"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

In fact that is now seen in ALL countrys except where the
birth rate is now so low that its right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

It's therefore expected that they will decline worldwide in the not too
distant future

That has already happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

when living standards rise in other parts of the world,

Doesn’t actually need that anymore.

and population growth will eventually peter out.

That isn't an absolute certainly, tho certainly very likely.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations
in times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality
over and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture. It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living standards.

I doubt that last particularly in the worst of the third world.

There is no appreciation of the problem, no-one
who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

And in fact things continue to improve dramatically with famine
now only seen where the place has imploded in the most obscene
levels of civil war and civil chaos where relief from outside the
area is no longer feasible.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:45:26 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to.

OK, here's a thought for you...

You've paid into a "real pension fund", by which I presume you mean
some kind of defined-benefit scheme, maybe even final-salary.
Congratulations.

That is not a real pension scheme. That's a scam. All such should be
banned.

rolls eyes

Now, what do you think the money you've paid into that "real pension
fund" does...? Does it get put into a big piggybank with your name on
it, and somehow miraculously grow?

Or does it get invested...?

What happens if those investments don't go according to plan, and a
shortfall accrues - and grows? Even if they work out, how do those
investments pay back?

There is no such thing as an investment for the future - of ANY kind -
which doesn't rely on the future economy, and no such thing as a
pension of any kind where payments in don't "pay for the current
retired folk". It's all a matter of juggling investments.

The _only_ difference is whether you've been told way in advance what
pension you expect to get - and that's where things can go very wrong.

Companies should not be providing schemes for their own workers; it's
hardly their core business after all. The only sustainable type of
pension scheme is a personal one. You pay into a pot, and that pot is
invested for you. When you come to retire, the pot has a value that
relates to the economic situation at the time. If that is dire, then
your pension isn't worth much. But it'll be up to you what you do and
how/when you cash it in.

I don't know whether the state pension is properly funded in this way
or not, but I suspect it's just another Ponzi scheme, like the defined
benefit/final salary ones. Certainly this triple lock business is a bad
idea.

What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

*ding*

If he really thinks that every single personal pension has a dedicated
fund manager who personally reviews it...

On 30/10/2015 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well no one is trying to do that in reality. They are trying to control
energy and impose totalitarian world government.

Getting people to fit solar panels isn't a good way to do that. Its a
small step to fit some batteries and be independent of the grid which
removes the control you think they are there to achieve.

You need to philosophise more.

Bill Wright wrote:

The report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several
important ways.

they absolutely minimised any mention of immigration being the cause.

The phrase I remember on the TV news was along the lines of "including
immigrants, and the children those immigrants will have" ...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate

Like hell they are on everything from life expectancy to
years in good health to the quality of housing we live in
to the way we get around and the holidays we can afford,
and the choice of food there is to eat etc etc etc.

The only real area in which things have got worse
is job prospects for those just out of school and the
debt you can end up with after getting qualified
for a decent job. And the job prospects are only
worse than say the 60, not than in the time
between the wars etc.

as green politics cuts in.

That isn't the reason that real living standards
have gone backwards in some areas.

On 29/10/2015 19:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:



The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

The obvious answer is to encourage the young to smoke.
It doesn't stop them working and paying taxes when they are young, and
they pay extra into the system through tobacco taxes (I haven't got
actual figures but I am pretty sure that a smoker on 20 a day pays more
in tobacco taxes than it costs in medical treatments).

However, statistically a high proportion will die before they take much
out of the system in pensions.

So they pay more in and get less out. Win-win as far as the ones who do
live longer are concerned.

Jim

On 29/10/2015 22:54, Norman Wells wrote:

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening and will
continue to happen?

We are due another ice age. That will have a huge impact on food
production. That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Whether than brings the human population down to below critical numbers
and humans become extinct remains to be seen.

Jim

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs, which won't happen. Even
he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is to bring the third world
into the first. The likelihood of that happening however is, well, about zero.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever increasing
rate. Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16 billion by 2100 from
the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that it can't possibly produce enough
food for that many. There just isn't enough land that can be productively
cultivated.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we can
currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the population, or about
36 million. We have to import the rest. That proportion will fall to just over 50%
if the latest projected increase to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in
just an astonishingly short 12 years from now.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have global
government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that just won't come
about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far too late.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is on the wall,
and it's as well to read it.

"RayL12" wrote in message ...
On 29/10/2015 9:06 PM, GB wrote:
On 29/10/2015 18:03, Adrian wrote:

And the Chinese population's dropped since 1979 has it? Oh, wait. It
hasn't. It's 40% higher than it was - in a country with net migration of
1.5m annually...

Many countries have a very high young population. For example
Mozambique, where 45% of the population is under 15. There's population
growth built in in these countries even if they implemented radical
birth control policies.

So, the Chinese one child policy has been very effective, despite their
population growing. Their proportion under 15 is now just 16% (cf UK:
18%), which is why they have relaxed the policy.

http://kff.org/global-indicator/popu...-under-age-15/

I remember reading a report or, maybe I saw it on TV, that showed changing
conditions in the vitality and virility of sperm in men was dependant upon their
living standards.

Observations showed that men of communities of high stress and high mortality
produced more active sperm, while, men in areas of easy living and contentment
less so.

Ignoring all other factors of population influence, this would suggest that
population control is programmed within us.

Can you tell us just how many active sperm it takes to make a baby?

It seems that we are not alive unless we have a little stress?

10M extra people in Britain over the current 7xM? That means I may notice an
extra 0.14 people walking about? Lord help us!

They'll probably have to walk because of the 14% increase in traffic and the
consequent increase in congestion they'll cause on all modes of transport.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Which makes all attempts to control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions futile.

It puts it in perspective certainly.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population, which is
increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?

On 30/10/15 08:04, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:45, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:26:03 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:


Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's "Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


As someone mentioned this morning, the whole idea of an increasing young
financing the old is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The world's
population has increased massively within a couple of centuries and is
unsustainable whether people like the alternatives or not.

+20 billion or so.....

All those who say that 'limits to growth' is tosh because we haven't yet
reached any remind me of the man falling passed the 30th floor of an
office block replying, on being asked how he was doing 'Okay so far'

The current migrant crisis is the first sign of the ground rushing up to
meet us.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/15 08:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/10/2015 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well no one is trying to do that in reality. They are trying to control
energy and impose totalitarian world government.

Getting people to fit solar panels isn't a good way to do that.

Yes it is, it makes tehm buy into te giovernment subsidy model.

The way you achieve totalitarian government as any commie will tell you,
is by making everybody a state employee, and if you cant, making sure
that they are subcontractors to the state.

Which is what the idiot with panels on his roof is. A state sponsoired
subcontractor.

Its a
small step to fit some batteries and be independent of the grid which
removes the control you think they are there to achieve.


You are joking of course. Go and work out the costs..

You need to philosophise more.

You need to learn to do basic sums



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/15 08:29, 78lp wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate

Like hell they are on everything from life expectancy to
years in good health to the quality of housing we live in
to the way we get around and the holidays we can afford,
and the choice of food there is to eat etc etc etc.


All are deteriotating in the experience of my generation.

The only real area in which things have got worse
is job prospects for those just out of school and the
debt you can end up with after getting qualified
for a decent job. And the job prospects are only
worse than say the 60, not than in the time
between the wars etc.

as green politics cuts in.

That isn't the reason that real living standards
have gone backwards in some areas.

No, but it helps enormously


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Indy Jess John wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening
and will continue to happen?

We are due another ice age.

Yes.

That will have a huge impact on food production.

Nope, not anymore.

That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Nope.

Whether than brings the human population down to below critical numbers
and humans become extinct remains to be seen.

Didn’t extinct humans the last time and won't this time either.

On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we can
currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the population, or about
36 million. We have to import the rest. That proportion will fall to just over 50%
if the latest projected increase to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in
just an astonishingly short 12 years from now.

And you haven't taken into account the need to build on some of this
arable land in order to house the increase.

Jim

On 30/10/15 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

That is what they are trying to achieve with the whole 'green' thing and
the rise of political correctness and the fascism of the Left.

Rather than Hitler's National Socialism it will be UN International
Socialism, but the jackboots, informers, secret police and death camps
will all be there just the same.

I think they are looking at about 2020:-)


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/15 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

Wolfgang is a Cornucopian, and a believer in perpetual growth, despite
the fact that nothing in the known universe lasts, or grows, forever.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed. Is it infinite?

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially, exceeds the number you come up with?


See my .sig below..Wolfgang is almost certainly a socialist.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/2015 09:34, Rod Speed wrote:
Indy Jess wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening
and will continue to happen?

We are due another ice age.

Yes.

That will have a huge impact on food production.

Nope, not anymore.

That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Nope.


I don't believe you.

With ice approaching from both poles, the major food sources (American
prairies, Argentinian pampas, large areas of the EU) covered in
permafrost at least, if not a kilometre of ice, you are not going to
grow enough in the bits left unless there is a reduction in the mouths
to feed. You might in the short term, but not over thousands of years.

Plus the fact that much of the world's power generation capabilities
will be in the frozen bit. That will cut production and the number of
greenhouses that can be heated.

Jim

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs,

So is your line.

which won't happen.

Easy to claim.

Even he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is to bring
the third world into the first.

That should be CLAIMS, not admits.

The likelihood of that happening however is, well, about zero.

It isn't the only way to see population increase stop.

We had that in the past, before agriculture was invented.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards

Yes.

at an ever increasing rate.

No, that is a lie.

Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16 billion by 2100 from
the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that it can't possibly
produce enough food for that many.

Malthus ran the same line. He was just plain wrong about
that with the numbers between his time and ours. In fact
we are doing a hell of a lot better job of feeding people
now than we did in his time when famine was endemic.

Its gone now except when the place has imploded in
the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or
some fool like Kim Jong Il is allowed to rule the roost.

There just isn't enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Don’t need land anymore. Hydroponics doesn’t bother
with productive land at all anymore. Works fine.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest.

That’s a lie. You CHOOSE to import the rest, a different matter entirely.

And as WW2 showed, while you lot were importing much more
before the war, no one starved when you couldn’t do that anymore.

That proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected
increase to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an
astonishingly short 12 years from now.

That assumes that agriculture doesn’t get any more productive.

Stupid assumption. And half of that increase is migration
anyway. They still have to eat even if they stayed home.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death.

Bull****. That isn't how China did it.

And that just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time

Correct. Even China was never that stupid.

before it's far too late.

That how Malthus mindlessly hyperventilated.

Even you should have noticed that we eat a hell of a lot
better than they did in his day, in fact so well now that
we have an obesity epidemic now instead of famine.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is on
the wall,

That's what Malthus claimed.

and it's as well to read it.

Turned out the purported writing on
the wall was just mindless graffiti.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/2015 9:06 PM, GB wrote:
On 29/10/2015 18:03, Adrian wrote:

And the Chinese population's dropped since 1979 has it? Oh, wait. It
hasn't. It's 40% higher than it was - in a country with net migration
of
1.5m annually...

Many countries have a very high young population. For example
Mozambique, where 45% of the population is under 15. There's population
growth built in in these countries even if they implemented radical
birth control policies.

So, the Chinese one child policy has been very effective, despite their
population growing. Their proportion under 15 is now just 16% (cf UK:
18%), which is why they have relaxed the policy.

http://kff.org/global-indicator/popu...-under-age-15/

I remember reading a report or, maybe I saw it on TV, that showed
changing conditions in the vitality and virility of sperm in men was
dependant upon their living standards.

Observations showed that men of communities of high stress and high
mortality produced more active sperm, while, men in areas of easy living
and contentment less so.

Ignoring all other factors of population influence, this would suggest
that population control is programmed within us.

Can you tell us just how many active sperm it takes to make a baby?

It seems that we are not alive unless we have a little stress?

10M extra people in Britain over the current 7xM? That means I may
notice an extra 0.14 people walking about? Lord help us!

They'll probably have to walk because of the 14% increase in traffic and
the consequent increase in congestion they'll cause on all modes of
transport.

Have fun explaining why those in HongKong don’t.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

Only amongst the indigenous population. It's more than made up for by immigration
and the children they have. Hence a forecast that Britain's population is set to
increase by over 15% in just the next 12 years.

It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but wholly pie-in-the-sky.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in
times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality over
and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture.

No, that's completely wrong. It has so far kept up with increasing population as
more and more land has been brought under the plough. But there's a finite limit to
the amount of productive land the earth has, and we're reaching it. Britain's green
and pleasant land will be able to produce enough food to feed just half its
population by 2030.

It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living
standards.

That's all very hippy. Peace will reign, man, and the world will live as one.

What are you on?

Returning to earth, perhaps you'd tell us where we will find all the new, productive
arable land we'll need to grow the crops. Do we dig up the Amazon rain forest, or
what?

There is no appreciation of
the problem, no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

Let's see. In 1960 the world's population was just 3 billion. In just 55 years
since then, it has rocketed to 7 billion. By 2050 it will be 10 billion. By 2100,
it could be 16 billion.

Malthus was right. He did not forecast immediate apocalypse as some assume, and may
even have been out as regards the time frame he himself envisaged. He just stated
general principles, and those are as valid today as the were in 1779 when he wrote:

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of
population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,
that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of
mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in
the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But
should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics,
pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and
tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine
stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of
the world."

His vision hasn't materialised yet, but 'the power of population' certainly has.
The rest will follow.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...

No, that line of thinking is called malthusianism, and it's wrong.

Malthus wasn't wrong, except in his timing.

He was just plain wrong. Real living standards have improved
out of sight since his time, and we just don’t see famines anymore.

Tell me how many people the world can possibly feed.

That is unknown because it isn't clear how
much better food productivity can become.

Is it infinite?

Corse not, and doesn’t need to be.

If it's not infinite, how long will it be before the world population,
which is increasing exponentially,

Birth rates are in fact falling EVERYWHERE now.

exceeds the number you come up with?

There is no fixed number. Never has been. When we
invented agriculture the number that could be fed
improved out of sight over hunting and gathering.

The industrial revolution improved the
productivity of agriculture out of sight again.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 08:29, 78lp wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate

Like hell they are on everything from life expectancy to
years in good health to the quality of housing we live in
to the way we get around and the holidays we can afford,
and the choice of food there is to eat etc etc etc.

All are deteriotating in the experience of my generation.

Like hell they are.

The only real area in which things have got worse
is job prospects for those just out of school and the
debt you can end up with after getting qualified
for a decent job. And the job prospects are only
worse than say the 60, not than in the time
between the wars etc.

as green politics cuts in.

That isn't the reason that real living standards
have gone backwards in some areas.

No, but it helps enormously

Makes no difference to any of them in fact.

Indy Jess John wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Indy Jess wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If not, how do we break out of the exponential growth that is happening
and will continue to happen?

We are due another ice age.

Yes.

That will have a huge impact on food production.

Nope, not anymore.

That will thin out the numbers somewhat.

Nope.

I don't believe you.

Doesn’t matter what you believe.

With ice approaching from both poles, the major food sources (American
prairies, Argentinian pampas, large areas of the EU) covered in permafrost
at least, if not a kilometre of ice, you are not going to grow enough in
the bits left unless there is a reduction in the mouths to feed.

Perfectly possible to grow food in the
same way the Netherlands does now.

You might in the short term, but not over thousands of years.

If it works in the short term, it
will work over thousands of years.

Plus the fact that much of the world's power generation capabilities will
be in the frozen bit.

Just build nukes instead.

That will cut production

Not when they are replaced by nukes.

and the number of greenhouses that can be heated.

Not when they are replaced by nukes.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells"
wrote in :

Even at the existing rate of growth, it will
reach 16 billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh
truth is that it can't possibly produce enough food for that many.

Never mind your figures are made up, but why the hell not?

There just isn't enough land that can be productively cultivated.

There is, besides productivity can be increased.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available,
we can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million.

You could do better if pressed (but there is no need to).

How exactly?

Some facts to make you think: The largest exporter of agricultural
goods in the world are the USA. Which country do you reckon is no. 2?
Wait for it: The Netherlands.

They're actually number 3 but I'm not quibbling. Who is number 5? Britain. But we
still need to import 40% of all the food we consume, and that will rise to 50% by
2030.

The Netherlands are not *net* exporters. They, like Britain, are huge net
importers. What they export are high value crops like tomatoes and flowers, not
stuff the world actually depends on to eat, like wheat, which they have to import.

One of the most densely populated countries on earth, a quarter of it
is taken up by what is basically one giant metropolis. But it cannot
only sustain itself, but even export groceries (and tulips .

No, it is far from being self-sufficient, just like Britain.

Granted
they import food as well, as bananas and coffee don't grow in northern
climate, but their import/export balance is close to zero.

No it isn't. They export about $19.8 million of agricultural products, but import
about $49.5 million.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...rters-map.html

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...l-imports.html

That means
in theory the Netherlands could feed their comparatively large
population on that small surface, even in an adverse northern climate
where plant growth basically stops for a few months each year.

Which is nonsense.

Not just that, they enjoy one of the highest living standards at the same time.

They won't when the food runs out and there's nothing to import.

And don't say that it goes at the expense of nature. The Netherlands
are not an environmental wasteland, but a overall pleasant place and
even a popular tourist destination.

All it takes is for the rest of the world to adopt Dutch style
agriculture (or any other method of increasing productivity). Of course
that takes work, but it's doable. It's just a thought experiment
though, the actual challenge is much easier.

You can't live on tomatoes and tulips.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or
so?

Because progess in medicine has decreased mortality, while birth
figures have remained high for the time being.

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

No it isn't. Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries.

Only amongst the indigenous population. It's more than made up for by
immigration and the children they have. Hence a forecast that Britain's
population is set to increase by over 15% in just the next 12 years.

It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but wholly pie-in-the-sky.

That has happened throughout history in all animal populations in
times of plenty. Then they outstrip their food supply, there is
widespread famine, and the population rather unpleasantly and
extremely rapidly declines.

Once again malthusianism, which hase been proved wrong by reality over
and over again. The world food production is not a constant, it's
actually growing at a faster rate than population growth thanks to
progress in agriculture.

No, that's completely wrong.

Nope, he's right. That's why we no longer see famines except
where the place has descended into the most obscene levels
of civil war and civil chaos or some fool like Kim Jong Il has
been allowed to rule the roost.

It has so far kept up with increasing population

In fact has done a lot better than just keep up with increasing population.

as more and more land has been brought under the plough.

That isn't the reason we no longer get any famines in
the Indian subcontinent or SE Asia or anywhere else either.

But there's a finite limit to the amount of productive land the earth has,

You don’t even need productive land anymore.

and we're reaching it.

Nope.

Britain's green and pleasant land will be able to produce enough food to
feed just half its population by 2030.

Bull****. Its perfectly possible to be as productive
as the Netherlands currently is and feed everyone.

It'll probably catch up with the population in
a few decades. Not only will hunger then be a thing of the past, but
large parts of the world will eventually achieve western living
standards.

That's all very hippy. Peace will reign, man, and the world will live as
one.

What are you on?

Its obvious what you are on.

Returning to earth, perhaps you'd tell us where we will find all the new,
productive arable land we'll need to grow the crops.

Don’t need that, operate like the Netherlands does.

Do we dig up the Amazon rain forest, or what?

Operate like the Netherlands does.

There is no appreciation of
the problem, no-one who can comprehend its magnitude, and no-one in a
position, or would be allowed, to do anything about it.

What are you talking about? Malthusianism is being spread in all the
media as if it were a self-evident fact. It's been all the rage since
the 1970s with Club of Rome "Limits to growth" and Paul Ehrlich's
"Population bomb" etc. But all the doom and gloom just fails to
materialise.

Let's see. In 1960 the world's population was just 3 billion. In just 55
years since then, it has rocketed to 7 billion. By 2050 it will be 10
billion. By 2100, it could be 16 billion.

And clearly the Netherlands and HongKong work fine with higher densitys than
that.

Malthus was right.

Nope, he was just plain wrong. In fact real living standards
improved out of sight all over the entire world since his
time with a massive increase in population and we just
don’t see any famines at all anymore except where etc.

He did not forecast immediate apocalypse as some assume, and may even have
been out as regards the time frame he himself envisaged.

In fact he got it completely wrong and real living standards improved
dramatically instead of getting worse.

He just stated general principles, and those are as valid today as the
were in 1779

Like hell they are.

when he wrote:

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature.

And we have now eliminated famine except where etc.

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to
produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or
other visit the human race.

It didn’t. We didn’t even see another Black Death or anything like it.

The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They
are the precursors in the great army of destruction,

We have in fact seen the great army of creation instead.

and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in
this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and
plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens
of thousands.

Doesn’t happen anymore except with HIV/AIDS which is trivially avoidable.

Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in
the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of
the world."

In fact we have eliminated famine except where etc.

His vision hasn't materialised yet,

In fact we have seen the exact opposite of what he predicted.

but 'the power of population' certainly has.

And we are now seeing birth rates falling EVERYWHERE etc.

The rest will follow.

Nope.

Norman Wells put finger to keyboard:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message

Birth rates are dropping world wide now except in places where its now
so low that that place is right down in the noise.

World population is still increasing by 50% every 40 years or so. That
can't continue for ever, and I think you're deluding yourself if you
think it won't.

Kinda contradicting yourself there.

Funnily enough I heard it on LBC and a shorter version on their other
stations news.
Sounds like the indigenous population had better get their fingers out, or
maybe something else out....:-)



The facts are obvious from history of course. When infant mortality was
high, and there were no social services, people had to have more children to
maintain the population and to help as the older members got older.

It normally takes a couple of generations for the practice to slow down.
Unfortunately, many of the people in most developed countries are not
having enough children to maintain the population of tax payers to supprt
the next generation in tax paying. the solution is to import from cultures
and countries where the birth rate is still high.
I believe all this stuff from the Catholic Church about no birth control
was a thinly veiled attempt to get people with their views in the majority.

Nothing new really.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways. If
the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know. I suspect
that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill

On 30/10/2015 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:


It didn’t. We didn’t even see another Black Death or anything like it.

In 1918 there was a flu epidemic that killed far more people than died
in WW1.

AIDS is still trimming the African population.

There will always be a new virus that will do a lot of damage before the
scientists learn how to control it, and then the question of the
affordability of the cure will limit its eradication.

Jim

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
Funnily enough I heard it on LBC and a shorter version on their other
stations news.
Sounds like the indigenous population had better get their fingers out, or
maybe something else out....:-)



The facts are obvious from history of course. When infant mortality was
high, and there were no social services, people had to have more children
to maintain the population and to help as the older members got older.

It normally takes a couple of generations for the practice to slow down.
Unfortunately, many of the people in most developed countries are not
having enough children to maintain the population of tax payers to supprt
the next generation in tax paying. the solution is to import from cultures
and countries where the birth rate is still high.

I believe all this stuff from the Catholic Church about no birth control
was a thinly veiled attempt to get people with their views in the
majority.

Clearly isn't working in Italy.

Nothing new really.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Apparently the ONC tells us that the population will increase by 10
million by 2035 as the direct and indirect results of immigration. The
report on the BBC website distorts the facts in several important ways.
If the matter makes to the broadcast BBC news please let me know. I
suspect that if it does it will be minimised.

Just seen it on Sky News. Quite a good report.

Bill

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2015 10:32, Rod Speed wrote:


It didn’t. We didn’t even see another Black Death or anything like it.

In 1918 there was a flu epidemic that killed far more people than died in
WW1.

Nothing like the Black Death.

AIDS is still trimming the African population.

And trivially avoidable.

There will always be a new virus that will do a lot of damage before the
scientists learn how to control it,

In fact ebola didn’t do all that much damage.

and then the question of the affordability of the cure will limit its
eradication.

Tisnt what happened with smallpox and polio.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells"
wrote in :

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland
available, we can currently only produce enough food to sustain just
60% of the population, or about 36 million.

You could do better if pressed (but there is no need to).

How exactly?

Rededicate unused grasslands to agriculture, intensify farming by
various methods (notably greenhouses) etc., obviously do away with
wasteful experiments such aus "biofules".

So, you dig up all the parks and gardens, you cover the country in glass, and rely
on non-renewable sources of energy. And you get, what? About 5% more produce you
can eat. What do you do next?

The Netherlands are not *net* exporters. They, like Britain, are huge
net importers. What they export are high value crops like tomatoes
and flowers, not stuff the world actually depends on to eat, like
wheat, which they have to import.

This paragraph makes no sense in several ways. First I don't dispute
that they import a lot, but at the same time they export a lot too.
Second the kind of produce is irrelevant, you can eat vegetables too
you know .

We are talking about the food the world needs to sustain its population. That means
big crops. Staples like wheat, rice, other grains, and rapeseed. We're not talking
about peripherals and incidentals like tomatoes, lettuces and tulips.

No, it is far from being self-sufficient, just like Britain.

But it could be made to be with some restructuring, the volume of
produce would be sufficient to feed the Dutch.

I doubt it. I doubt it very much indeed.

They export about $19.8 million of agricultural
products, but import about $49.5 million.

You have to compare the sums by volume, or weight, or ideally calories,
not market prices.

Off you go then. Compare them.

But the problem is that The Netherlands produces high-priced luxuries from all its
expensive greenhouses, and *still* runs an enormous financial deficit. A comparison
by any other criterion would result in an even bigger proportional gap between what
it produces and what it consumes. There aren't many calories in lettuces and
tulips.

You can't live on tomatoes and tulips.

Yes you can live on tomatoes (even if I hate them), and the surface
currently dedicated to flowers would need to be rededicated for food
production.

Remember this is a thought experiment to prove a point, namely that
surface is not a limiting factor to feeding the world, not a symposion
on the actual economic structure of the Netherlands.

But surface *is* the major factor limiting global agricultural production. Always
has been, always will be.

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all been banned. The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

On Friday, 30 October 2015 09:00:29 UTC, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs, which won't happen.

I agree he didnl;t explpain while those in 3rd world countries will give upo sex becayuse they have money. Teh cultrue will remain the same sex will happen women will get pregnbat and more will survive to breed over a longer time period. The next generation may have less in each family.

Even
he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is to bring the third world
into the first. The likelihood of that happening however is, well, about zero.

I agree, he talked as though the 3rd world had sex in order to produce kids to look after their parent, but for most that isn;t the case, kids happoen after sex, and sex continues until the women can no longer bare children.
educating them to use contraception rarely works as the men dont want to use condoms.

On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years
or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs, which won't
happen. Even he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is
to bring the third world into the first. The likelihood of that
happening however is, well, about zero.

Hans Rosling is one of the world's most respected experts on charting
modern human development - he has pioneered new ways of collecting,
interpreting, and presenting the data. (He has plenty of other videos on
similar theme).

If you watch the visualisations of the data from the last 30 years you
can very clearly see the trend, and his predictions seem like a
plausible extrapolation of the trend. These usually reach a destination
stable population of around 10 to 11 billion.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate.

Which makes it a mathematical impossibility, unless you also have
infinite resources. We don't!

Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16
billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that
it can't possibly produce enough food for that many. There just isn't
enough land that can be productively cultivated.

So we could not maintain the existing growth rate for that reason alone.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest. That
proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected increase
to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an astonishingly
short 12 years from now.
The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

Food and resources alone make the growth self limiting.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is
on the wall, and it's as well to read it.

Given neither of us are about the be elected as a "global government
with Draconian powers over life and death", it seems like a moot point.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/10/2015 09:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/10/15 08:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/10/2015 07:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well no one is trying to do that in reality. They are trying to control
energy and impose totalitarian world government.

Getting people to fit solar panels isn't a good way to do that.

Yes it is, it makes tehm buy into te giovernment subsidy model.

The way you achieve totalitarian government as any commie will tell you,
is by making everybody a state employee, and if you cant, making sure
that they are subcontractors to the state.

Which is what the idiot with panels on his roof is. A state sponsoired
subcontractor.

Its a
small step to fit some batteries and be independent of the grid which
removes the control you think they are there to achieve.


You are joking of course. Go and work out the costs..

You need to philosophise more.

You need to learn to do basic sums




What have sums got to do with what I said?

Anyway a system such as sunny island is less than the cost of the panels.

On 30/10/2015 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/10/15 08:29, 78lp wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected that
they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when living
standards rise in other parts of the world, and population growth will
eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate

Like hell they are on everything from life expectancy to
years in good health to the quality of housing we live in
to the way we get around and the holidays we can afford,
and the choice of food there is to eat etc etc etc.


All are deteriotating in the experience of my generation.

They must have singled you out because they are improving in most places.

PS learn to spell.

On 30/10/2015 08:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 29/10/2015 19:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/10/2015 16:45, Adrian wrote:



The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.

Of course. But people really don't want to do that.

Those of us that have paid into real pension funds rather than just
paying for the current retired folk don't have to. Not that it means we
can't work if we want to.


The main other option has been explored in fiction from Trollope's
"Fixed
Period" through to "Logan's Run" and beyond.


Thats what the experiments with flu, TB and SARS is about in'it.

The obvious answer is to encourage the young to smoke.
It doesn't stop them working and paying taxes when they are young, and
they pay extra into the system through tobacco taxes (I haven't got
actual figures but I am pretty sure that a smoker on 20 a day pays more
in tobacco taxes than it costs in medical treatments).

However, statistically a high proportion will die before they take much
out of the system in pensions.

So they pay more in and get less out. Win-win as far as the ones who do
live longer are concerned.

Jim


I would agree apart from the figures show the ones that linger on cost
more than the total contribution, now if treatment were cheaper or
withheld you might be onto something.
Maybe tax on vaping if it doesn't result in costly long term illness
would work.

In message , Andy Cap
writes
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy, paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely? Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

In this morning's LBC Nick Ferrari phone-in, a phoner-inner made a very
good point.

He pointed out that encouraging the immigration of young workers, so
that their taxes could provide funding for the increasing number
long-living old folks, was actually a ponzi pyramid scheme.

Even if the immigrants can find homes and work, they themselves will
eventually join the ranks of long-living old folks - thus requiring more
immigrants to come and work to pay taxes etc etc, ad infinitum.

The real answer has to be working for longer, better spreading of
available resources or a drop in the expected standard of living.
There's no doubt the present generation have done very well but it's
not exactly their fault. Personally, I don't really care if my house is
worth £50,000 or £500,000!

Andy C

--
Ian