[Toto deVeer]

From the Guardian:



I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....

[swissy_fit]

Toto deVeer, on 18 September 2010 - 01:03 PM, said:

From the Guardian:



I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....

Who do you think is going to feed the monstrous parasite that is the City and its pensions/finance industry if the population remains flat?

[Game_Over]

Toto deVeer, on 18 September 2010 - 01:03 PM, said:

From the Guardian:



I've seen other estimates showing the population topping out at 115 million.

Now we all understand the demographics at play, ageing population, etc. But can someone please explain to me why the UK managed to quite successfully maintain a steady population in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and why it is necessary to let it explode now?

I mean those demographics are going to be there eventually. To me, we face them with 50 million people, or we face them with 115 million people, Personally, I'd rather face them with 50 million. Surely the standard of living would be much higher with fewer people?

Why is no one screaming out about this one. Not only will it create misery of life, but it will completely destroy British culture.....

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

[billybong]

Another 10...........million (and the rest) to keep warm, clothe, feed, water, housing, supply benefits and pensions for, find jobs, print newspapers, find Christmas and Birthday presents for, build roads and schools etc and so on.

Not enough time for sufficient nuclear energy to compensate for peak oil crises and they aren't going to wait and see.

It's clear they've decided oil is abiotic and virtually endless but they aren't letting on.

This post has been edited by billybong: 18 September 2010 - 01:58 PM

[Executive Sadman]

HA its already in excess of 80 million.

[Kyoto]

Game_Over, on 18 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.

[Game_Over]

Kyoto, on 18 September 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.

Yes if your GDP goes up 50% but your population doubles everyone is actually much worse off

And that doesn't even take into account the effect on quality of life of overcrowding and congestion.

We had a stable population - now it is growing rapidly.

How exactly are we supposed to cut our CO2 emissions in these circumstances unless economic activity per head plunges.

The politics of the madhouse

[Executive Sadman]

Game_Over, on 18 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

Thats why politicians always say it 'benefits the economy' not 'it benefits you'

We could annexe ethiopia, and our economy would be 'bigger'. We as individuals, on average, would be poorer though.


As for why population growth wasnt an issue in the 70s it was probably because more people were entering the workforce (ie turning 18) than were leaving it (ie retiring)

What i dont get is how it seems OK to suggest we need more immigrants now when millions are on the scrapheap. It might have been plausible in the 50s when millions of young men were killed or incapacitated in the war effort, and women were still shut out from many professions, but i dont get how anyone can say we need more immigrants at this stage with a straight face. Its absurd.

[Executive Sadman]

Kyoto, on 18 September 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

But creating these obviously implies jobs / growth.

Taking out the sustainability issues, does the act of letting the population rise implicitly have some correlation with GDP.

If the population figures were correct and it was rising at 1% or so a year, and yet debt is rising at 10-15% a year, immigration would surely be pretty pointless anyway. To ensure peoples debt load didnt grow per capita, wouldnt we have to increase the population by 10 million or so each and every year?

[ken_ichikawa]

Game_Over, on 18 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

Nope this is pure british thinking.... i.e. lets have more people but not build any more infrastructure for them. If you build up the infrastrucure building upwards to save arable space as well as downwards then you can cram an incredible number of people into a small amount of space.

Guanzhao for example is an incredible sprawl of 200 million people. It works so far because the subsistance farming inland has been changed to mechanical farming which puts more output per km2 of land.

[winkie]

Game_Over, on 18 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

Good question.

When people claim that uncontrolled immigration benefits the economy no one factors in the cost of

More resevoirs due to water shortages
More power stations
More housing
More schools
More hospitals

etc, etc, etc

The costs probably outweigh any short term economic advantage 10-1

The extra labour will build it, the extra taxes will pay for it.......like if you owned a house you rented out, better to split it up into rooms and rented out each room to many than rented out the whole house to one.....more skills to call on more rent to collect.

This post has been edited by winkie: 18 September 2010 - 03:37 PM

[Tired of Waiting]

Toto deVeer, on 18 September 2010 - 01:03 PM, said:

I've seen other estimates showing the population (...)

You can stop worrying. The projection in this chart you've posted is absurd. It assumes that the pop. increase between 2004 and 2008 due to immigration from the new EU countries would keep going, and on a straight line (!), for decades on end!

The reality is that it has fallen already, to a very low level, like the chart below shows, or even to a negative NET level, like some other data suggest. Relax.

This post has been edited by Tired of Waiting: 18 September 2010 - 07:53 PM

[Corinne Stockheath]

The UK economy and political system is set up to benefit big business and the banksters.

Don't give 2 figs about the indigenous population.

[Game_Over]

ken_ichikawa, on 18 September 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

Nope this is pure british thinking.... i.e. lets have more people but not build any more infrastructure for them. If you build up the infrastrucure building upwards to save arable space as well as downwards then you can cram an incredible number of people into a small amount of space.

Guanzhao for example is an incredible sprawl of 200 million people. It works so far because the subsistance farming inland has been changed to mechanical farming which puts more output per km2 of land.

But we already practice very intensive agriculture in the UK so this option is not open to us.

[Game_Over]

winkie, on 18 September 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

The extra labour will build it, the extra taxes will pay for it.......like if you owned a house you rented out, better to split it up into rooms and rented out each room to many than rented out the whole house to one.....more skills to call on more rent to collect.

This would be nice if we weren't already one of the mostly densely populated countries in the World

and we hadn't run out of space for new power stations, landfill sites, reservoirs, roads, airports etc,etc,etc