Population growth

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"tim....."
wrote in :

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

The northern European climate is actually quite harsh.

It might not be good enough for multiple yields per year

but it is pretty certain for one

lots of other parts of the world are not

try cultivating the Australian outback, for example

tim

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote
tim..... wrote

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

The northern European climate is actually quite harsh.
You want tropical climates for good crop yields.

Not with grain crops or meat either.

many of the world's areas of low population density are
mountainous and many of the areas of low agricultural
production are climatically unsuitable (and/or mountainous).

It isn't anywhere near as simple as "if the Dutch can do it ..."

But as you say, most of the world has low population density.
I think famine is worst in Africa,

You only get famine in places where the place has imploded
in civil war and civil chaos now or has been stupid enough to
let some fool like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

but population density there is actually quite low,
and there's lots of land that could be cultivated.

Yeah, their main problem is primitive agriculture.

What's lacking there is not space or the right climate, but a
developed economy that makes tractors and fertilizer available.

Yep.

Getting there is the problem. It's kind of a viscious circle
because you need agriculture to develop the economy.

Not in places like HongKong.

But Europe made it out of its own, which shows it can be done.

Norman Wells wrote
John Rumm wrote
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,

You never had a point, just a mindless hyperventilation.

as it was Malthus's.

And he couldn’t even get the basics on famine right.
While certainly famines got worse after he predicted
that, that was due to other effects, not population
and we fixed the other effects and now don’t see any
famine at all now except etc.

We will run out of food

No we wont.

because we do not have an infinite supply.

Don’t need one if the population self limits
at say 20B as it now looks like it will do.

Then people die until the food supply becomes adequate again.

Its never worked like that with humans.

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.

We aren't maintaining the existing growth rate with
population, its dropping EVERYWHERE now except etc.

On 30/10/2015 18:32, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.


It is effectively a Ponzi scheme if the working young population has to
grow bigger to support the old from the previous generation. When they
in turn get older they will need even more young people to support them.
Eventually something will have to give as we cannot keep growing
exponentially.

A sustainable model would allow for moderate contraction as well as
moderate growth.

Indy Jess John wrote
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

Yes.

and it fed most of Africa.

Like hell it did. Africa mostly fed itself and still does.

And Rhodesia wasn't the only place in Africa with
extensive industrial scale agriculture either.

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.

Like hell it has in places like the RSA.

Brian-Gaff wrote

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

Nothing heathen about making an obscene gesture
in the general direction of some silly senile old child
molester wearing a dress in Rome.


"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

On 30/10/2015 17:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Indy Jess John
wrote:

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.

It's more that Mr Ebagum is quite happy with things as they are. He and
his cronies are rich and well off, and he's quite happy that the mass
of the populace is poor and hungry. Such people are too busy surviving
to have a revolution. And easier to control these days with modern
armaments and methods of communication. Also, he has the race card to
play when required.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps too obliquely is that in the
midst of a thread claiming that the world could feed a lot more people
than it does, is that the people who get to run countries are not the
ones renowned for altruism. Si regardless of the theoretical
possibilities, it isn't going to happen.

Jim

Nick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ian Jackson wrote
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? 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 make 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.

It is effectively a Ponzi scheme if the working young population has to
grow bigger to support the old from the previous generation.

With a real ponzi scheme, the only ones to benefit are
those who setup the scheme and those in it very early.

With immigration, the immigrants benefit by doing better
than if they had stayed where they come from, and eventually
get to be those who are no longer working and get their high
cost of health care services provided to them paid for by later
immigrants who do work and pay taxes.

When they in turn get older they will need even more young people to
support them.

Just like happens with no immigration at all, but
with a birth rate that is better than just self replacing.

Eventually something will have to give

Not necessarily.

as we cannot keep growing exponentially.

The birth rate is already dropping EVERYWHERE except
where its already so low that its right down in the noise.

If that continues, we will eventually see the total world
population peak and start dropping and there is every
indication that we will be able to feed that many fine,
and wont even see everyone living at the same
population density that is currently seen in HongKong.

A sustainable model would allow for moderate contraction

And that is what we are seeing now. NOT ONE modern
first world country is even self replacing if you take out
immigration and that is true of plenty of second world
countrys too.

as well as moderate growth.

That's what we are seeing now too.

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2015 17:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Indy Jess John
wrote:

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.

It's more that Mr Ebagum is quite happy with things as they are. He and
his cronies are rich and well off, and he's quite happy that the mass
of the populace is poor and hungry. Such people are too busy surviving
to have a revolution. And easier to control these days with modern
armaments and methods of communication. Also, he has the race card to
play when required.

The point I was trying to make, perhaps too obliquely

Yes, much too obliquely.

is that in the midst of a thread claiming that the world could feed a lot
more people than it does, is that the people who get to run countries are
not the ones renowned for altruism.

The real point is that very few countrys are run
by anyone anymore, they are nothing like that.

Si regardless of the theoretical possibilities, it isn't going to happen.

Bet it does if those in the first and second world
start to starve when not enough food is produced.

In message , Rod Speed
writes




With a real ponzi scheme, the only ones to benefit are
those who setup the scheme and those in it very early.

You are taking the comparison far too literally. However, the essential
principle is same.
--
Ian