Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

UK population

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8224520.stm

UK population has hit 61million people. Most of those as a result of births as opposed to migration. We're now 22nd in the list.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You'll soon be assigned to the scoops :shocking:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We should be taxing people for having children, not giving them financial incentives. Here and in every developed country in the world.

    There's far too many people in the world as it is. This might go down well with some people, but I see having children as a lifeystle decision, and anyone who chooses to have three or four kids is being at best socially irresponsible, if not plain selfish, regardless of whether they can pay for their upbringing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Reproduction is one of the few things that is part of human nature, as it is in all animal nature. Sure some people might not be fit to provide for their children but I think as a society it is our duty to protect those who can't.

    Lets face it, the shit has not hit the fan yet. Once we take our fingers out of our arses and start looking at ways to provide sustainable food production, energy consumption etc there'll be enough to feed a lot more than what we currently have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think in China, parents get taxed on their 3rd child. The first 2 chidren are fine because 2 parents producing 2 children maintains equilibrium.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Lets face it, the shit has not hit the fan yet. Once we take our fingers out of our arses and start looking at ways to provide sustainable food production, energy consumption etc there'll be enough to feed a lot more than what we currently have.
    I don't share your optimism. In any case there is far more to it than food and energy. The planet's resources are finite. Global warming must also be considered.

    There is a school of thought that believes the ideal human population for a sustainable global ecosystem should be no more than 3bn people. We will be 8bn by 2050. Not good at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I don't share your optimism. In any case there is far more to it than food and energy. The planet's resources are finite. Global warming must also be considered.

    There is a school of thought that believes the ideal human population for a sustainable global ecosystem should be no more than 3bn people. We will be 8bn by 2050. Not good at all.


    I think as long as we keep finding ways to overcome our problems, the human race will keep expanding. The only thing that will stop our expansion will be a major wall, ie a massive plague, massive war e.t.c.

    Famine or over crowding won't be enough, because somehow we muddle through.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Monserrat wrote: »
    I think in China, parents get taxed on their 3rd child. The first 2 chidren are fine because 2 parents producing 2 children maintains equilibrium.

    I thought in China they were only allowed one child? That's why if they had a girl some people killed them because boys were preferred.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There is a school of thought that believes the ideal human population for a sustainable global ecosystem should be no more than 3bn people. We will be 8bn by 2050. Not good at all.

    The human population will peak at 9 billion then start falling off. It's already started happening in many countries.

    Yes global warming is a problem and it's causing drought in once fertile lands but as I said, once we start to use renewable energy sources then the burden will be taken off and these lands will become fertile once more. Access to food and water should not be a major problem but it is unfortunately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Deforestation is one issue that is influenced by population growth and demand, and which cannot be allievated or solved by technological advances. The amount of rainforest destroyed every year is truly frightening, and things can only get worse as the population grows.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Large numbers, especially ones with many 0s are truly frightening.

    Fixed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    Fixed.
    They can be when quoted out of context without reflecting the seriousness of the situation.

    In the case of deforestation, however, the problem is very serious indeed. Unless you have proof to the contrary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal wrote: »
    I thought in China they were only allowed one child? That's why if they had a girl some people killed them because boys were preferred.

    In China the largest ethnic group (and possibly a couple of others) are only allowed one child.

    If you are a minority ethnic group you are allowed more than one.

    If you are a rural Chinese it is not as well policed.

    If you are super clever, ie maths or science graduates, you are allowed more than one child in some cases.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    We should be taxing people for having children, not giving them financial incentives. Here and in every developed country in the world.

    There's far too many people in the world as it is.

    Where to start ripping this to shreds.

    Firstly, the average family has about 1.8 children now, down from the traditional 2.4 children. That means the birth rate isn't even high enough to maintain equilibrium.

    What's really fuelling population growth is that older people are not dying as early as they used to. The average UK woman will now live to be 80. There are 1.3m people in the UK aged over 85, compared to a birth rate of 791,000 babies.

    So although the birthrate is lower than equilibirum, because most parents will now live another 50-60 years after having children, the population hasn't reached a peak yet.
    There is a school of thought that believes the ideal human population for a sustainable global ecosystem should be no more than 3bn people. We will be 8bn by 2050. Not good at all.

    The source I've seen reckons the population will be around 10bn. Of which 1.3bn will be in developed countries and 7.7bn will be in developing countries. Source.

    The problem isn't in the developed world, is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »

    The problem isn't in the developed world, is it?
    It's a minor problem compared with some Third world countries, yes. However it is still a contributing factor.

    As for developing countries, we should put as much emphasis as possible on family planning and provide free & unlimited contraception to everyone who wishes to procure it. Sadly certain powerful quarters don't agree with the idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The birth rate in developing countries is far more complicated than the Pope saying that condoms are evil. The birth rate is partially due to the infant mortality rate- you have more children in the hope most of them will survive- and partially cultural. Being a mother is how women get kudos in the developing world, as they don't have access to education and work that women in the developed world have.

    Family planning won't make a massive amount of difference. What the Pope says will make even less difference, especially as much of the developing world is majority Muslim rather than majority Catholic.

    The birth rate in the developed world is not an issue at all, the population is staying broadly similar. Look at the graphs, population growth in the UK is 0.8%. In the developing world it can be as high as 18%.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal wrote: »
    I thought in China they were only allowed one child? That's why if they had a girl some people killed them because boys were preferred.


    I think squel is right, and I think the 'tax' is in real terms equivilent something like a million quid.

    I think one issue is something BongBudda raised a few years ago - what do we do with an aging population? Where the percentage of the population who:

    - can't provide significant amounts of work to the economy
    - need increasing amounts back from society in the form of pension / healthcare / etc

    is increasing. I am not saying we should kill them, or cut their benefits, or anything silly. But it is an issue. What do you do when the life expectancy is 120 for example, but people can only really work until they're 80 before they lose their mobility etc.?

    When you have a working population between 20-80 say, many of which are long term unemployed due to either disability or not being able to find work because of lack of qualification/skill/experience/motivation, supporting both the unemployed / disabled / those in childcare and also now the elderly generation... there will come a crunch point where taxation in order to provide the necessary income to provide services will be so high anyone who *can* work will leave (leaving us with a country of people who need support and noone to support them) or else services will have to be cut.

    Then you have the problem of clean drinking water. This is especially problematic in developing countries where there is just not enough water. The major conflicts of the 21st century will be driven by a need to access water, not by a need to access oil, in my opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The problem isn't in the developed world, is it?
    It is if every new person in the developed world is using 5 times the resources of those in the developing world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are they, though? They don't appear to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently the fashion for ever-more-quilted multi-ply bog roll we Westerners like so much is alone responsible for the loss of monumental amount of rainforest:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america

    Of course we have a disproporitionate influence in the depletion of the planet's resources. The more technologically advanced and richer a nation is, the more burden on the planet it causes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it is funny how the papers say that the birth rate of immigrants into the UK is booming, that it is a drain on resources etc.

    Yet even though the percentages are higher, because there are far more (for want of a better word) indiginous people about, even with the lower birth rate are contributed more babies to an increased population!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Well it is funny how the papers say that the birth rate of immigrants into the UK is booming, that it is a drain on resources etc.

    Yet even though the percentages are higher, because there are far more (for want of a better word) indiginous people about, even with the lower birth rate are contributed more babies to an increased population!
    Right-wing tabloids in twisting facts to suit their racist agenda shocker! ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Apparently the fashion for ever-more-quilted multi-ply bog roll we Westerners like so much is alone responsible for the loss of monumental amount of rainforest:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america

    Are we, or is that just a handy excuse?

    Personally I'd blame the wood pulpers and paper manufacturers who don't use sustainable wood or recycled materials.

    It's funny how the Green Brigade will twist anything to suit their agenda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I blame this guy. Look at the pure evil in his face.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Are we, or is that just a handy excuse?

    Personally I'd blame the wood pulpers and paper manufacturers who don't use sustainable wood or recycled materials.

    It's funny how the Green Brigade will twist anything to suit their agenda.
    I suspect the issue is more complex than that. Are the raw materials cheaper if obtained from rainforests? Is anyone stopping individuals and companies from setting up new businesses suppling the paper industry from such forests? Etc etc.

    I don't think (sadly) there is much story twisting here. Whether is logging, energy, housing needs, paper demand or farming and agricultural expansion, the demand for new raw materials never ends, and nobody is doing anything to stop the rainforests from being used to meet demand.

    The shit is going to hit the fan eventually. Oh, it won't finish us off by any means, but I reckon before the end of this century we're going to see a tipping point of dramatic climate change leading to massive crop failure and famine for billions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course Governments aren't stopping these things happening, they get too many backhanders from big business.

    I just love the way your solution is to tax poor people rather than deal with the real issues.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I never suggested taxing the poor. Not sure what you're referring to...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The tipping point has been passed as far as I'm concerned.
    With dams and irrigation and industrial use ...the worlds major rivers thsat supply millions are already dead or dried up.
    Take a look at the water [roblems of Iraq India Israel.
    The tipping point was some time back.
    Crops are already failing and people are moving en masse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Are they, though? They don't appear to be.

    Well just on climate change, the average person in Britain has 4 times the carbon footprint as the average Chinese person. Obviously China's still growing, but that doesn't change the fact that the average westerner consumes far more than anyone else, and so a high birth rate in the West would have a disproportionate effect on things like the use of natural resources and contributions to global warming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Asia has just started consuming food iron coal oil gas water etc etc etc ...on a massive and growing scale ...the earth is going to be stripped of everything and there aint nothing we can do about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.