Human population growth - fun fact
Discussion
otolith said:
Two child limit and household benefit cap.
I’d go a bit further and exempt anyone who chooses not to have any from all green taxation, but it’s a start.
I already posted that.I’d go a bit further and exempt anyone who chooses not to have any from all green taxation, but it’s a start.
Multi kid families have not been an issue for years.
Do some research and look at the real costs.
Edited by Nickgnome on Saturday 7th December 00:27
Nickgnome said:
The UK is one of the areas where population density is considered high, yet less than 6% is actually built on. So what would the global average be? 4% possibly, but probably less.
Hans Rosling, now deceased, undertook some interesting analysis of population growth and tried to explain how as baby mortality decreased and contraception became readily available that countries saw birth rate increases drop year on year.
China had a go at the one child policy which has caused a major imbalance between the working population and those older ‘retired’ people.
Perhaps somebody would like to calculate the average density of the global population per hectare. I think we may be surprised how much space there actually is and our perceptions are distorted my our view of cities.
I would contend that most of the global issues are caused by mismanagement of resource and the massive disparity between those with wealth and those without.
Our continued adherence to continued and unabated consumerism is unsustainable in its current form.
You've forgotten we need land to grow things to live on and that a lot of it (globally) isn't suitable for that. The Amazon rainforest is needed to keep some balance, yet it's being lost at a rate of one football field sized piece per day and made into arable land to provide the huge amount of meat we consume.Hans Rosling, now deceased, undertook some interesting analysis of population growth and tried to explain how as baby mortality decreased and contraception became readily available that countries saw birth rate increases drop year on year.
China had a go at the one child policy which has caused a major imbalance between the working population and those older ‘retired’ people.
Perhaps somebody would like to calculate the average density of the global population per hectare. I think we may be surprised how much space there actually is and our perceptions are distorted my our view of cities.
I would contend that most of the global issues are caused by mismanagement of resource and the massive disparity between those with wealth and those without.
Our continued adherence to continued and unabated consumerism is unsustainable in its current form.
Also, what about that it's good to be actually able to get away from all this crap for a few hours and go somewhere quiet? You might not appreciate that, but lots of us do.
This Country is f
ked and i'm kind of glad i'm over 50% through my life as it's not looking good for the future.Part of me says we need a good WW3 or something equally as callous and destructive because people just do not give a f
k about the way things are going and are only interested in their own needs and plopping out as many kids as possible.Producing a new western consumer is the single most environmentally reckless thing a person can do. We tax other reckless acts. We shouldn’t be subsidised that one.
I’m happy with the system as it is, though I note that the family I know with six kids get by on one labourer’s wage (the changes meant he had to get a job)
I’m happy with the system as it is, though I note that the family I know with six kids get by on one labourer’s wage (the changes meant he had to get a job)
227bhp said:
You've forgotten we need land to grow things to live on and that a lot of it (globally) isn't suitable for that. The Amazon rainforest is needed to keep some balance, yet it's being lost at a rate of one football field sized piece per day and made into arable land to provide the huge amount of meat we consume.
Also, what about that it's good to be actually able to get away from all this crap for a few hours and go somewhere quiet? You might not appreciate that, but lots of us do.
This Country is fked and i'm kind of glad i'm over 50% through my life as it's not looking good for the future.
Part of me says we need a good WW3 or something equally as callous and destructive because people just do not give a fk about the way things are going and are only interested in their own needs and plopping out as many kids as possible.
It is very unfortunate that you think that way.Also, what about that it's good to be actually able to get away from all this crap for a few hours and go somewhere quiet? You might not appreciate that, but lots of us do.
This Country is f
ked and i'm kind of glad i'm over 50% through my life as it's not looking good for the future.Part of me says we need a good WW3 or something equally as callous and destructive because people just do not give a f
k about the way things are going and are only interested in their own needs and plopping out as many kids as possible.I worked most of my life in London but there is so much space just a few miles out. I’m a very outdoors person. South Downs, Dunstable Downs, West county, Wales, Peak District etc. Etc. I did the three peaks marathon a few years ago. There is masses of space. You are obviously not looking. You can hike for hours without seeing a single person. I cycle and run and have never felt oppressed
The country is fine. The only thing that May have an issue is your attitude
Nickgnome said:
227bhp said:
You've forgotten we need land to grow things to live on and that a lot of it (globally) isn't suitable for that. The Amazon rainforest is needed to keep some balance, yet it's being lost at a rate of one football field sized piece per day and made into arable land to provide the huge amount of meat we consume.
Also, what about that it's good to be actually able to get away from all this crap for a few hours and go somewhere quiet? You might not appreciate that, but lots of us do.
This Country is fked and i'm kind of glad i'm over 50% through my life as it's not looking good for the future.
Part of me says we need a good WW3 or something equally as callous and destructive because people just do not give a fk about the way things are going and are only interested in their own needs and plopping out as many kids as possible.
It is very unfortunate that you think that way.Also, what about that it's good to be actually able to get away from all this crap for a few hours and go somewhere quiet? You might not appreciate that, but lots of us do.
This Country is f
ked and i'm kind of glad i'm over 50% through my life as it's not looking good for the future.Part of me says we need a good WW3 or something equally as callous and destructive because people just do not give a f
k about the way things are going and are only interested in their own needs and plopping out as many kids as possible.I worked most of my life in London but there is so much space just a few miles out. I’m a very outdoors person. South Downs, Dunstable Downs, West county, Wales, Peak District etc. Etc. I did the three peaks marathon a few years ago. There is masses of space. You are obviously not looking. You can hike for hours without seeing a single person. I cycle and run and have never felt oppressed
The country is fine. The only thing that May have an issue is your attitude
I'm going to be uncool and say I think we're going to be OK in the end.
Much of world wants plentiful meat, transport and power. I reckon we'll get that licked to a satisfactory extent. A consumer in the 2060s will be eating lab grown beef, be powered by renewables and have clean transport one tap of an app away.
More education and prosperity will radically reduce the amount of children being squirted out and this century may well see the all time peak of human population.
If you'd told someone in the 1960s what the population is now they'd instantly start shaking at the prospect of it but we're rubbing along just as adequately as ever.
Much of world wants plentiful meat, transport and power. I reckon we'll get that licked to a satisfactory extent. A consumer in the 2060s will be eating lab grown beef, be powered by renewables and have clean transport one tap of an app away.
More education and prosperity will radically reduce the amount of children being squirted out and this century may well see the all time peak of human population.
If you'd told someone in the 1960s what the population is now they'd instantly start shaking at the prospect of it but we're rubbing along just as adequately as ever.
227bhp said:
The things you have issues with is your eyesight, attitude and Geography if you think any of those places are near London and there is genuinely no-one there.
My geography is spot on. Miles from London for Epping Forest, Dunstable downing South Downs please.
You see your problem is I lived in London, an hour later I could find places where there were very few or no people. You are either lazy or ignorant. BT W I used to commute from Waterloo to Havant in 1:15. . Petersfield, North of the downs was just 1 hour from London.
You clearly need to get out more. There are not too many places in the UK I have not visited. There is loads of space if you are not a lazy f
k. Mothersruin said:
Was reading a book by Niall Ferguson about the British Empire and one of the figures that really jumped out at me was when India gained independence, the population was below 400,000 - it's now nearly 1,400,000,000 - Fakinell!
Below 400,000????Er Noooooo. I think you may have missed out a few zeroes.
361,088,090
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Census_of_India
FF
227bhp said:
You've forgotten we need land to grow things to live on and that a lot of it (globally) isn't suitable for that. The Amazon rainforest is needed to keep some balance, yet it's being lost at a rate of one football field sized piece per day and made into arable land to provide the huge amount of meat we consume
It's more than three football fields per minute.Nickgnome said:
My geography is spot on.
Miles from London for Epping Forest, Dunstable downing South Downs please.
You see your problem is I lived in London, an hour later I could find places where there were very few or no people. You are either lazy or ignorant. BT W I used to commute from Waterloo to Havant in 1:15. . Petersfield, North of the downs was just 1 hour from London.
You clearly need to get out more. There are not too many places in the UK I have not visited. There is loads of space if you are not a lazy fk.
'Yes but would you live there?Miles from London for Epping Forest, Dunstable downing South Downs please.
You see your problem is I lived in London, an hour later I could find places where there were very few or no people. You are either lazy or ignorant. BT W I used to commute from Waterloo to Havant in 1:15. . Petersfield, North of the downs was just 1 hour from London.
You clearly need to get out more. There are not too many places in the UK I have not visited. There is loads of space if you are not a lazy f
k. It's all very well saying there are vast tracks of land with no one living on them but what about providing infrastructure to such places and the energy it would take to fulfil this.
Can you imagine if every human was given your allocated area of space to live in on the planet and then have to provide power and services to each individual plot.
It wouldn't sit well with the 'climate emergency' would it?
I don’t think we are looking at the real problem.
Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
otolith said:
At a cost. None of this stuff is free. The cost is that we’re all going to have to settle for a poorer standard of living.
That relies on 2 tenuous assumptions. Firstly that use of resources is the only way of improving our standard of living. It isn't. People in flats in Chelsea have a far higher standard of living than people farming a few acres of scrub land in Mali, so land is not a limit. And if I double my income I won't eat twice as much. In fact I probably wouldn't eat any more at all. Secondly, it assumes that these extra people don't produce anything. In fact they often produce more than they consume. People are vastly more productive than they were, and more people will continue to produce more as long as technology keeps improving.
On land use in particular, a figure which always surprises me is that the UK as a whole is about 60 million acres. That is nearly 1 acre per person for the current population, and easily two acres per household. True that your plot might be in Orkney or some boggy field but it doesn't matter because we aren't going to divide it up that way.
The point is that one of the most densely populated countries in the world is not running out of space. It may be a localised problem in certain hotspots but planning and more efficient use of resources could vastly improve this.
France already has about double the land mass for similar population. Spain is even more spacious. And that's just western Europe.
Liokault said:
I don’t think we are looking at the real problem.
Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
It is changing fast, despite population increase (some might say because of it) there is an increase in wealth and people are eating better. Why should that suddenly go into reverse? Why, after thousands of years of human progress should the early 21st century level of population and wealth constitute some natural limit?Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
Some of us can still remember when the 1970s level was regarded as the limit with inevitable widespread famines in th next few decades. As I recall we were also meant to have run out of oil by now. One car was advertised on the basis of it's fuel economy figures with the slogan 'The last oil well runs dry in 30 years time'. The mistake constantly made is to assume that the resources we can currently access are the last, and no amount of human ingenuity will find more.
Fat Fairy said:
Mothersruin said:
Was reading a book by Niall Ferguson about the British Empire and one of the figures that really jumped out at me was when India gained independence, the population was below 400,000 - it's now nearly 1,400,000,000 - Fakinell!
Below 400,000????Er Noooooo. I think you may have missed out a few zeroes.
361,088,090
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Census_of_India
FF
k, yes, I missed a zero off. Thanks for correcting.
Bugger, I meant a whole ,
Edited by Mothersruin on Saturday 7th December 10:55
Dr Jekyll said:
Liokault said:
I don’t think we are looking at the real problem.
Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
It is changing fast, despite population increase (some might say because of it) there is an increase in wealth and people are eating better. Why should that suddenly go into reverse? Why, after thousands of years of human progress should the early 21st century level of population and wealth constitute some natural limit?Clearly the world can take the population as it is, and can take an increase in population until the predicted downwards curve.
What it can’t take is the global increase in wealth that sees everyone wanting to eat meat everyday, have an apartment and a car...then two cars.
Right now more people that most would imagine are living in essentially huts and eating rice and grain. This is changing and fast.
Some of us can still remember when the 1970s level was regarded as the limit with inevitable widespread famines in th next few decades. As I recall we were also meant to have run out of oil by now. One car was advertised on the basis of it's fuel economy figures with the slogan 'The last oil well runs dry in 30 years time'. The mistake constantly made is to assume that the resources we can currently access are the last, and no amount of human ingenuity will find more.
Mothersruin said:
Was reading a book by Niall Ferguson about the British Empire and one of the figures that really jumped out at me was when India gained independence, the population was below 400,000 - it's now nearly 1,400,000,000 - Fakinell!
There are 3 '000's missing - should be 400 million. The population of India was 392 million in 1941 & 460 million in 1951. Independance in 1947.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff