Are Any Ab Tory True Blues Worried .
News1 min ago
Interesting Projections
http://
14% poulation increase ... we had better get busy building some infrastructure.
Warning
Opening some of the links/pdf's may spoil your breakfast.
14% poulation increase ... we had better get busy building some infrastructure.
Warning
Opening some of the links/pdf's may spoil your breakfast.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Mikey; //with the greatest of respects, that was before the discovery of antibiotics.//
We have squandered the effects of antibiotics by abusing what should be one of humanities most valuable assets by using them for every trivial ailment and they are already losing their effectiveness. Ebola ? well we can't be sure we have beaten it yet, and I'm sure there is more of its like to come.
More on Malthus;
"In Essay on the Principle of Population,Malthus proposes the principle that human populations grow exponentially (i.e., doubling with each cycle) while food production grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. by the repeated addition of a uniform increment in each uniform interval of time). Thus, while food output was likely to increase in a series of twenty-five year intervals in the arithmetic progression 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on, population was capable of increasing in the geometric progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so forth. This scenario of arithmetic food growth with simultaneous geometric human population growth predicted a future when humans would have no resources to survive on. To avoid such a catastrophe, Malthus urged controls on population growth."
Without this, humanity can realistically expect to see one or all of, famine, pestilence and war.
We have squandered the effects of antibiotics by abusing what should be one of humanities most valuable assets by using them for every trivial ailment and they are already losing their effectiveness. Ebola ? well we can't be sure we have beaten it yet, and I'm sure there is more of its like to come.
More on Malthus;
"In Essay on the Principle of Population,Malthus proposes the principle that human populations grow exponentially (i.e., doubling with each cycle) while food production grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. by the repeated addition of a uniform increment in each uniform interval of time). Thus, while food output was likely to increase in a series of twenty-five year intervals in the arithmetic progression 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on, population was capable of increasing in the geometric progression 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so forth. This scenario of arithmetic food growth with simultaneous geometric human population growth predicted a future when humans would have no resources to survive on. To avoid such a catastrophe, Malthus urged controls on population growth."
Without this, humanity can realistically expect to see one or all of, famine, pestilence and war.
@ divebuddy, how right you are and we have to add to that....land shortage as in our living on an island! There is finite space for all the increased things we need to support more population and lots of the 'newcomers' will be adding to the population with creating their children! How can we keep building and increasing everything to accommodate people ad infinitum?
"The UK (or indeed the world) cannot continue with an ever increasing population. It’s utter madness. Governments need to develop economic models which will cope with, at worst, a level population and preferably one that is in slight decline.".
Current social policy throughout the West is based on the principle that the state guarantees the health and financial security of all its citizens from cradle to grave, NJ. The cost of this guarantee cannot be met by a static, far less a declining, population. The welfare state needs a growing supply of new workers to pay for old in the same way as a Ponzi scheme needs new investors.
As for Malthus, the facts of life have proved him wrong, haven't they, Khandro?
Current social policy throughout the West is based on the principle that the state guarantees the health and financial security of all its citizens from cradle to grave, NJ. The cost of this guarantee cannot be met by a static, far less a declining, population. The welfare state needs a growing supply of new workers to pay for old in the same way as a Ponzi scheme needs new investors.
As for Malthus, the facts of life have proved him wrong, haven't they, Khandro?
VE...I am not sure exactly what the situation was with the Gastarbeiters.
My brother worked in Germany 20 years ago, a la "Auf Wiedersehen Pet"
and he always said they appeared to be on the bottom of the pile, so to speak...taking the dirtiest, lowest paid jobs on the building sites, so wide-spread discrimination seemed to the order of the day.
My brother worked in Germany 20 years ago, a la "Auf Wiedersehen Pet"
and he always said they appeared to be on the bottom of the pile, so to speak...taking the dirtiest, lowest paid jobs on the building sites, so wide-spread discrimination seemed to the order of the day.
mikey4444
Mark as Best Answer
Mush...there is plenty of room to build more houses....we could start with all those brownfield sites that used to contain our manufacturing industries, like steel making for instance !
http://
In 25 years time will some people suggest we simply build more homes to accommodate a projected population of 120 million by 2064?
Mark as Best Answer
Mush...there is plenty of room to build more houses....we could start with all those brownfield sites that used to contain our manufacturing industries, like steel making for instance !
http://
In 25 years time will some people suggest we simply build more homes to accommodate a projected population of 120 million by 2064?
Retro...the reason that the Gastarbeiters were needed in the 1960's, is that there weren't enough German workers to bring about the famous post-war German Economic Miracle. And they recognise that they will need more people in the future, to take the low-paid jobs that will result from a rapidly aging population.
http://
Mikey
The Guest Workers were a short term plan. When the project was completed the Germans expected the Turks to return to Turkey.Their usefulness was over and job done. The Turks refused and actually wanted to increase the migrant population by getting their families to join them.
That was not part of the German grand master plan and the result was wholesale death and arson. Long spiel in the Mirror above but you only need read the paragraph entitled Guest Workers.
T
The Germans have long memories and have been burning refugee reception centres recently before the so called refugees entered Germany.
Mikey
The Guest Workers were a short term plan. When the project was completed the Germans expected the Turks to return to Turkey.Their usefulness was over and job done. The Turks refused and actually wanted to increase the migrant population by getting their families to join them.
That was not part of the German grand master plan and the result was wholesale death and arson. Long spiel in the Mirror above but you only need read the paragraph entitled Guest Workers.
T
The Germans have long memories and have been burning refugee reception centres recently before the so called refugees entered Germany.
-- answer removed --
v_e; //the facts of life have proved him {Malthus} wrong, haven't they//,
At one point they appeared to, due to increased productivity in agricultural methods but there is a limit to this process. There were drops in population through warfare (as he predicted), and also as predicted, from 1918-1922, an estimated 75,000,000 people worldwide are thought to have died from an influenza epidemic.
If just one of the UK's ports were to close, you would begin to see food shortages on supermarket shelves within 2 days.
In WWII with a smaller population and everyone growing as much produce as they could (the so-called Dig for Victory campaign) there were still enormous shortages. As an Island Britain could nowhere near feed itself then, let alone now.
At one point they appeared to, due to increased productivity in agricultural methods but there is a limit to this process. There were drops in population through warfare (as he predicted), and also as predicted, from 1918-1922, an estimated 75,000,000 people worldwide are thought to have died from an influenza epidemic.
If just one of the UK's ports were to close, you would begin to see food shortages on supermarket shelves within 2 days.
In WWII with a smaller population and everyone growing as much produce as they could (the so-called Dig for Victory campaign) there were still enormous shortages. As an Island Britain could nowhere near feed itself then, let alone now.
"The cost of this guarantee cannot be met by a static, far less a declining, population."
Which is simply not true. The taxation that pays for welfare etc. is not related to the size of the population, it is related to the number of folk on work generating wealth. Since we never have 100% employment many of the populous is on welfare and a net drain rather than a net contributor. The population can shrink by as many folk as are presently claiming unemployment benefit and the society will be able to afford the Welfare State easier than it can now.
Which is simply not true. The taxation that pays for welfare etc. is not related to the size of the population, it is related to the number of folk on work generating wealth. Since we never have 100% employment many of the populous is on welfare and a net drain rather than a net contributor. The population can shrink by as many folk as are presently claiming unemployment benefit and the society will be able to afford the Welfare State easier than it can now.
This is not just a UK problem or EU problem it is a World problem.
We only have one Planet and it can only provide for a limited number of inhabitants. Each new house takes away space that could grow food.
There is a tipping point where there will not be enough space to grow the food to feed the population. I have heard it said that if we held the population of the Planet at number it is today and spread the entire resources of the world equally among them all , it would only be enough to provide the standard of living the UK had in 1950.
We only have one Planet and it can only provide for a limited number of inhabitants. Each new house takes away space that could grow food.
There is a tipping point where there will not be enough space to grow the food to feed the population. I have heard it said that if we held the population of the Planet at number it is today and spread the entire resources of the world equally among them all , it would only be enough to provide the standard of living the UK had in 1950.
Latest Posts
Sport3 mins ago
Paris Mayor 'Stunned' By Snap French...
News5 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching7 mins ago
