UK population must fall to 30m

[DangerousMike]

hmm 60 million now... 30 million target... If everyone that has not yet reproduced has only 1 child then in 60-90 years we'll be down to 30 million.

we just have to stop replacing all the old people when they die.

[elster]

DangerousMike said:

hmm 60 million now... 30 million target... If everyone that has not yet reproduced has only 1 child then in 60-90 years we'll be down to 30 million.

we just have to stop replacing all the old people when they die.

Or just stop looking after old people over a certain age.

[10 Pence Short]

elster said:

10 Pence Short said:

I don't know why you don't just be done with it and put a few swastikas in your profile.

I don't remember chavs in Nazi Germany.

That wasn't my point and you know it.

[elster]

10 Pence Short said:

elster said:

10 Pence Short said:

I don't know why you don't just be done with it and put a few swastikas in your profile.

I don't remember chavs in Nazi Germany.

That wasn't my point and you know it.

No to be honest I don't. If he was goin on about killing blacks, gays, asians and jews. Then I could see where you are coming from.

But saying he will be killing a load of sportswear kitted theives, is not similar.

[superkartracer]

V8mate said:

Apparently, we need to reduce our population to 30m in order to achieve a sustainable society.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...


I'm happy to step up to the plate and take on this difficult job.

If somene can organise sufficient squads of 'enforcers' I'll get cracking first thing in the morning.

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers

Meh

[ShadownINja]

I've been going on for a while about the need to stop breeding. 1 child families is the way forward. How to enforce this? Dunno. A good start would be to stop paying people to breed. Harsh but we've had it too good for too long. Workhouses for able-bodied parasitic chavs might help, too.

[Ben Magoo]

V8mate said:

Bing o said:

eccles said:

V8mate said:

If somene can organise sufficient squads of 'enforcers' I'll get cracking first thing in the morning.

Are you a closet Nazi or something?

No closet involved...

Neither nationalist nor socialist either!

First of all the Nazi were nationalist [b]and[b/] socialist (NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and aimed at good, honest, hard working German workers - not such an evil, world dominating cause afterall.

Mean while back on topic, a good scoop of tough love would do this country a world of good - a complete ethos change fot a massive section of the population, from work shy chavs, carrier benifit theives, illigal imigrants and the people who pimp them here.

All the liberal softies will be up in arms about "civil liberties" and "human rights" but be aware that most people don't have the capability to behave responsibly for the greater good by themselves and require a firm hand to keep them in line.

[polus]

In other news, the pope is old.

You only have to drive around the south to see it’s far too crammed. Trouble is due to the ageing population what we have is one big pyramid scheme.

Its one big smelly turd of a problem... one child rule? Not going to popular.

[davido140]

thinfourth2 said:

turbobloke said:

Political views on sustainability are based on the usual ecomyths.

http://reason.com/rb/rb062602.shtml

Awwww Turbo don't be a spoilsport

This means we won't be able to cull the chavs

Only problem is they will start with people who have cars over 2 litres.

We just need more/better infrastructure and more renewable energy (the wonderful power of the atom, not some fart capturing farm on a hill in the north)

[PeteG]

fking Porritt.

[MM2200]

turbobloke said:

Political views on sustainability are based on the usual ecomyths.

http://reason.com/rb/rb062602.shtml

Uhh..

While I'm inclined to agree that Porritt and co don't present an especially coherent argument, the authors of the reason article make the same myopic error. In place of eco myths, you have techno myths.

"You get smarter as you get richer." from the article. Hmm, I wonder what they think will happen in the current economic climate? And in reality, who is 'you' anyway?

Perhaps the most fundamental criticism I have of the reason.com article is concerning the idea that increases in technology will result in land being given back to nature. Surely that just leaves more room for continued exponential growth? Great restoration? These predictions from both camps are made as if technology is local to one or the other area of effect. In the eco-case, its the great destroyer, in the reason.com case, its the welcome saviour.

Purely from an intuitive perspective, it seems to me that unless there is some kind of unprecedented, massive, globally coordinated movement to control population growth, I can't imagine any great restoration, not until we're a much more coordinated and mature race.

I'm expecting the population to hit its natural limit in much the same fashion as a driver hits his natural limit when he realizes too late he's gone in too fast and hurtles over the limit of grip at high speed. There is going to be a crash of some description, whether and/or how he and we survive it, who knows?

There is so much disinformation around and while its not that hard to filter the good from the bad, its the large-scale, long-range ideas about the future which I find very difficult to discern the merit of, either way. I gather many people have the same problem and hence the temptation is strong to fall in with a bunch of yay or nay-sayers such as in these two articles, whose ideas probably have more grounds in what they want to come to pass, than what they've logically determined is likely to come to pass.

I don't think there is anyone who really understands just what the hell is happening or where we're going to end up. I do think global lack of awareness as a species must change before we are able to change our situation with anything more efficient and sophisticated than blind natural selection.

Edited by MM2200 on Sunday 22 March 14:45

[Negative Creep]

Stand outside newsagents and shoot anyone who walks out with a copy of the Sun, Mirror, Hello, Heat or OK. Job done. Well a few paper boys will get it, but them's the rules

[papercup]

Negative Creep said:

Stand outside newsagents and shoot anyone who walks out with a copy of the Sun, Mirror, Hello, Heat or OK. Job done. Well a few paper boys will get it, but them's the rules

i see a flaw. No more builders. I know the first response is 'and?'....but we do need people to make things...

[AJS-]

Surely if the population is unsustainable it will be cut back to sustainable levels by natural forces anyway. So what are they worried about?

[turbobloke]

MM2200 said:

turbobloke said:

Political views on sustainability are based on the usual ecomyths.

http://reason.com/rb/rb062602.shtml

While I'm inclined to agree that Porritt and co don't present an especially coherent argument, the authors of the reason article make the same myopic error. In place of eco myths, you have techno myths.

In your opinion.

MM2200 said:

"You get smarter as you get richer." from the article. Hmm, I wonder what they think will happen in the current economic climate? And in reality, who is 'you' anyway?

It's still true after the crash, not much variation in the 'who' - though in this country Labour have seen to it that the richest 10% made the most gain.

MM2200 said:

Perhaps the most fundamental criticism I have of the reason.com article is concerning the idea that increases in technology will result in land being given back to nature. Surely that just leaves more room for continued exponential growth?

Possibly yes, it does, but as per the current debate about the implications of devoting land to biofuel production, the direction taken needn't be due to myopia.

MM2200 said:

Great restoration? These predictions from both camps are made as if technology is local to one or the other area of effect. In the eco-case, its the great destroyer, in the reason.com case, its the welcome saviour.

Pity you didn't (seem) to go into the linked articles and works - never mind beyond - or if you did, failed to mention matters rising. The main reason for citing the reason.com article wasn't any of the above points, but an effective demonstration of the fallacy set in a Wackernagel type calculation of 'sustainability'.

MM2200 said:

Purely from an intuitive perspective, it seems to me that unless there is some kind of unprecedented, massive, globally coordinated movement to control population growth, I can't imagine any great restoration, not until we're a much more coordinated and mature race.

Porrittesque. He seems to have an intuitive understanding of climate science, which like most intuitive approaches to complex natural phenomena by historians and classicists and the like, is unhelpful.

MM2200 said:

There is so much disinformation around...

Almost all of it from the likes of Porritt.

If there's bad science around it can be plainly seen as bad science.

MM2200 said:

I don't think there is anyone who really understands just what the hell is happening or where we're going to end up.

Happening to what? We're going to end up extinct if we don't get off into the solar system and beyond in a suitable timescale. Our top end lifespan could hit 200 fairly soon.

Even so, the planet will be fine, including up to the point where all life is gone. You'd think arts folk commentating on science would at least get the language right.

Before then, there seems to be some technological and genuine sustainability mileage in algaculture, fusion, subsea habitats and similar developments, which also meet some of your earlier points.

[im]

papercup said:

i see a flaw. No more builders. I know the first response is 'and?'....but we do need people to make things...

The curse of the Middle Class...They need the working class to actually build things or else this'll be the their arrival home from the office




...well...If they've managed to build an office of course...

[AJS-]

MM2200 said:

Perhaps the most fundamental criticism I have of the reason.com article is concerning the idea that increases in technology will result in land being given back to nature. Surely that just leaves more room for continued exponential growth?

The thing to remember is that space, trees, wildlife and so forth are in some sense economic goods. They are things people value and will pay for and the more scarce they become the greater will be their value, hence as a society gets richer it will turn over more land to these uses.

[Talksteer]

Ultimately all you need to grow food is power and water.



If it seriously comes down to it we could supply the worlds food from hydroponically grown vegetables, and farmed animal fed off them (though likely that generically engineered rump stake on a tree would appear before we got to that point). Provided you have power you can run a whole ecosystem in a cave or a space ship.

We have enough nuclear fuel (with re-processing and fast breeding) to last the human race for the rest of foreseeable history.

Population growth is like fuel usage one of those factors that you really can't do much about directly without draconian methods. Provided women are educated, states free and health care good population will not continue to grow as people will only have children at the replacement rate.

[Fittster]

Works for me.

[King Herald]

V8mate said:

Apparently, we need to reduce our population to 30m in order to achieve a sustainable society.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...


I'm happy to step up to the plate and take on this difficult job.

If somene can organise sufficient squads of 'enforcers' I'll get cracking first thing in the morning.

We should start with that disgusting lowlife family with 11 kids in Blackpool, who don't work, invest nothing in society in general, just sponge off the rest of the populace. It probably takes every other working man in their streets contributions to tax and NI to pay for their lazy scum bag lifestyle.