Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ologhai Jones

Population Size

Recommended Posts

Question 1: Is anything made better by the continued increase in world population?

Question 2: Would anything be made worse by world population decreasing[1]?

Also... Question 2a: Can you think of things that a controlled reduction in population would actively improve? In what ways might a world with only, say, 7 million people on it be better than a world with a population of 7 billion?

[1] I mean in a controlled way as opposed to, say, 98% of humans being killed by an asteroid strike. Imagine, for example, over a few generations (or even tens of generations), the world population decreasing to a thousandth of its current size while remaining about as geographically widespread as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global economy works on the back of an increasing population. A smaller population would be better as there is more room to grow, but you would have economic chaos if you attempt to get there from here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 1: Is anything made better by the continued increase in world population?

Question 2: Would anything be made worse by world population decreasing[1]?

Also... Question 2a: Can you think of things that a controlled reduction in population would actively improve? In what ways might a world with only, say, 7 million people on it be better than a world with a population of 7 billion?

[1] I mean in a controlled way as opposed to, say, 98% of humans being killed by an asteroid strike. Imagine, for example, over a few generations (or even tens of generations), the world population decreasing to a thousandth of its current size while remaining about as geographically widespread as it is.

I have been thinking about this for the last few minutes and I can't think of anything negative to a smaller world apart from the fact that our whole financial system is predicated on growth, and population growth is a factor in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be long before an OP like this leads the thread into an eugenic theme.

Naively, increasing the world pop. by 20% means 20% more scientific geniuses solving all sorts of problems (and presumably enabling the pop. to grow even further). In practice this depends on whether the pop. growth occurs adequately among those parts of the world pop. which have historically tended to produce more scientific geniuses per capita, as it were.

Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be long before an OP like this leads the thread into an eugenic theme.

To try to nip this prospect in the bud, I didn't mean it to go into eugenics particularly.

If people were to be chosen to be 'allowed' to procreate (and also disallowed), imagine that this is being done on a purely random basis. In other words, the focus of the thread was just on whether there are any genuine gains by population increases, and any genuine problems with population reductions per se.

(The problems mentioned given the economic models we presently operate under are, I agree, an issue and are duly noted! ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to nip this prospect in the bud, I didn't mean it to go into eugenics particularly.

If people were to be chosen to be 'allowed' to procreate (and also disallowed), imagine that this is being done on a purely random basis. In other words, the focus of the thread was just on whether there are any genuine gains by population increases, and any genuine problems with population reductions per se.

(The problems mentioned given the economic models we presently operate under are, I agree, an issue and are duly noted! ;) )

Traditionally, a one child only policy has been the way to do this.

It's interesting that none of this stuff ever gets discussed in relation to "climate change" and the like when cutting the size of the human population is one of the things that is pretty much guaranteed to reduce our environmental impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to nip this prospect in the bud, I didn't mean it to go into eugenics particularly.

If people were to be chosen to be 'allowed' to procreate (and also disallowed), imagine that this is being done on a purely random basis. In other words, the focus of the thread was just on whether there are any genuine gains by population increases, and any genuine problems with population reductions per se.

(The problems mentioned given the economic models we presently operate under are, I agree, an issue and are duly noted!  ;) )

OK so we are talking about a blanket 90% reduction right ? So things to worry about... decommissioning many many nuclear and conventional power stations as they wouldn't be needed, also ghost cities ? London with a population of 110,000 ? Would people still chose to bunch together or go towards a more villagey self sustaining lifestyle. On the whole I think it would be a much better world, but I'm sure there there would still be the inequalities that plague us today. Over population is just one problem, but TBH many of the issues we have today as far as ecology, bio-diversity, consumption of non renewables etc etc are caused by one thing ,too many humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 1: Is anything made better by the continued increase in world population?

Question 2: Would anything be made worse by world population decreasing[1]?

Also... Question 2a: Can you think of things that a controlled reduction in population would actively improve? In what ways might a world with only, say, 7 million people on it be better than a world with a population of 7 billion?

[1] I mean in a controlled way as opposed to, say, 98% of humans being killed by an asteroid strike. Imagine, for example, over a few generations (or even tens of generations), the world population decreasing to a thousandth of its current size while remaining about as geographically widespread as it is.

As soon as robots become really useful and can look after the wealthy elite in the way that servants can, expect this to happen.

The banksters will have stolen all the resources using the financial system and will have no further use for it or for the great unwashed.

Leaving that aside, how on earth would you propose to engineer population decrease?

They've had the one child policy in China for ages and still the population increases.

Also this has made a pensions timebomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Capitalism needs continual population growth otherwise it will fail. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world would be much pleasanter to live in if there weren't so many people in it. Any system tied to continued increases and reliant on all problems to be solved in order to achieve that is doomed in the long run. However, I cannot think of any ethical way of achieving a reduced population*, and whilst a much smaller number would be beneficial getting there would be painful even if you can somehow think of an ethical way.

* At least not practically. Terraforming Mars and Venus and getting enough volunteers to go there probably would be, but isn't remotely achievable with current science and technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 1: Is anything made better by the continued increase in world population?

Question 2: Would anything be made worse by world population decreasing[1]?

Also... Question 2a: Can you think of things that a controlled reduction in population would actively improve? In what ways might a world with only, say, 7 million people on it be better than a world with a population of 7 billion?

[1] I mean in a controlled way as opposed to, say, 98% of humans being killed by an asteroid strike. Imagine, for example, over a few generations (or even tens of generations), the world population decreasing to a thousandth of its current size while remaining about as geographically widespread as it is.

Why the need to reduce the population? If we in the western world reduced our consumption of the world's resources, there would probably be enough capacity for 20 billion. But instead, we want darkie Johhny foreigner to stop having babies so we can continue our privelidged unsustainable lifestyles.

right kids

2-0000000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Absolutely Fabulous

Why the need to reduce the population? If we in the western world reduced our consumption of the world's resources, there would probably be enough capacity for 20 billion. But instead, we want darkie Johhny foreigner to stop having babies so we can continue our privelidged unsustainable lifestyles.

right kids

2-0000000.jpg

Did the voices in your head tell you that?huh.gif You need to realise that you can't attribute your own hostile thoughts to everyone else. It is known as paranoia.cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Absolutely Fabulous

OK so we are talking about a blanket 90% reduction right ? So things to worry about... decommissioning many many nuclear and conventional power stations as they wouldn't be needed, also ghost cities ? London with a population of 110,000 ? Would people still chose to bunch together or go towards a more villagey self sustaining lifestyle. On the whole I think it would be a much better world, but I'm sure there there would still be the inequalities that plague us today. Over population is just one problem, but TBH many of the issues we have today as far as ecology, bio-diversity, consumption of non renewables etc etc are caused by one thing ,too many humans.

Humans are genetically inclined to form groups. it is what has contributed to the species survival. Hence our title of " The social animal"....Tho' looking around this forum I have some misgivings.unsure.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

In my experience the size of the population varies with age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the need to reduce the population? If we in the western world reduced our consumption of the world's resources, there would probably be enough capacity for 20 billion. But instead, we want darkie Johhny foreigner to stop having babies so we can continue our privelidged unsustainable lifestyles.

At current levels of growth, world population doubles every fifty-odd years. That means that 20 billion is only three generations from right now. 20 billion is a world that many of today's babies and toddlers will see (assuming population continues to grow at about the same rate).

Then what?

Thinking about that 50-or-so-year doubling time (and borrowing Albert Bartlett's 'bacteria in a bottle' thought experiment):

Let's say you start out with one bacterium in a bottle at 11 o'clock, and by 12 o'clock the bottle is full of bacteria. Assuming a doubling time of one minute, the bottle will have been half full at 11:59, a quarter full at 11:58, an eighth full at 11:57, and so on. How many bacteria do you think might realise they have an impending problem when the bottle is only around 3% full at 11:55?

They will have around 97% of free space just yearning for development and exploitation, yet it's five minutes to midnight for the bacteria in that bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate here but:

Population growth creates the scarcity and environmental degradation that fosters efficiency and innovation.

The United States is one of the largest developed nations in the world, with relatively low population density and a wealth of natural resources. They are also one of the most appalling wasteful and polluting societies on the planet. In contrast, Japan has far fewer natural resources than the US and a population density that far exceeds most European countries. It also has one of the lowest rates of environmental impact per person and many of the energy-saving, fuel-saving and space-saving technologies we benefit from today originated there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate here but:

Population growth creates the scarcity and environmental degradation that fosters efficiency and innovation.

That assumes that we're lazy and will only innovate when forced to. There will always be a drive to make things better, and whilst desperation might speed up innovation it isn't required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to reduce population do you? Who says you will be the chosen?

So all of the Chinese and Indians will say oh well and just lie down and take it? Much like the film 2012 was insane, i.e. CHinese workers would build arks to save Americans. At best they will be spiteful and samson us and send their ICBMs to turn the UK/Europe/USA into a radioactive wasteland. They would also cease to exist but they can be sore losers too.

Without nuclear weapons it gets worse..

Think back to 1950s Korea the Glocs who had artillery, air support, tanks and machine guns were defeated by the PVA with 40,000 pish poor Chinese conscripts armed with little more than rifles who were poorly equipped motivated and fed. And they still defeated the Glocs.

Think about it we can't even defeat a bunch of blokes with beards in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2010 The PLA is EVEN bigger than what we faced in Korea, they are much better equipped motivated and armed. Add in India and Russia and before you even knew it you'd be on the reciving end of a bayonette to the belly or be captured and forced to work as a sonderkommando.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introducing a maximum age limit is the only fair way to limit population. All that one child per family malachy leads to more old people than the younger people can look after in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introducing a maximum age limit is the only fair way to limit population. All that one child per family malachy leads to more old people than the younger people can look after in the end.

Nah all of the health initiatives i.e. healthy eating, anti smoking should be repealled.

Transfats etc should be added to foods and salads be made illegal, anyfood with less than 90% lard content is illegal, fried lard is to be a compulsory staple of the diets of humanity.

Exercise should be discouraged and punishable by being force fed 30 kilos of lard.

Smoking should be made cool and taught in schools PE is replaced by smoking sessions and genetically engineered to be 100000% more addictive than current levels.

Safety equipment, say helmets, seatbelts and airbags should be made illegal and replaced with sharp dangerous objects.

A&E should be abolished.

Lead and arsenic should be added to petrol.

Alcohol should be re-rated so that 5% beers are now 50% strength beers.

Anti depressants would be replaced by depressants to encourage a high suicide rate.

At which life expectancy is reduced to about 37 years, which should resolve the demographic problem really quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah all of the health initiatives i.e. healthy eating, anti smoking should be repealled.

Transfats etc should be added to foods and salads be made illegal, anyfood with less than 90% lard content is illegal, fried lard is to be a compulsory staple of the diets of humanity.

Exercise should be discouraged and punishable by being force fed 30 kilos of lard.

Smoking should be made cool and taught in schools PE is replaced by smoking sessions and genetically engineered to be 100000% more addictive than current levels.

Safety equipment, say helmets, seatbelts and airbags should be made illegal and replaced with sharp dangerous objects.

A&E should be abolished.

Lead and arsenic should be added to petrol.

Alcohol should be re-rated so that 5% beers are now 50% strength beers.

Anti depressants would be replaced by depressants to encourage a high suicide rate.

At which life expectancy is reduced to about 37 years, which should resolve the demographic problem really quickly.

You're onto something there. I suddenly feel a whoosh of patriotic pride, happy in the knowledge that I'm doing my bit for society. I'm off to do a bit more chain saw juggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a reproduction map of West Yorkshire on my desk showing how this area looked in 1845 and the other day I was just thinking how lovely it must have looked once you were out of the then quite small towns and cities.

Any huge and immeadiate cull of the population would be catastrophic and I doubt would give our Bilderberg masters the power and control they assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to reduce population do you? Who says you will be the chosen?

So all of the Chinese and Indians will say oh well and just lie down and take it? Much like the film 2012 was insane, i.e. CHinese workers would build arks to save Americans. At best they will be spiteful and samson us and send their ICBMs to turn the UK/Europe/USA into a radioactive wasteland. They would also cease to exist but they can be sore losers too.

Without nuclear weapons it gets worse..

Think back to 1950s Korea the Glocs who had artillery, air support, tanks and machine guns were defeated by the PVA with 40,000 pish poor Chinese conscripts armed with little more than rifles who were poorly equipped motivated and fed. And they still defeated the Glocs.

Think about it we can't even defeat a bunch of blokes with beards in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2010 The PLA is EVEN bigger than what we faced in Korea, they are much better equipped motivated and armed. Add in India and Russia and before you even knew it you'd be on the reciving end of a bayonette to the belly or be captured and forced to work as a sonderkommando.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You seem to feel strongly about something, but I can't quite put my finger on what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Number of women for me to s**g increases.

2. Number of women for me to s**g decreases.

1. Competition from other males for the available females increases.

2. Competition from other males for the available females decreases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.