I predict a massive financial case next 5 years

[AceRockatansky]

Caddyshack said:

AceRockatansky said:

Ken_Code said:

AceRockatansky said:

Population growth? We're in decline. And not a slow one either, infact it's going to pose some significant problems unless the robots get better at looking after old people.

What do you mean by “we” there?

The world definitely isn’t, and neither is the UK.

I think you need to do some homework. By 2030 45% of women will be single between the ages of 25-45. The empowerment of women although great in some respects, is contributing to a lot of future cat lady's.

There are various other reasons too. South Korea is the lowest, followed by Japan and Italy I think, but Europe is not far behind.

This is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=vWn1ZdcKGxRw2Kym

And this, 51:20 might open your eyes a bit with modern dating, Chris really lays it out with the tall girl problem.

https://youtu.be/K2tGt2XWd9Q?si=CAfnU2LfmDcFY2eQ

Lots of info out there. I don't think you need to worry about too many humans.

That is a prediction of what will happen, not what had happened to now, look at the numbers from 1950 to 2020

It's already happening. Read the data yourself and there's nothing we can do about it.

Replacement level
Replacement fertility is the level of fertility required for the population to replace itself in size in the long term. In the UK, women would need to have, on average, 2.08 children to ensure long-term "natural" replacement of the population.

The total fertility rate (TFR) decreased to 1.49 children per woman in 2022 from 1.55 in 2021; the TFR has been decreasing since 2010. Fertility rates decreased overall and in each age group, except for women aged under 20 years where the fertility rate increased.23 Feb 2024

There were 605,479 live births in England and Wales in 2022, a 3.1% decrease from 624,828 in 2021 and the lowest number since 2002; the number remains in line with the recent trend of decreasing live births seen before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

[Slow.Patrol]

AceRockatansky said:

Population growth? We're in decline. And not a slow one either, infact it's going to pose some significant problems unless the robots get better at looking after old people.

If AI takes off, looking after the elderly might be one of the only jobs left.

I had an operation in 2019 that was done by a robot. OK, there was a surgeon at the controls, but how much longer will he be needed. I fractured my ankle a few years ago and it was missed on the x-ray on the first viewing. I have more confidence that a robot would have found it over a human.

[Ken_Code]

AceRockatansky said:

I think you need to do some homework. By 2030 45% of women will be single between the ages of 25-45. The empowerment of women although great in some respects, is contributing to a lot of future cat lady's.

There are various other reasons too. South Korea is the lowest, followed by Japan and Italy I think, but Europe is not far behind.

This is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=vWn1ZdcKGxRw2Kym

And this, 51:20 might open your eyes a bit with modern dating, Chris really lays it out with the tall girl problem.

https://youtu.be/K2tGt2XWd9Q?si=CAfnU2LfmDcFY2eQ

Lots of info out there. I don't think you need to worry about too many humans.

You said that we are in population decline. We aren’t.

Nothing you posted there says that we are.

Is English maybe not your first language? You used the present tense, which means now.

[Caddyshack]

AceRockatansky said:

Caddyshack said:

AceRockatansky said:

Ken_Code said:

AceRockatansky said:

Population growth? We're in decline. And not a slow one either, infact it's going to pose some significant problems unless the robots get better at looking after old people.

What do you mean by “we” there?

The world definitely isn’t, and neither is the UK.

I think you need to do some homework. By 2030 45% of women will be single between the ages of 25-45. The empowerment of women although great in some respects, is contributing to a lot of future cat lady's.

There are various other reasons too. South Korea is the lowest, followed by Japan and Italy I think, but Europe is not far behind.

This is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=vWn1ZdcKGxRw2Kym

And this, 51:20 might open your eyes a bit with modern dating, Chris really lays it out with the tall girl problem.

https://youtu.be/K2tGt2XWd9Q?si=CAfnU2LfmDcFY2eQ

Lots of info out there. I don't think you need to worry about too many humans.

That is a prediction of what will happen, not what had happened to now, look at the numbers from 1950 to 2020

It's already happening. Read the data yourself and there's nothing we can do about it.

Replacement level
Replacement fertility is the level of fertility required for the population to replace itself in size in the long term. In the UK, women would need to have, on average, 2.08 children to ensure long-term "natural" replacement of the population.

The total fertility rate (TFR) decreased to 1.49 children per woman in 2022 from 1.55 in 2021; the TFR has been decreasing since 2010. Fertility rates decreased overall and in each age group, except for women aged under 20 years where the fertility rate increased.23 Feb 2024

There were 605,479 live births in England and Wales in 2022, a 3.1% decrease from 624,828 in 2021 and the lowest number since 2002; the number remains in line with the recent trend of decreasing live births seen before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

You’re not getting it. The population of the world has grown massively over the last 100 years that is what we have been trying to tell you. The world is over populated right now….that is what the posts were about.


Your posts are about a recent decline and a future decline to the huge numbers.

[AceRockatansky]

Ken_Code said:

AceRockatansky said:

I think you need to do some homework. By 2030 45% of women will be single between the ages of 25-45. The empowerment of women although great in some respects, is contributing to a lot of future cat lady's.

There are various other reasons too. South Korea is the lowest, followed by Japan and Italy I think, but Europe is not far behind.

This is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=vWn1ZdcKGxRw2Kym

And this, 51:20 might open your eyes a bit with modern dating, Chris really lays it out with the tall girl problem.

https://youtu.be/K2tGt2XWd9Q?si=CAfnU2LfmDcFY2eQ

Lots of info out there. I don't think you need to worry about too many humans.

You said that we are in population decline. We aren’t.

Nothing you posted there says that we are.

Is English maybe not your first language? You used the present tense, which means now.

I just posted data. These things have a lag. We are already in decline, the effects will be become apparent in the future. Like I said, there is nothing we can do about it. Keep your head in the sand if you like, I've posted some info, it's up to you to read, watch and understand the current population situation. But we are not in any way going to have a problem with over population. One of us is informed on this topic and it definitely isn't you.

[AceRockatansky]

Caddyshack said:

AceRockatansky said:

Caddyshack said:

AceRockatansky said:

Ken_Code said:

AceRockatansky said:

Population growth? We're in decline. And not a slow one either, infact it's going to pose some significant problems unless the robots get better at looking after old people.

What do you mean by “we” there?

The world definitely isn’t, and neither is the UK.

I think you need to do some homework. By 2030 45% of women will be single between the ages of 25-45. The empowerment of women although great in some respects, is contributing to a lot of future cat lady's.

There are various other reasons too. South Korea is the lowest, followed by Japan and Italy I think, but Europe is not far behind.

This is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=vWn1ZdcKGxRw2Kym

And this, 51:20 might open your eyes a bit with modern dating, Chris really lays it out with the tall girl problem.

https://youtu.be/K2tGt2XWd9Q?si=CAfnU2LfmDcFY2eQ

Lots of info out there. I don't think you need to worry about too many humans.

That is a prediction of what will happen, not what had happened to now, look at the numbers from 1950 to 2020

It's already happening. Read the data yourself and there's nothing we can do about it.

Replacement level
Replacement fertility is the level of fertility required for the population to replace itself in size in the long term. In the UK, women would need to have, on average, 2.08 children to ensure long-term "natural" replacement of the population.

The total fertility rate (TFR) decreased to 1.49 children per woman in 2022 from 1.55 in 2021; the TFR has been decreasing since 2010. Fertility rates decreased overall and in each age group, except for women aged under 20 years where the fertility rate increased.23 Feb 2024

There were 605,479 live births in England and Wales in 2022, a 3.1% decrease from 624,828 in 2021 and the lowest number since 2002; the number remains in line with the recent trend of decreasing live births seen before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...

You’re not getting it. The population of the world has grown massively over the last 100 years that is what we have been trying to tell you. The world is over populated right now….that is what the posts were about.


Your posts are about a recent decline and a future decline to the huge numbers.

I replied to someone telling us that over population will be a future problem. It won't, population decline will be. I trust that it's clear.

[Simpo Two]

AceRockatansky said:

I replied to someone telling us that over population will be a future problem. It won't, population decline will be. I trust that it's clear.

Depends which country you're talking about. Globally, yes: https://tinyurl.com/2cxrf47b

And all those spare people will want to move to the nice countries.

[Panamax]

AceRockatansky said:

Population growth? We're in decline. And not a slow one either, in fact it's going to pose some significant problems unless the robots get better at looking after old people.

Who do you mean by "we"? Certainly not the total headcount of humans on this planet, which continues to grow exponentially.

[NickZ24]

Better explained is https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/wh...
Hardly anyone present will have his gold stored in Fort Knox.

[Ken_Code]

AceRockatansky said:

I just posted data. These things have a lag..

So your claim that population is currently declining was wrong.

It’s OK, numbers aren’t your thing, but it’s weird that having posted something a bit silly you are now digging your heels in rather than accepting you were wrong.

Population is growing, not falling. I know full-well that it’s predicted to start falling later this century, but that’s not what you claimed.

[Ken_Code]

Panamax said:

Who do you mean by "we"? Certainly not the total headcount of humans on this planet, which continues to grow exponentially.

He apparently knows better than all the official data.

[Caddyshack]

I think that many people don’t equate that a population reducing in population growth is still growing in population, just less quickly. (Not aimed at any particular poster)

[Ken_Code]

Caddyshack said:

I think that many people don’t equate that a population reducing in population growth is still growing in population, just less quickly. (Not aimed at any particular poster)

Do they only start teaching derivatives in sixth form nowadays? That could explain their confusion.

I forget sometimes that not everyone “gets” maths.

[Panamax]

Ken_Code said:

Caddyshack said:

I think that many people don’t equate that a population reducing in population growth is still growing in population, just less quickly.

I forget sometimes that not everyone “gets” maths.

Indeed.
BBC: "Excellent news viewers, inflation's gone down. The rate has reduced from 7% to 5%."
Rishi: "We've halved inflation."
Rishi: "We've reduced taxes and the tax bands continue unchanged."
Treasury: "Please don't mention the Wealth Tax. We don't think anyone's noticed that 20%-28% CGT with inflation at 5% amounts to an overall UK wealth tax of at least 1% a year. Keep going for 25 years and we'll have taken 25% of your stuff."

[RSTurboPaul]

NickZ24 said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Andy Schectman has been talking about dedollarisation and the USD losing World Reserve Currency status for a while, as well as how it appears everything is shifting to the East via the BRICS arrangements, with a move to a gold-backed financial system.

There is no alternative to the $ and many who hate the $ are just envious.
If you look at the haters they have much in common to US lovers, too many american gadgets.

I meant to reply to this yesterday but forgot. lol


That's quite a strong statement there - what informs that view?

If my understanding is correct (which it may well not be ) USD only became World Reserve Currency at Bretton Woods in 1940-something, and at that point it was tied to Gold.

Why could the world not simply remove USD from the equation and swap to using A.N.Other currency as WRC? (Possibly backed by Gold again?) Or settle in their own currencies as part of bilateral trade agreements?

Oil does not *need* to be priced in USD, as the BRICS countries' agreements between themselves have shown, and those same countries have stated they are moving towards an arrangement focused on values of hard goods and assets rather than debt- and finance-based ephemeral 'assets' which (in the case of the US) appear to either be unpayable (because debt-to-the-moon) or worthless (because QE-infinity could just magic 'money' out of thin air).

[AceRockatansky]

Ken_Code said:

AceRockatansky said:

I just posted data. These things have a lag..

So your claim that population is currently declining was wrong.

It’s OK, numbers aren’t your thing, but it’s weird that having posted something a bit silly you are now digging your heels in rather than accepting you were wrong.

Population is growing, not falling. I know full-well that it’s predicted to start falling later this century, but that’s not what you claimed.

OK, Lets go back to the statement that kick started this:

Panamax said:

The elephant in the room is runaway population growth.

I stated we are in decline and it cannot be reversed, i referenced information on fertility rates to support this. You know full well my point, you are just being pedantic. The decline has to manifest itself in a cause, that cause is playing out today. I also stated the lag which i thought would be fairly obvious when quoting TFR because we have to wait for babies to get to a birthing age

There is no elephant in the room wrt population
We don't have "runaway population growth"


If you focus only on the western developed societies, which lets face is what we are talking about given the subject of the thread, then we are way below the required TFR of 2.1 to maintain our populations:

Europe = 1.6
North America = 1.7

If you want to look at absolute numbers, then no, right now, today our numbers on the planet are increasing. If you want to be precise about the point in question then population growth is in decline as well you know it is, which is a world away from "runaway population growth". That is a factually incorrect statement. That is merely population momentum from previous decades and is also discussed and explained quite clearly in the link I posted.

Ken_Code said:

I know full-well that it’s predicted to start falling later this century, but that’s not what you claimed.

So not "runaway population growth". Thankyou.

[Slow.Patrol]

Surely if AI takes off, then a population decline is no bad thing.

Not that it will affect me much as I will probably be dead in 20 years.

Especially as the predictions on life expectancy are not as high these days.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/...

[Panamax]

AceRockatansky said:

OK, Lets go back to the statement that kick started this:

Panamax said:

The elephant in the room is runaway population growth.

I stated we are in decline and it cannot be reversed, i referenced information on fertility rates to support this. You know full well my point, you are just being pedantic.

So not "runaway population growth". Thankyou.

You were, and remain, fundamentally wrong. This is not pedantry, it is shooting down untrue statements. Declining fertility is completely irrelevant until it gets towards the point of universal sterility. Look around the world and you'll see the "problem" that better educated and wealthier people have fewer kids than the unwashed.

It definitely is runaway population growth because the overall number of humans keeps rocketing, which puts more and more pressure on the global food supply.

[Caddyshack]

Panamax said:

AceRockatansky said:

OK, Lets go back to the statement that kick started this:

Panamax said:

The elephant in the room is runaway population growth.

I stated we are in decline and it cannot be reversed, i referenced information on fertility rates to support this. You know full well my point, you are just being pedantic.

So not "runaway population growth". Thankyou.

You were, and remain, fundamentally wrong. This is not pedantry, it is shooting down untrue statements. Declining fertility is completely irrelevant until it gets towards the point of universal sterility. Look around the world and you'll see the "problem" that better educated and wealthier people have fewer kids than the unwashed.

It definitely is runaway population growth because the overall number of humans keeps rocketing, which puts more and more pressure on the global food supply.

Some sobering numbers:


Our growing population

The world's population is expected to increase by nearly 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from the current 8 billion to 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s.


Then I looked up 100 yrs ago:


Population Growth - Our World in Data
It was only a century ago that there were 2 billion people. Since then, the global population has quadrupled to eight billion. Around 108 billion people have ever lived on our planet. This means that today's population size makes up 6.5% of the total number of people ever born.

[Caddyshack]

This graph explains how a falling birth rate still grows the population, some people prefer pictures (I do):