[Nigel Bolton]

Chris Lloyd, on 15 February 2012 - 09:09, said:

Well, the maths is self explanatory. 2 adults, 1 child = reduction in population.

It might seem a bit Draconian, but what are the other options. I would rather see that happen than our population explode further, making us all extinct eventually.

No. That only assumes that the original generation die by the time the third generation arrives, and in reality, even in impoverished countries most offspring have grand parents or even great grandparents. A family line with four generations will create an extra child.

Here in the UK, there are also huge inequalities caused by welfare. Those in work will often wait until late before having a child, into their thirties or even fourties, and then just a singleton. Some families out of work have created large familires, and at a young age, in order to increase benefits and move up the housing chain. I know of one family in the latter group where the mother has had 14 children, and many of these children have kids of their own. The mother is just into her mid fourties.

This, given the potential socio-economic problems this inequality will generate in future years here in the UK, is for me, very frightening, particularly at a time of austerity, and at a time where at least two generations have never had anything taken away.


As far as elepants in rooms, the real matriach is the fact, that due to advances in science and medicine, the population is aging.

N.

This post has been edited by Nigel Bolton: 15 February 2012 - 10:18

[Nigel Bolton]

Bluenosejohn, on 15 February 2012 - 00:08, said:

Good luck in deciding what the population of the world should be. In 1798 Thomas Malthus predicted problems with over population that would strike a chord today. The population then was estimated at approximately 800 million or less than China or India today on their own.

Its an interesting read.

http://www.esp.org/b...ion/malthus.pdf

N.

[Peter H]

Nigel Bolton, on 15 February 2012 - 10:12, said:

No. That only assumes that the original generation die by the time the third generation arrives, and in reality, even in impoverished countries most offspring have grand parents or even great grandparents. A family line with four generations will create an extra child.

Here in the UK, there are also huge inequalities caused by welfare. Those in work will often wait until late before having a child, into their thirties or even fourties, and then just a singleton. Some families out of work have created large familires, and at a young age, in order to increase benefits and move up the housing chain. I know of one family in the latter group where the mother has had 14 children, and many of these children have kids of their own. The mother is just into her mid fourties.

It's something I've myself encountered. Are there any numbers available to put to these anecdotes to see if they are valid or exceptions?

Quote

This, given the potential socio-economic problems this inequality will generate in future years here in the UK, is for me, very frightening, particularly at a time of austerity, and at a time where at least two generations have never had anything taken away.

As far as elepants in rooms, the real matriach is the fact, that due to advances in science and medicine, the population is aging.

N.

Yup, those of us in our fifties are going to be part of a larger elderly population. Better keep working.

[John Mason]

There are a few like that here, too: however, the notion that most single parents operate in this way is a tabloid myth (characteristically representing the whole by the irresponsibility of the few).

However, it fails to explain overpopulation globally....

Cheers - John

[Bluenosejohn]

Surely the reason population has continued to grow over the past couple of centuries is that as medical knowledge has increased life expectancy has increased in the vast majority of the world. The biggest impact has been on infant mortality. See for example the attached link. .

http://www.infopleas...a/A0005140.html

[ldavidcooke]

Bluenosejohn, on 16 February 2012 - 00:12, said:

Surely the reason population has continued to grow over the past couple of centuries is that as medical knowledge has increased life expectancy has increased in the vast majority of the world. The biggest impact has been on infant mortality. See for example the attached link. .

http://www.infopleas...a/A0005140.html

Hey Bluenose,

The biggest difference of all is the improvement in womens health. When you consider the change in loss of young women to child birth you immediately increase the population by no less then two, this alone automatically doubles the population. Given the choice, I prefer this change...

[NileQueen]

ldavidcooke, on 16 February 2012 - 01:23, said:

Hey Bluenose,

The biggest difference of all is the improvement in womens health. When you consider the change in loss of young women to child birth you immediately increase the population by no less then two, this alone automatically doubles the population. Given the choice, I prefer this change...

Someone can't do math. :-P

You haven't automatically doubled anything David. If you are going to make a quantitative statement, I need to see some
statistics. What was the mortality of women during childbirth in the 1800's for instance? The 1900s? And today?
This change may be offset by women choosing not to have children or having fewer children than families in the past.
Farm families for instance were probably large so they could have more workers or because birth control was not available
or because they were Catholic.

Today the Amish are the exception to mainstream culture, in that they choose to have gigantic families,
to perpetuate the religion and have many workers.

[ldavidcooke]

NileQueen, on 16 February 2012 - 05:45, said:

Someone can't do math. :-P

You haven't automatically doubled anything David. If you are going to make a quantitative statement, I need to see some
statistics. What was the mortality of women during childbirth in the 1800's for instance? The 1900s? And today?
This change may be offset by women choosing not to have children or having fewer children than families in the past.
Farm families for instance were probably large so they could have more workers or because birth control was not available
or because they were Catholic.

Today the Amish are the exception to mainstream culture, in that they choose to have gigantic families,
to perpetuate the religion and have many workers.

Hey Jo ,

I no longer have access to my old bookmarks, the loss of young women prior to the mid 1800s was estimated to be near 20% and with them their child if I recall correctly. I believe that est. was for all stages of pregnancy not just child birth. Then we have the issue of child death, between starvation, vitamin deficiencies and diseases that accounted for roughly another20%. So to recap, we lost roughly 20% of 1/2 the population, plus 10% of both genders during pregnancy. Then we lost roughly 5% of boys and 15% of girls to early chlidhood diseases and economics. So that would equate to what 30% of both genders or the population at large, then the 20% of one gender in addition. The brunt of which was borne by the lesser valued females, based on the values of society at that time. It was not until Queen Victoria and the re-emergence of Chivalry and Romantic ideals that the value of women changed. (We will not broach the underground or non-public attitudes/activities at this time...)

So maybe not 50% later; but, likely darn close to it prior to changing attitudes and voices in the latter hslf of the 19th century, ( amazing the effect of Pauls letters to Peter when you think of it... )

[Andy Mayhew]

Chris Lloyd, on 17 February 2012 - 20:09, said:

Dave - if you are trying to quantify the growth rate it doesn't work. Exponential increase in population is occuring and with the best will in the world, it does not solve the problem. People living longer due to better health care facilities, added to increasing family sizes due to better health care during birth is catastrophic at both ends of the spectrum.

1 billion people in the time of Kennedy. Over 6 billion now, less than 50 years later. You do the math's'

Over 7 billion now. And still growing

But in theory the resources and technology is available for all of us to live to a reasonable 'western' standard (and AGW wouldn't be a problem). Just so long as we don't want to share the planet with anything else .... And I would humbly suggest that that would destroy mankind. We may not appreciate it, but thing of a world with no birdsong, no wild spaces where, for a brief moment in time you can breathe clean air, see no-one and hear........ nothing. Mankind is at a crossroads. Is it all about us and nothing else? Or is it all about everything we us just a part of that? Our decision.

One day we'll head for the stars and colonise other worlds. Until the day we meet aliens who don't like locusts ......

[Peter H]

Andy Mayhew, on 17 February 2012 - 20:32, said:

Over 7 billion now. And still growing

But in theory the resources and technology is available for all of us to live to a reasonable 'western' standard (and AGW wouldn't be a problem). Just so long as we don't want to share the planet with anything else .... And I would humbly suggest that that would destroy mankind. We may not appreciate it, but thing of a world with no birdsong, no wild spaces where, for a brief moment in time you can breathe clean air, see no-one and hear........ nothing. Mankind is at a crossroads. Is it all about us and nothing else? Or is it all about everything we us just a part of that? Our decision.

One day we'll head for the stars and colonise other worlds. Until the day we meet aliens who don't like locusts ......

I agree. Apart from the stars bit - I can't see the amounts of energy needed to put people in space becoming available short of a 'the laws of physics are wrong' event..

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if it's that I grew up mostly in the outdoors that makes my views so out of sorts with many others

[Nigel Bolton]

Andy Mayhew, on 17 February 2012 - 20:32, said:

Over 7 billion now. And still growing

But in theory the resources and technology is available for all of us to live to a reasonable 'western' standard (and AGW wouldn't be a problem). Just so long as we don't want to share the planet with anything else .... And I would humbly suggest that that would destroy mankind. We may not appreciate it, but thing of a world with no birdsong, no wild spaces where, for a brief moment in time you can breathe clean air, see no-one and hear........ nothing. Mankind is at a crossroads. Is it all about us and nothing else? Or is it all about everything we us just a part of that? Our decision.

One day we'll head for the stars and colonise other worlds. Until the day we meet aliens who don't like locusts ......

And mankind could wipe out seven billion souls very quickly with one tactical nuclear exchange, something it has been capeable of now for nearly 70 years. How there has been no more deliberate nuclear explosions since Nagasaki, is for mankind, quite an amazing feat.

However, we are entering an epoch where personal wealth world-wide is at serious threat. The last couple of times this happened on a grand scale, there were two world wars. The adage that "things happen in threes", perhaps should be a serious reminder.

N.

[NileQueen]

Peter H, on 17 February 2012 - 22:54, said:

I agree. Apart from the stars bit - I can't see the amounts of energy needed to put people in space becoming available short of a 'the laws of physics are wrong' event..

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if it's that I grew up mostly in the outdoors that makes my views so out of sorts with many others

Raised by wolves, were you?

Andy Mayhew, on 17 February 2012 - 20:32, said:

Over 7 billion now. And still growing

But in theory the resources and technology is available for all of us to live to a reasonable 'western' standard (and AGW wouldn't be a problem). Just so long as we don't want to share the planet with anything else .... And I would humbly suggest that that would destroy mankind. We may not appreciate it, but thing of a world with no birdsong, no wild spaces where, for a brief moment in time you can breathe clean air, see no-one and hear........ nothing. Mankind is at a crossroads. Is it all about us and nothing else? Or is it all about everything we us just a part of that? Our decision.

One day we'll head for the stars and colonise other worlds. Until the day we meet aliens who don't like locusts ......

Without a doubt, it is imperative to preserve those wild places.

[ldavidcooke]

Andy Mayhew, on 17 February 2012 - 20:32, said:

Over 7 billion now. And still growing

But in theory the resources and technology is available for all of us to live to a reasonable 'western' standard (and AGW wouldn't be a problem). Just so long as we don't want to share the planet with anything else .... And I would humbly suggest that that would destroy mankind. We may not appreciate it, but thing of a world with no birdsong, no wild spaces where, for a brief moment in time you can breathe clean air, see no-one and hear........ nothing. Mankind is at a crossroads. Is it all about us and nothing else? Or is it all about everything we us just a part of that? Our decision.

One day we'll head for the stars and colonise other worlds. Until the day we meet aliens who don't like locusts ......

Hey Andy,

I've always compared mankind to our brethern, Rats, rather then locusts or roaches... It just seems more accurate a description... Ha!

[John Mason]

Indeed - I can't see how anyone cannot imagine overpopulation to be a problem unless they do not understand the meaning of 'finite'.

Cheers - John

[Nigel Bolton]

Was in Dhaka, Bangladesh 20 years ago this coming October, and I could not believe that so many people could coexist so densely. Indeed, this is the only time in my life, when I witnessed people dying of starvation in the street - naked skeletons, just alive, being pushed around on wooden carts, presumably by other members of thier family, and this in the CBD of that city. God only knows what it was like in the slums....

That was nearly 20 years, gridlock, and traffic fumes bringing visibility down to below fog limits. The bus had no windows, thus was inhaling all this pollution, but only for a short time relative to the local populace. Now 20 years later, Dhaka has doubled in size with a population somewhere between 30 and 40 million people, somewhere between a half and two thirds of the population of the UK, and we are a crowded island.

Not only that, Dhaka is submerged in shitty water during the monsoon.

N.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Nigel,

So what you are saying is life is possible; but, the quality of life is unacceptable, is this not correct? Vil has made this observation before. The limitation we face is not sustaining life; but, the sustenance of the quality of life. This takes us all back to a discussion of your current quality of life versus 30 years ago, better or worse? Would the current societal issues we face be more the result of changes in population or technology, energy and land rights?

[John Mason]

Nigel, that sounds a bit like the worst experience of overcrowding I ever had on the London Underground but worse again!

Cheers - John