How do you stop the migrants crossing the channel

[Staffsknot]

49 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

Its not climate - climate change is really not a huge thing.

ITS POPULATION.

Exactly right. It should be obvious really but many people refuse to see it, why? It is such an import issue and will cause major problems within a generation.

How long can this planet survive with a population of over 9 billion? 10 billion 12 billion.?

Could the planet survive for a prolonged period (1000 years or more) even if the population halved to around 5 billion?

 

It is not that straightforward. If you increase population in high consuming regions they have a greater impact than in many developing nations. Its an easy cop out to say just control population expansion as its what western nations jumped on to say poorer countries need to do X while avoiding unpalatible change at home.

Let's be honest there aren't many Africans living in poverty who run Bitcoin farms heating a glacial lake or chuck away tons of food waste.

Same as western pets probably have a higher footprint than many kids in developing nations.

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Staffsknot said:

It is not that straightforward. If you increase population in high consuming regions they have a greater impact than in many developing nations. Its an easy cop out to say just control population expansion as its what western nations jumped on to say poorer countries need to do X while avoiding unpalatible change at home.

But unless you're going to keep the low earning regions low earning forever (which is a terrible solution) it's creating problems for the future if they're having massive population growth.

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Ah, but Evil Violence (TM) only exists when there's a government. Presumably the collapse of society also happens to summon Magic Violence Removing Fairies.

Because in fantasy theory land everyone works to the common good without coercion - except in this case where at the first hurdle its eff you I want what's mone... but nobody else maybe will do the same on him

[Staffsknot]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

But unless you're going to keep the low earning regions low earning forever (which is a terrible solution) it's creating problems for the future if they're having massive population growth.

But as earnings and lifestyles change accordingly the birth rates often drop too.

Like we had a boomer gen then it fizzled as it does everywhere. 

Now that boom will be an issue when they all want cars and meat meals 7 days a week, but the developed nations are already doing that and burning the resources way in advance.

If everyone in the developed nations had a footprint of a developing nation person we'd be in a lot better position but that's largely impossible. But % lifestyle changes in developed nations have more impact.

[FANG]

I suppose its a vicious circle.

Big Corporations - population growth - climate change

The only way to control this is to reduce population growth but the greed of the wealthy 1% won't allow it. Hence our destruction within 100 years is inevitable unless consumption of natural resources is reduced. 

Basically we are screwed.    

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

But as earnings and lifestyles change accordingly the birth rates often drop too.

Like we had a boomer gen then it fizzled as it does everywhere. 

Now that boom will be an issue when they all want cars and meat meals 7 days a week, but the developed nations are already doing that and burning the resources way in advance.

If everyone in the developed nations had a footprint of a developing nation person we'd be in a lot better position but that's largely impossible. But % lifestyle changes in developed nations have more impact.

Sure, but how many people has that population increased to by the time living conditions improve and birth rates drop? You've got an even bigger problem then. One advantage of being a developing nation now is to learn from what nations that went through the process earlier dealt with and get there without some of the downsides.

We had more than just a boomer generation, we've had very population growth from birth rates from the Industrial Revolution until now - and plenty of people are still keen on keeping the population growth going up, going for importing people from elsewhere since people aren't having children to keep the pyramid scheme going.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, FANG said:

I suppose its a vicious circle.

Big Corporations - population growth - climate change

The only way to control this is to reduce population growth but the greed of the wealthy 1% won't allow it. Hence our destruction within 100 years is inevitable unless consumption of natural resources is reduced. 

Basically we are screwed.    

Destruction? No chance. No matter how big a mess we make we're not facing the risk of destruction (well, not unless it ends up as all-out nuclear war).

[byron78]

35% of the world are Chinese or Indian.

Astonishing that.

[FANG]

20 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Destruction? No chance. No matter how big a mess we make we're not facing the risk of destruction (well, not unless it ends up as all-out nuclear war).

So what happens when a large country or a superpower starts to run out of resources how do they rectify that without assistance from other nations and if that is not forthcoming then they will have to take it themselves from other nations. 

[AThirdWay]

27 minutes ago, byron78 said:

35% of the world are Chinese or Indian.

Astonishing that.

I suspect Chinese and Indian immigration  into the UK dwarfs these African asylum seekers... Hey ho!

[Riedquat]

7 minutes ago, FANG said:

So what happens when a large country or a superpower starts to run out of resources how do they rectify that without assistance from other nations and if that is not forthcoming then they will have to take it themselves from other nations. 

So you are going for the all-out nuclear war risk being what'll destroy us?

[FANG]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

So you are going for the all-out nuclear war risk being what'll destroy us?

I'm sure it could be a possibility maybe not all out war but on a small scale.  But whatever happens it will have been stage managed by the 1% who will be safely ensconced in their remote Caribbean bunkers.     

[onlooker]

3 hours ago, AThirdWay said:

So the wars in Syria and Libya are not simply the East and West (of old) continuing their wars by proxy? Come on, you know that's what's going on.

Just another method of sucking money out of these countries of course, driving the flow of migrants.

I lived in Libya for 2 years when Ghaddafi ruled. It is now a civil war - a 4 cornered one between the people of Tripoli versus the people of Benghazi versus the tribes of the rest of the country versus the Islamists. Ghaddafi was overthrown by a popular uprising - he and his family were truly appalling, you cannot have any concept of just how bad.

It was never a real country to begin with, just a lot of tribes with sheep, and a few people living near the coast around Tripoli who have no reason to be in the same country as the few people living near the coast in Benghazi. Nation building was always going to be an uphill struggle.

AIUI Syria suffers from many of the same problems, with the Sunni/Shiite conflict as well for good measure.

The democratic civilized West cannot walk away from the people in these places, they are desperate for our help. But sorting out their problems is impossible.

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Sure, but how many people has that population increased to by the time living conditions improve and birth rates drop? You've got an even bigger problem then. One advantage of being a developing nation now is to learn from what nations that went through the process earlier dealt with and get there without some of the downsides.

We had more than just a boomer generation, we've had very population growth from birth rates from the Industrial Revolution until now - and plenty of people are still keen on keeping the population growth going up, going for importing people from elsewhere since people aren't having children to keep the pyramid scheme going.

As I say though you are now into telling developing nations don't have more kids to save developed nations, because they will one day be developed nations - all while p!ssing resources away in their faces. Its the cop out option the developed nations love to jump at.

There's more than 1 action needed and lecturing developing nations is low down the order of priority.

What would your response be if developing nations said ok we limit to two kids but your nations need a child limit commensurate with footprint and so annual child quotas and pregnancy licences / 1 child max? Suddenly not so popular.

But this is way off topic

[Staffsknot]

20 minutes ago, onlooker said:

I lived in Libya for 2 years when Ghaddafi ruled. It is now a civil war - a 4 cornered one between the people of Tripoli versus the people of Benghazi versus the tribes of the rest of the country versus the Islamists. Ghaddafi was overthrown by a popular uprising - he and his family were truly appalling, you cannot have any concept of just how bad.

It was never a real country to begin with, just a lot of tribes with sheep, and a few people living near the coast around Tripoli who have no reason to be in the same country as the few people living near the coast in Benghazi. Nation building was always going to be an uphill struggle.

AIUI Syria suffers from many of the same problems, with the Sunni/Shiite conflict as well for good measure.

The democratic civilized West cannot walk away from the people in these places, they are desperate for our help. But sorting out their problems is impossible.

Actually many of the problems are engineered by the colonial past - Syria is ruled by the Alouite minority put in power by the French. Libya was ruled by the clans that sided with Italy until Gaddafi.

When France & Italy left the minority groups had to maintain authoritarian regimes as they'd been the colonial enforcers / risked the backlash.

Gaddafi basically was part of the Arab nationalism that tried to sweep away the minority post-colonial regimes. He instituted a lot of healthcare and social reforms, but like most dictators inhaled his own farts and worried if anyone else ruled then he'd get the chop + remembering how he got there so went full despotic / attacking Chad and Egypt, etc... funding terror groups.

Libya is just various interest groups and grudges that built up under Gadaffi vying for oil fields. Chuck in fundamentalists to make it a true powderkeg as their operations shift from Middle East to affiliates in Africa and Asia.

Same as Congo stability effectively hampered by interest groups - contractors go in and eliminate the armed groups for a big pay-off. Mysteriously large amounts of weapons get sold to separatist group of the day when stability means less need for private security groups in country.

 

 

[gp_]

4 hours ago, AThirdWay said:

Ah, so it's anti-Muslim rhetoric your wanting? Sorry, you've come to the wrong place.

By all means change my use of Catholic faith to Muslim, whatever sky fairy floats your boat, the advice is the same. Combat the influence of religion by education.

You are entirely missing my point. Religion has very little to do with population growth (except for some fundamentalist Muslim countries that opress women very seriously).

The problem is your rather Dawkins typ anti-religious bigoty is getting in the way of seeing the real problems - economics and lifestyles.

[gp_]

2 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

. If you increase population in high consuming regions they have a greater impact than in many developing nations.

The biggest problem are countries thar are acutally developing rather than poor. Their consumption is increasing faster than that of developed countries. China and India are the big ones.

 

1 hour ago, byron78 said:

35% of the world are Chinese or Indian.

Astonishing that.

Even more so when you see it presented like this: https://brilliantmaps.com/population-circle/

 

[Staffsknot]

2 minutes ago, gp_ said:

You are entirely missing my point. Religion has very little to do with population growth (except for some fundamentalist Muslim countries that opress women very seriously).

The problem is your rather Dawkins typ anti-religious bigoty is getting in the way of seeing the real problems - economics and lifestyles.

Actually many religious groups actively hamper efforts in birth control and addressing many such health & social issues.

In PNG literally witnessed missionaries saying no Sunday service no malaria meds. God fearing folk from Iowa believing they were doing the work and needing to save souls before can save lives. Basically horrible people believing they were being superheroes.

Africa seen lots of religious groups shouting down any notion of birth control as leading to the devil, even with AIDS and other terrible risks. Similar groups saying baptism saves you from ebola and other nonsense.

You would be surprised of the impact of these things. 

In Afghanistan there was a push by certain influences to try and get the polio vaccine labelled as a CIA plot to sterilise them. It is a prevelent theory in tribal regions of Pakistan put there by same groups - to break link to the gov healthcare.

[FANG]

 

Surely Border force are not giving out all inclusive wristbands now are they.

[Flat Bear]

2 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

It is not that straightforward. If you increase population in high consuming regions they have a greater impact than in many developing nations. Its an easy cop out to say just control population expansion as its what western nations jumped on to say poorer countries need to do X while avoiding unpalatible change at home.

Let's be honest there aren't many Africans living in poverty who run Bitcoin farms heating a glacial lake or chuck away tons of food waste.

Same as western pets probably have a higher footprint than many kids in developing nations.

I don't know what your on but I don't want any of it😝

[Chunketh]

3 hours ago, FANG said:

Good initial point. But where do we deport them to if they have no ID and the European countries they have just traveled through refuse to take them.  

Yeah good point

[Chunketh]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Destruction? No chance. No matter how big a mess we make we're not facing the risk of destruction (well, not unless it ends up as all-out nuclear war).

Collapse of the ecosystem would have a similar effect

[shlomo]

46 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

 

In Afghanistan there was a push by certain influences to try and get the polio vaccine labelled as a CIA plot to sterilise them. It is a prevelent theory in tribal regions of Pakistan put there by same groups - to break link to the gov healthcare.

I wonder why?

The huawei division of the Chinese communist party accused the Australian government of using consultants to undermine the coronovirus virus vaccination push.

They had actually used spying equipment to record this despicable behaviour, I have alway thought Australia was good and China bad, I guess they are all as bad as each other 

[Chunketh]

Just now, shlomo said:

I wonder why?

The huawei division of the Chinese communist party accused the Australian government of using consultants to undermine the coronovirus virus vaccination push.

They had actually used spying equipment to record this despicable behaviour, I have alway thought Australia was good and China bad, I guess they are all as bad as each other 

There are precious few decent politicians. I still have the thought that selecting chambers should be done at random like jury service. Ban all lobbying, single 10 year term. Job Job.

[Staffsknot]

30 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

I don't know what your on but I don't want any of it😝

Not really a rebuttal but then you've taken a simplistic approach to the complex problem. As I've said the consumption by a small number of well off economies.

Population is an oversimplification. For instance 

"in low-income countries, whose share of the global population has almost doubled, demand for resources has stayed constant at just about 3 percent of the global total." - Anu Ramaswami a UN Global Resources Outlook Report contributor.

Rich countries take 78% of resources. 

Consumption of resources by low birth rate rich countries far surpasses low-income high birth rate ones and has been true for decades.

"their consumption habits have a much greater impact than overall population numbers" - same author.

We can't have infinite pop growth but if the rich countries moderate consumption we're better off than chasing poor countries for that hard to achieve reduction from 3% to 2% consumption.

The more affluent the more the impact on the planet. Its not rocket science I'm surprised at your missive - more so given I've worked in conservation and see these simplistic arguments forwarded for years to avoid the unpalatable truth.

If you are serious about climate change and the like look into this rather than just thinking ooh its too many people. Perfect example - Bezos and Branson have blown more resources than most African villages would in a year just in a willy waiving exercise to space.