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
Population Growth
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I read an article in the Sunday Times today which got me thinking.
British governments have never had a long term policy toward population growth , they have always just built new houses for the increasing numbers of people. Britain is the fastest growing large country in Western Europe and there is expected to be 65m of us by 2036.
Some (such as David Attenborough) favour large reductions in our population , cutting it to 30m in 30 years. This is essentailly a Green argument.
Others favour population increase. Look at America , currently the US economy is about 20% bigger than the EU's , by the middle of the century it is expected to be 250% bigger. The main reason for this is population growth , today the EU has 100m more people than the US , by 2050 there will be 40m fewer Europeans. Also , the working population of the EU will decline after 2010 wheras Americas will keep growing , after 2025 this will accelerate.
The economic argument is clear , we cannot afford not to increase our population.
So what do we do?
Do we cut our populations in half and fall further and further behind the USA in economic power , whilst at the same time putting less strain on the enviroment and natural resources?
Or do we encourage population growth to match the USA's , and keep our economy growing alongside it?
I support the second option , economic growth does not necessarily entail huge pollution , we must learn to be more efficient with resources and use them sensibly.
What do you think?
British governments have never had a long term policy toward population growth , they have always just built new houses for the increasing numbers of people. Britain is the fastest growing large country in Western Europe and there is expected to be 65m of us by 2036.
Some (such as David Attenborough) favour large reductions in our population , cutting it to 30m in 30 years. This is essentailly a Green argument.
Others favour population increase. Look at America , currently the US economy is about 20% bigger than the EU's , by the middle of the century it is expected to be 250% bigger. The main reason for this is population growth , today the EU has 100m more people than the US , by 2050 there will be 40m fewer Europeans. Also , the working population of the EU will decline after 2010 wheras Americas will keep growing , after 2025 this will accelerate.
The economic argument is clear , we cannot afford not to increase our population.
So what do we do?
Do we cut our populations in half and fall further and further behind the USA in economic power , whilst at the same time putting less strain on the enviroment and natural resources?
Or do we encourage population growth to match the USA's , and keep our economy growing alongside it?
I support the second option , economic growth does not necessarily entail huge pollution , we must learn to be more efficient with resources and use them sensibly.
What do you think?
0
Comments
This is the article.
The UKs population is growing still , as is that of most European nations.
The USAs population is still growing rapidly , thanks mainly to immigration and ethnic minorities having large families.
And yes , the Third Worlds population in developing countries is exploding.
Or we could just keep growing, and say "**** the future", and leave them to sort out the mess we leave them.
Encourage people to have less children, although they don't need much encouraging - the birth rate is already falling due to abortion, contraception, women having fewer children and having them later in life etc.
Second part is stopping immigration into the UK so that as the population dies off it will fall, introducing euthanasia would also make a small contribution towards this.
But I have no idea how you could halve the population in a few decades like that Optimum Population thing are proposing, seems totally mad to me.
nope, i don't think it's a good idea to try and forceably reduce the population. we're already suffering from a diminishing working population, we should sort out things like that first.
We can reduce our 'footprint' without having to slow population growth. More efficient use of natural resources can help , as can advances in science and technology which can help us support more people with reduced pollution.
But what about the EU becoming a military and economic counterweight to the USA?
The EU of 15 already has a higher population than the US and with 10 new countries coming in it will be more populous by far.
The joint military issue is one of political will not population.
Euthanasia as population control? Are you sure? :eek2:
I think that leaves me, you and Clandy on this board LOL
No, KoolCat asked how you could reduce the population, euthanasia could be used so I mentioned it.
On the other hand the young ones could decide to implement a Logan Run-style system. Reach 30 and you're sent to meet your maker in a spectacular ceremony.
Classic movie that was!
Back to the topic, I'm not so sure if population numbers are so strongly linked to the economy. I reckon it's more down to management. There are numerous examples of scarcely populated countries- such as some northern Europe nations- which fabulous GPDs and economies. And many heavily-populated countries (India comes to mind) where they're not exactly swimming in cash.
Negative population growth has its own problems, but luckily immigration is at hand. Spain has or used to have the lowest birth rate in the EU and numbers had gone down from 40m to 38m in less than two decades. Now thanks to immigration they're back to almost 40m.
When you think global you see that the earth is getting severely overpopulated. The problem might not originate from Europe, but still the less people born, the better.