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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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...

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" ...

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

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

"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.