are in fact VERY different to animal populations.

No they aren't. They're actually very much the same.

Must explain why the undeniable times of plenty in the
modern first world hasn’t produced anything like what you
claim is inevitable with famine or population collapse either.

And it's a problem that has no current appreciation nor any feasible
solution.

Bull****. China has implemented a perfectly
viable solution which has some real downsides.

And its far from clear that we actually need a solution
if birth rates continue to drop EVERYWHERE. That
indicates that the problem may well fix itself.

There is no appreciation of the problem,

There is no appreciation by you and your ilk how things are changing.

Stop hiding your head in the sand

You're the one doing that. Just like Malthus did.

and tell us why the population is still expected to increase to 10 billion
from the present 7 billion by 2050.

I already told you, the previously higher birth rates.

That can only be because of an enormously excessive birth rate overall.

Which keeps dropping EVERYWHERE as we speak.

no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a position, or
would be allowed, to do anything about it.

How odd that China did in fact realise that they had a problem,
and did something very real about it, so effectively that they
have had to relax that doing something about it because of the
downsides they have got with that rather gung ho approach.

And even now they are STILL not self replacing even if every
couple does have two kids. And that clearly isn't going to happen

Are you advocating worldwide legal penalties for having 'excess' children
then?

Nope, because with birth rates continuing to drop EVERYWHERE,
its starting to look like the problem will fix itself eventually.

If so, how would you propose to establish and enforce the rules worldwide?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

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

That is already happening without us doing anything specific,
with birth rates dropping EVERYWHERE except where they
are now so low that they are right down in the noise.

Population growth
 

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.

Bill

Population growth
 

On 30/10/15 02:29, Bill Wright wrote:
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.

Bill

Well no one is trying to do that in reality. They are trying to control
energy and impose totalitarian world government.

However there are limits to growth at some point, and what is happening
in Syria right now is one of them.

People who work for a living and have families to take care of do not go
and join revolutionary armies.

The reality is there is no work to do. And no welfare for those who have
none.

In a technological post-modern society there are three stable situations.

(i) since 95% of the population is entirely unproductive, machines
having replaced their function, you simply eliminate them and have a
society consisting of technocrats who program the machines and the idle
rich who enjoy their fruits. Result. Nice if you are 5%, 95% dead. This
is society lead by ruthless capitalists

(ii) since 95% of the population is entirely unproductive, machines
having replaced their function, you simply eliminate the machines and go
back to a pre mechanised society, which of course can only support 5% of
current populations. I call this green neo feudalism, and its where we
are being led right now. Result, not very nice if you are 5% as its
back to primitive living, 95% are dead. However for ignorant people who
have political power, its better than being in that 95%. This is society
run by bureaucrats and politicians.

(iii) since 95% of the population is entirely unproductive, machines
having replaced their function, you explain to people that this is so,
and why this is so, sort society out to produce as much as you can
efficiently, and give it to the idle not very rich and say 'the deal is
this: don't have too many kids, take advantage of the leisure you have,
and let us technocrats get on with supplying it' . Ok if you are part of
the 95%, and better if you are part of the 5% since although you miss
out on the leisure, you get to play with expensive toys. Thi is a
society run by pragmatic technocrats.






--
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 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. 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.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate as green politics cuts in.


--
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 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.

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.

In fact that is now seen in ALL countrys except where the
birth rate is now so low that its right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

It's therefore expected that they will decline worldwide in the not too
distant future

That has already happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

when living standards rise in other parts of the world,

Doesn’t actually need that anymore.

and population growth will eventually peter out.

That isn't an absolute certainly, tho certainly very likely.

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.

I doubt that last particularly in the worst of the third world.

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.

And in fact things continue to improve dramatically with famine
now only seen where the place has imploded in the most obscene
levels of civil war and civil chaos where relief from outside the
area is no longer feasible.

Population growth
 

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:45:26 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean
some kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary.
Congratulations.

That is not a real pension scheme. That's a scam. All such should be
banned.

rolls eyes

Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on
it, and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a
pension of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current
retired folk". It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

Companies should not be providing schemes for their own workers; it's
hardly their core business after all. The only sustainable type of
pension scheme is a personal one. You pay into a pot, and that pot is
invested for you. When you come to retire, the pot has a value that
relates to the economic situation at the time. If that is dire, then
your pension isn't worth much. But it'll be up to you what you do and
how/when you cash it in.

I don't know whether the state pension is properly funded in this way
or not, but I suspect it's just another Ponzi scheme, like the defined
benefit/final salary ones. Certainly this triple lock business is a bad
idea.

What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

*ding*

If he really thinks that every single personal pension has a dedicated
fund manager who personally reviews it...

Population growth
 

Bill Wright wrote:

The report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several
important ways.

they absolutely minimised any mention of immigration being the cause.

The phrase I remember on the TV news was along the lines of "including
immigrants, and the children those immigrants will have" ...

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 19:09, [email protected] wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:



The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

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

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


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


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

The obvious answer is to encourage the young to smoke.
It doesn't stop them working and paying taxes when they are young, and
they pay extra into the system through tobacco taxes (I haven't got
actual figures but I am pretty sure that a smoker on 20 a day pays more
in tobacco taxes than it costs in medical treatments).

However, statistically a high proportion will die before they take much
out of the system in pensions.

So they pay more in and get less out. Win-win as far as the ones who do
live longer are concerned.

Jim

Population growth
 

On 29/10/2015 22:54, 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. That will have a huge impact on food
production. That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

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

Jim

Population growth
 

"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.