Earth's population to reach a staggering 7bn this month

[rov1100]

http://www.dailymail....en-billion-month.html

What should nations and politicians do about this runaway trend?

[VHG]

Population pyramids

See here the population pyramid of Sudan (as an example). Very wide at the bottom, so lots of young people being born, very narrow at the top. This is probably what you want in each country.

Lots of young and middle aged people to pay for the fairly small older population.

http://geographyyr10....file/view/pyramid.gif

Now look at the UK. Very narrow at the bottom (few young people being born), a HUGE bulge in the middle (who are all going to get old in the next 20 years or so), and already many people in their 70s and 80s and even up to 100.

So who is going to be working (and paying) for the massive population of old people in 20 or 30 years time if you dont have children now.

This is massive problem almost all the Western countries have, which is why people will need to keep working into their 60s and even 70s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...y/images/pop_006a.gif

[Old_Geezer]

In the first year of my secondary schooling, when they insisted the class get involved in debates, I was made aware of the population problem and arguing the authorities ought to be tackling it. In all the intervening years ours have merely carried on it's policy of encouraging more births. Globally a head in the sand attitude has prevailed, with any decisions being more around how to generate more food instead of trying to solve the cause of the issue. Sooner or the world will either have to wake up or be devastated by a natural disaster, disease most likely, or global starvation. Maybe something else. If the economies can be fixed I feel sure discouraging rather than encouraging offspring will be all that is needed.

People do not need to be working into their 60 or even 70s, it solves nothing and betrays those who have already done their bit for society. Full employment doesn't exist so it is always the case that those in work have to generate the wealth required for the whole of society. It is a backwards move to force younger folk on welfare whilst insisting older folk work until they drop. Retirement should be at 55 or younger to solve the problem.

[rojash]

"The people responsible for raising children in so-called poverty are the parents, nobody else. "
True - but you seem determined to punish the children fro the sins of the parents.

[Old_Geezer]

And in addition it doesn't help society as a whole for some to feel they have been mistreated. It is in society's best interest to get it right. If only there were simple working solutions. Often when one tries to help it only encourages undesired behaviour, and ultimately a larger problem to tackle.

[New Judge]

I (together with other taxpayers) am not punishing anybody, rojash. The responsibility for their plight (and their poverty) rests with their parents for bringing into the world children that they cannot properly support. It is a strange logic that suggests that the rest of society is somehow punishing children who face poverty because of the parents’ shortcomings. Those who are responsible enough to live within their means, who may well nonetheless be struggling financially, are the people being punished by being forced to pay for the upkeep of children whose parents are not so responsible as well as that of their own.

Your remarks about the population pyramid may well be true, VHG. But this situation has not “crept up” unexpectedly on the UK government. It has been known for decades that life expectancy is growing. The fundamental problem is that the principle that current workers pay for those retired is flawed. It’s akin to “Ponzi” schemes which are illegal in the financial world, for the very good and simple reason that they eventually run out of cash. And that's what governments are now belatedly discovering. Taxes taken from those working should be invested on their behalf for their future use and not used to sustain current spending.

It is unsustainable to rely on an ever increasing population to deal with this problem because, far from curing the problem it simply makes it worse. The extra bodies, strangely enough, also get old - probably older than those they replace - and so need paying (from current contributions) in their dotage. It is a serious problem and governments all over the world are only addressing the symptoms, not the cause, which is over-population.

[Zeuhl]

If Aliens ever do look down at us from space, it's easy to imagine their summary to be something like:

Nice planet. Shame it's infested with that plague of creatures running around on two legs killing and spoiling everything.
.

[Harry-Wragg]

The entire population of the planet could stand on the Isle of Wight at the same time.

[scotman]

Soylent Green is closer than we think?

[craft1948]

Send them to France..............huge bits of France are nearly empty.

[emmie]

Zeuhl, never a truer word spoken.

[rov1100]

Strangely enough there was an article in todays press about the huge growth in numbers of Montjac deer and the suggestion that they need to be culled to a manageable level.

When it comes to Africa we are committing £bns so that the sick and underfed remain alive. The future looks grim as they will overpopulate and unable to feed themselves and there could be a likely exodus to Europe where it could explode.

Maybe the answer is not to provide so much aid to Africa but to reduce it by contraception as mentioned above.

[Zeuhl]

<<The entire population of the planet could stand on the Isle of Wight at the same time. >>

Not if they were being supervised by Sheffield police.

[Harry-Wragg]

lol Zeuhl

[New Judge]

The Isle of Wight fact was bandied about when I was in primary school in nineteen hundred and God knows when. It might have been true then, but I think it would be a bit of a struggle now with 7bn souls. The island is 147 square miles in area which means there would be more than 15 of us to every square yard – very cosy. Not only that, how would we all get across on the ferry?