Is the UK overpopulated ?
Discussion
GroundZero said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Has anyone here actually tried to define "overpopulated"?
I would look at the definition based up on how personal freedoms and security are affected along with how sustainable the nation is with the numbers of people living within the borders. One remote countryman's vastly over crowded is another metropolitan man's idea of quiet suburbia.
Digga said:
GroundZero said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Has anyone here actually tried to define "overpopulated"?
I would look at the definition based up on how personal freedoms and security are affected along with how sustainable the nation is with the numbers of people living within the borders. One remote countryman's vastly over crowded is another metropolitan man's idea of quiet suburbia.
Johnnytheboy said:
Digga said:
GroundZero said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Has anyone here actually tried to define "overpopulated"?
I would look at the definition based up on how personal freedoms and security are affected along with how sustainable the nation is with the numbers of people living within the borders. One remote countryman's vastly over crowded is another metropolitan man's idea of quiet suburbia.
But on the national/government level I would say the ability of the nation to support its population securely and reliably.
So on that level it is things like infrastructure, housing, reliable food supply, reliable water supply, effective NHS, effective education system, etc.
I am not sure the UK is self sufficient in producing its own food to feed a population of what is now approaching 70 million.
The UK often quickly turns to water restrictions (hose pipe bans etc.) during some summer months, meaning that if the UK saw a summer time that incurred a prolonged drought then the numbers of people needing water would likely cause a bit of a scare (if not something more serious than that).
The infrastructure issue is all about the tax burden on the taxpayer. Make this burden too high and you quickly force people in to "income poverty". So as a nation the population can only grow in line with its ability to securely provide and accommodate that number.
So for the past decade or so I think the UK has been overpopulated and is continuing to get worse.
I think it is obvious to say that in certain areas our country is overpopulated.
We are victims of our fairly welcoming culture and have had that taken advantage of to a certain extent, mainly by politicians and over eager businessmen, but also by the EU to some extent and by others.
In other areas we are sparsely populated however, and that is a good thing.
We are victims of our fairly welcoming culture and have had that taken advantage of to a certain extent, mainly by politicians and over eager businessmen, but also by the EU to some extent and by others.
In other areas we are sparsely populated however, and that is a good thing.
XJSJohn said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_an...
32nd most densely populated by people / sqm.
As you say, it all depends on the infrastructure, transport and services. I lived in Singapore (number 2 on the list) for many years and that never felt that overpopulated, never had to queue much for a tube or bus, even in rush hour, traffic jams didnt seem to happen, and shops and malls never felt much more crowded than UK equivalents on a weekend.
I can concur with this about Singapore. I'm surprised its so high up the list. Every time I visited the UK, it felt more overpopulated each time (especially road congestion).32nd most densely populated by people / sqm.
As you say, it all depends on the infrastructure, transport and services. I lived in Singapore (number 2 on the list) for many years and that never felt that overpopulated, never had to queue much for a tube or bus, even in rush hour, traffic jams didnt seem to happen, and shops and malls never felt much more crowded than UK equivalents on a weekend.
Hello from Canada btw, i'm rather enjoying the space here.
kingston12 said:
Caddyshack said:
but even 2.4 average is replacing and adding more each generation, it needs to be less than 2
The trend for downwards GROWTH is still growth. We need loss.
We do, but most governments still work on the outdated economic notion that we need to have an ever increasing number of young people to support an ever increasing number of old people in retirement.The trend for downwards GROWTH is still growth. We need loss.
That was sound logic 50 years ago, but doesn't work now when an increasing number of young people won't be economically productive enough to propel themselves through their working years without support, let alone providing a meaningful contribution to the state.
Yes, grotesquely so. Go on google maps and look at the amount of natural land left that isn't intensively cultivated farmland or urban sprawl and it's tiny, there's basically none left. A few national parks and the odd little patch here and there but in England at least it's an utter ecological disaster.
Despite this we are not even close to self sufficient in food and there simply isn't space to become so. Then there are the subjective merits, it's impossible to go to any attractive natural spot without it being overrun with hordes of humanity as there are so few pleasant spots left and tens of millions of people. Also our infrastructure is unable to cope and building more will ruin yet more of what little nature remains. We could badly do with cutting the population at least in half but it'll never happen, we'll continue importing and breeding ever more people and concreting over the remaining greenery in the name of economic growth, forgetting that the entire point of economic growth is to improve quality of life which we are in fact destroying.
Despite this we are not even close to self sufficient in food and there simply isn't space to become so. Then there are the subjective merits, it's impossible to go to any attractive natural spot without it being overrun with hordes of humanity as there are so few pleasant spots left and tens of millions of people. Also our infrastructure is unable to cope and building more will ruin yet more of what little nature remains. We could badly do with cutting the population at least in half but it'll never happen, we'll continue importing and breeding ever more people and concreting over the remaining greenery in the name of economic growth, forgetting that the entire point of economic growth is to improve quality of life which we are in fact destroying.
Caddyshack said:
kingston12 said:
Caddyshack said:
but even 2.4 average is replacing and adding more each generation, it needs to be less than 2
The trend for downwards GROWTH is still growth. We need loss.
We do, but most governments still work on the outdated economic notion that we need to have an ever increasing number of young people to support an ever increasing number of old people in retirement.The trend for downwards GROWTH is still growth. We need loss.
That was sound logic 50 years ago, but doesn't work now when an increasing number of young people won't be economically productive enough to propel themselves through their working years without support, let alone providing a meaningful contribution to the state.
Well the eco lot will have a hard time to reconciling their views on freedom of movement with large net positive migration. Let's face it, people are more likely to have kids when they're in a country of greater prosperity.
Of course they conveniently ignore overpopulation and suggests we should all live in magic tree-houses.
Of course they conveniently ignore overpopulation and suggests we should all live in magic tree-houses.
R Mutt said:
Well the eco lot will have a hard time to reconciling their views on freedom of movement with large net positive migration. Let's face it, people are more likely to have kids when they're in a country of greater prosperity.
Of course they conveniently ignore overpopulation and suggests we should all live in magic tree-houses.
What has freedom of movement got to do with "eco" stuff?Of course they conveniently ignore overpopulation and suggests we should all live in magic tree-houses.
GroundZero said:
Also agree, it is very subjective on the individual level.
But on the national/government level I would say the ability of the nation to support its population securely and reliably.
So on that level it is things like infrastructure, housing, reliable food supply, reliable water supply, effective NHS, effective education system, etc.
I am not sure the UK is self sufficient in producing its own food to feed a population of what is now approaching 70 million.
The UK often quickly turns to water restrictions (hose pipe bans etc.) during some summer months, meaning that if the UK saw a summer time that incurred a prolonged drought then the numbers of people needing water would likely cause a bit of a scare (if not something more serious than that).
The infrastructure issue is all about the tax burden on the taxpayer. Make this burden too high and you quickly force people in to "income poverty". So as a nation the population can only grow in line with its ability to securely provide and accommodate that number.
So for the past decade or so I think the UK has been overpopulated and is continuing to get worse.
All of this, IMHO... and population growth is something that David Attenborough keeps bravely talking about (it's one thing most people don't want to discuss, I think). The cost to it all is damage to the environment, health (mental and physical), and for those have to fight for health services, housing, etc. It does feel like it will only take a little outside pressure (like that potential water drought) to make things go bad very quickly.But on the national/government level I would say the ability of the nation to support its population securely and reliably.
So on that level it is things like infrastructure, housing, reliable food supply, reliable water supply, effective NHS, effective education system, etc.
I am not sure the UK is self sufficient in producing its own food to feed a population of what is now approaching 70 million.
The UK often quickly turns to water restrictions (hose pipe bans etc.) during some summer months, meaning that if the UK saw a summer time that incurred a prolonged drought then the numbers of people needing water would likely cause a bit of a scare (if not something more serious than that).
The infrastructure issue is all about the tax burden on the taxpayer. Make this burden too high and you quickly force people in to "income poverty". So as a nation the population can only grow in line with its ability to securely provide and accommodate that number.
So for the past decade or so I think the UK has been overpopulated and is continuing to get worse.
Welcome to the future...
Agammemnon said:
R Mutt said:
Let's face it, people are more likely to have kids when they're in a country of greater prosperity.
What's the average European family size compared with India or Africa?Breakdowns are harder to come by for European, African and Indian families within the UK but birth rates have seen a steady decline since the ''Baby Boom' while 1 in 3 are now born to non UK national mothers.
TurboHatchback said:
Yes, grotesquely so. Go on google maps and look at the amount of natural land left that isn't intensively cultivated farmland or urban sprawl and it's tiny, there's basically none left. A few national parks and the odd little patch here and there but in England at least it's an utter ecological disaster.
.
Hmmmmmm .... No .
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published experimental land use data for 2010. The data suggests that 12% of UK land is ‘urban and developed’, which would leave 88% for everywhere else. This is land with homes and other buildings, roads, and urban green space. The rest is agricultural land (65%), forest (13%), marine areas and coastland (2%), and the rest is either freshwater or other types of land.
Earthdweller said:
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published experimental land use data for 2010. The data suggests that 12% of UK land is ‘urban and developed’, which would leave 88% for everywhere else. This is land with homes and other buildings, roads, and urban green space. The rest is agricultural land (65%), forest (13%), marine areas and coastland (2%), and the rest is either freshwater or other types of land.
Reassuring but the loons are calling for 'rewilding' which is odd and the number of people will increase which they are saying nothing about.TurboHatchback said:
Yes, grotesquely so. Go on google maps and look at the amount of natural land left that isn't intensively cultivated farmland or urban sprawl and it's tiny, there's basically none left. A few national parks and the odd little patch here and there but in England at least it's an utter ecological disaster.
Despite this we are not even close to self sufficient in food and there simply isn't space to become so. Then there are the subjective merits, it's impossible to go to any attractive natural spot without it being overrun with hordes of humanity as there are so few pleasant spots left and tens of millions of people. Also our infrastructure is unable to cope and building more will ruin yet more of what little nature remains. We could badly do with cutting the population at least in half but it'll never happen, we'll continue importing and breeding ever more people and concreting over the remaining greenery in the name of economic growth, forgetting that the entire point of economic growth is to improve quality of life which we are in fact destroying.
Despite this we are not even close to self sufficient in food and there simply isn't space to become so. Then there are the subjective merits, it's impossible to go to any attractive natural spot without it being overrun with hordes of humanity as there are so few pleasant spots left and tens of millions of people. Also our infrastructure is unable to cope and building more will ruin yet more of what little nature remains. We could badly do with cutting the population at least in half but it'll never happen, we'll continue importing and breeding ever more people and concreting over the remaining greenery in the name of economic growth, forgetting that the entire point of economic growth is to improve quality of life which we are in fact destroying.
Earthdweller said:
TurboHatchback said:
Yes, grotesquely so. Go on google maps and look at the amount of natural land left that isn't intensively cultivated farmland or urban sprawl and it's tiny, there's basically none left. A few national parks and the odd little patch here and there but in England at least it's an utter ecological disaster.
.
Hmmmmmm .... No .
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published experimental land use data for 2010. The data suggests that 12% of UK land is ‘urban and developed’, which would leave 88% for everywhere else. This is land with homes and other buildings, roads, and urban green space. The rest is agricultural land (65%), forest (13%), marine areas and coastland (2%), and the rest is either freshwater or other types of land.
TurboHatchback said:
Which entirely backs up my point, 65+12 = 77% of UK land is either farmland or urban sprawl. Subtract a few national parks and areas unsuitable for farming or habitation (mountains, wetlands etc) and that equates to basically none left. Also if that data is for the UK as a whole rather than specifically England then the situation in England will be dramatically worse even than that.
With more farmland required to feed more peopleGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff