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.
Options
UK population
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
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.
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.
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fixed.
In the case of deforestation, however, the problem is very serious indeed. Unless you have proof to the contrary.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related
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.
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?
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
I just love the way your solution is to tax poor people rather than deal with the real issues.
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.
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.