UK population must fall to 30m
Discussion
AJS- said:
I've given this way too much thought. Would love to see someone get eaten by a lion just walking along some normal street in England.
Gentlemen, that reminds me of a Bernard Manning joke.A guy is walking along the street when he sees a crowd of people running towards him. He stops one of the runners and asks "What's happening?" "A lion has escaped from the zoo!" is the reply. "Oh my God! Which way is it heading?" says the guy. "Well you don't think we're f
king chasing it do you?
Gaspode said:
AJS- said:
How about a policy of releasing dangerous animals in the UK? Two benefits to this. Firstly it takes away the controversial job of deciding who goes and who stays. More importantly though, it is more likely to get rid of the weak and infirm, and especially the unlucky. These groups are the biggest burden on the rest of society, and what with their various medicines, wheelchair fuel and propensity for spilling things, they are the worst for the environment too.
Bears and wolves would be the best place to start. If they don't catch enough, bring some tigers in, and if we still have too many people, crocodiles. Snakes would be a last resort. All the savaged bodies could then be thrown into the sea to attract sharks.
Bears and wolves would be the best place to start. If they don't catch enough, bring some tigers in, and if we still have too many people, crocodiles. Snakes would be a last resort. All the savaged bodies could then be thrown into the sea to attract sharks.
Top Stuff! Literally crying with laughter here.
As soon as Sterling crashes the issue won’t be getting down to 30M.
This country can only import goods because we can pay for them. When that ceases to be true, we will cease to receive imports. Would you ship your goods to someone you knew couldn’t pay for them?
With insufficient fuel, the generation of electricity will fail. Since most of the UK water supply is pumped using electricity, water supplies will fail. Worse still, the sewage system relies upon the availability of water to flush. Without working sanitation, the cholera will reduce the population nicely.
That will at least help the food situation. Since the UK only managed to produce enough food to feed 15M of the population during the war, we can expect to do no better. Remember, they had fuel imports via the convoys. No fuel imports also means farming without agricultural machinery.
Of course, back then they had loads of shire horses and people who knew how to farm with them. It will take years to breed enough heavy horses from the current low population. By the time we have relearned how to farm with them, we will have had years of famine.
Overpopulation will be the least of our problems.
This country can only import goods because we can pay for them. When that ceases to be true, we will cease to receive imports. Would you ship your goods to someone you knew couldn’t pay for them?
With insufficient fuel, the generation of electricity will fail. Since most of the UK water supply is pumped using electricity, water supplies will fail. Worse still, the sewage system relies upon the availability of water to flush. Without working sanitation, the cholera will reduce the population nicely.
That will at least help the food situation. Since the UK only managed to produce enough food to feed 15M of the population during the war, we can expect to do no better. Remember, they had fuel imports via the convoys. No fuel imports also means farming without agricultural machinery.
Of course, back then they had loads of shire horses and people who knew how to farm with them. It will take years to breed enough heavy horses from the current low population. By the time we have relearned how to farm with them, we will have had years of famine.
Overpopulation will be the least of our problems.
No problem. make a list of the people not wanted here, prioritise it and start culling from the top till we reach the "magic number".
List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
Edited by Poledriver on Sunday 22 March 23:48
Jasandjules said:
I don't think we ought to listen a greenie on any issue at all, until they can PROVE beyond any doubt that they are not simply full of s**t.
However, we could still engage in Chav culling, simply to make the country a better place to live.
Hell, there has to be about 30 million chavs where I live alone. Gimme a big gun and loads of ammo and we will get the number down to near 30m!!However, we could still engage in Chav culling, simply to make the country a better place to live.
turbobloke said:
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.
First of all, as I understand it, the current signs point to there being a vast change in wealth distribution, in general from west to east, where 'our' largest creditors await. Unless a violent interventions halts this process, its going to have a serious impact on who the 'you' is.Second, with approx. 45 trillion said to be vanishing from the worlds money supply, I'd say in general, a heck of a lot people will be getting poorer than are getting richer - and this includes much of the usual 'who' as well. As you say, the UK government are working to preserve the status quo of wealth, with utter disregard for the inevitable and eventual amplified impact of this upon the working public.
turbobloke said:
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.
It _need_ not be, no. Tell me honestly though, does the ongoing actions of the most powerful governments inspire faith that it won't? There is plenty of educated and well researched opininon, from which one could pursue larger scale research and developments, but it appears its being ignored on account of vested interests and short term gain/pocket-lining.turbobloke said:
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'.
I will concede that I sold the article short on its de-myth-ifying, which was its prime intent. My criticism refers to how this is done; using theories with the same kind of narrow statistical applicability.Each of the theories overlooks, deliberately or by necessity, other important factors which will impact upon the future predictions they make. Using the Ausubel example, his predictions take into account the willing cooperation of developing countries, something you can hardly assume as given. It also relies on the current pace of industrial and technological growth, something which with peaking fossil resources in a number of areas, is unlikely to endure.
turbobloke said:
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.
No, you're deliberating muddying the waters here. Porrit uses 'facts' to present his case as scientific. I am expressly using my intuition to voice my opinion on what will happen, you cannot compare the two. Intuition cannot be called unhelpful either, for it is intuition which causes us to choose the hypotheses which become the object of factual, scientific study. You could say I am unhelpful in that I don't follow through my intuition with such research and you'd be right, which is why I presented it as it was, an opinion, rather than taking the 'porritesque' route.
turbobloke said:
Almost all of it from the likes of Porritt.
If there's bad science around it can be plainly seen as bad science.
The point I was trying - and it seems didn't make clear, which is my failing - was that the data itself can be seen as good or bad easily and plainly as you say. What is difficult to ascertain good or bad is the context and the ulterior reasoning for that datas assembly and presentation. Research relies on indicators to predict trends and those indicators are not always reliable, nor even does perfect historical reliability guaruntee future reliability. That is why it is hard to explain large scale, extremely complex phenomena and why when someone presents an explanation on such massive issues, it is difficult to prove or disprove it.If there's bad science around it can be plainly seen as bad science.
turbobloke said:
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.
Happening to the world, to humanity, environmentally, economically, so forth.. Everything is interrelated and large events in one area eventually impact upon another. 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.
I agree with you that getting off the planet is probably the most important thing. Its not the planet thats likely to suffer the consequences of not doing so, its us.
Again, I am inclined to agree with your points on the planets self-sustainability. It is my _intuitive_ understanding that inclines me to do so, which may well be incorrect, as may yours. My previous post criticsing the article arose not out of disagreement with the sentiment, but disappointment in how it was evidenced.
In response to dubious theoretical suppositions about the fate of humanity, more dubious theoretical suppositions were used. The "Great restoration" is based on the same kind of selective use of statistics that "global warming" is.
I easily see when the data is insufficient to evidence the theory, but that does not mean I can tell whether the theory itself is right or wrong.
It is my _opinion_ that in order to overcome the reliance upon niche studies to make grand suppositions, our race needs become much more self aware in order that we may act in concert to determine with sufficiently-scaled tools, the nature of the coming future.
Poledriver said:
No problem. make a list of the people not wanted here, prioritise it and start culling from the top till we reach the "magic number".
List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
the irony List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
Edited by Poledriver on Sunday 22 March 23:48
Gaspode said:
AJS- said:
How about a policy of releasing dangerous animals in the UK? Two benefits to this. Firstly it takes away the controversial job of deciding who goes and who stays. More importantly though, it is more likely to get rid of the weak and infirm, and especially the unlucky. These groups are the biggest burden on the rest of society, and what with their various medicines, wheelchair fuel and propensity for spilling things, they are the worst for the environment too.
Bears and wolves would be the best place to start. If they don't catch enough, bring some tigers in, and if we still have too many people, crocodiles. Snakes would be a last resort. All the savaged bodies could then be thrown into the sea to attract sharks.
Bears and wolves would be the best place to start. If they don't catch enough, bring some tigers in, and if we still have too many people, crocodiles. Snakes would be a last resort. All the savaged bodies could then be thrown into the sea to attract sharks.
Top Stuff! Literally crying with laughter here.
Top marks!
thinfourth2 said:
Poledriver said:
No problem. make a list of the people not wanted here, prioritise it and start culling from the top till we reach the "magic number".
List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
the List in order of unimportance:-
First to go..Illegal immigrants
2) "Benefit seeking" immigrants
3) Home-made professional benefits scroungers.
4) Any remaining non Emglish speakers.
5) Tree huggers.
6) Other lentalists
7) The ten remaining labour supporters.
8) Chavs.
I think that will leave about 100 people!
Edited by Poledriver on Sunday 22 March 23:48
There is something of an irony in all government efforts to encourage sustainability or reduce consumption. The use of taxes is inflationary. It's especially inflationary given that the majority of the employed population is on the public payroll. Taxing people's pleasures; taxing people's mobility; taxing people's consumption reduces their spendable income which puts pressure on wages claims. Consumption is needed to fuel the economy's growth.
If the UK population were to fall, unless the falls all came from the 'expense side' (public sector; welfare sector) the UK's position would deteriorate because its debt overhead is so colossal it needs people, a lot of people, to be making money to service the national debts.
You can't have economic growth without consumption. Given that consumption causes issues about sustainability of resources, then economic growth must cease. But the G20 is committed to growth, and also committed to various carbon taxes to reduce consumption.
It's possible to see how faux growth from the financial sector held appeal, at least up to the point where the combined debt of the G20 ran into tens of trillions of dollars and broke the monetary system. Nevertheless, more trillions of debt are being added to fix the monetary system's failure with the aim of restoring growth (consumption) which, at the same time, governments claim to hope to limit with taxes.
Dizzy?
Or it simply clear that all roads lead to extracting every last penny from citizens to drop it in the pocket of the banks?
If the UK population were to fall, unless the falls all came from the 'expense side' (public sector; welfare sector) the UK's position would deteriorate because its debt overhead is so colossal it needs people, a lot of people, to be making money to service the national debts.
You can't have economic growth without consumption. Given that consumption causes issues about sustainability of resources, then economic growth must cease. But the G20 is committed to growth, and also committed to various carbon taxes to reduce consumption.
It's possible to see how faux growth from the financial sector held appeal, at least up to the point where the combined debt of the G20 ran into tens of trillions of dollars and broke the monetary system. Nevertheless, more trillions of debt are being added to fix the monetary system's failure with the aim of restoring growth (consumption) which, at the same time, governments claim to hope to limit with taxes.
Dizzy?
Or it simply clear that all roads lead to extracting every last penny from citizens to drop it in the pocket of the banks?
bosscerbera said:
If the UK population were to fall, unless the falls all came from the 'expense side' (public sector; welfare sector) the UK's position would deteriorate because its debt overhead is so colossal it needs people, a lot of people, to be making money to service the national debts.
That's the same thinking that the Govt have - we need more money - so pack more people into the country to pay more tax. That could work if you increased the population with high earners, but the UK immigration shambles, has done the opposite.For a Govt that so often clatters on about 'sustainability', it's amazing they don't see the big picture and realise that the biggest single problem (not just UK but the world) is overpopulation. Eventually something will have to give - it's just a question of when, where and how.
How about outsourcing all the public sector bureaucracy to India and Asia?
This would reduce costs and increase tax revenues in the long run as the resources used in the public sector in the UK, labour, buildings etc, would all be freed up and put to productive use, which is taxed. It would also reduce the incentive for the government to disguise unemployment by hiring more people to do useless jobs.
I don't suppose it would really reduce the population, but it's a good idea anyway. It might go some way to reducing immigration by providing jobs in those countries that immigrants are coming from.
This would reduce costs and increase tax revenues in the long run as the resources used in the public sector in the UK, labour, buildings etc, would all be freed up and put to productive use, which is taxed. It would also reduce the incentive for the government to disguise unemployment by hiring more people to do useless jobs.
I don't suppose it would really reduce the population, but it's a good idea anyway. It might go some way to reducing immigration by providing jobs in those countries that immigrants are coming from.
AJS- said:
How about outsourcing all the public sector bureaucracy to India and Asia?
That's a really bad idea.At the moment, you have deal with annoying, humourless, rule-driven twunts.
Add in not being able to understand them and 'Falling Down' moments would become a common daily sight.
Simpo Two said:
bosscerbera said:
If the UK population were to fall, unless the falls all came from the 'expense side' (public sector; welfare sector) the UK's position would deteriorate because its debt overhead is so colossal it needs people, a lot of people, to be making money to service the national debts.
That's the same thinking that the Govt have - we need more money - so pack more people into the country to pay more tax. That could work if you increased the population with high earners, but the UK immigration shambles, has done the opposite.Simpo Two said:
For a Govt that so often clatters on about 'sustainability', it's amazing they don't see the big picture and realise that the biggest single problem (not just UK but the world) is overpopulation. Eventually something will have to give - it's just a question of when, where and how.
The trouble is, the big picture is horribly complicated. We can only all survive if some kind of equilibrium is established and maintained but rising population and advancing technology decreasing work opportunities makes the equilibrium all the more elusive. Idiots in government doesn't help; catastrophic debt levels confound further. Not only is the monetary system now broken but also, I think, economics itself needs questioning. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff