|
Post by gofish2 on Oct 11, 2017 21:43:30 GMT
I have always thought the world needs a few more Ugandans so I am good with it, as long as they stay away from Oxfordshire obviously. Well, I have been training my Springer Spaniel pup, Oscar (now 14 weeks old) to bark at any of those foreign types to stay away from west oxforshire so I am doing my bit to uphold the UKIP wisdom. And, if any of those lefty types want some, come and have a go if you think you're soft enough!!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 11, 2017 21:53:16 GMT
These are country populations right but dont specify nationality. It would be good to see for example what percentage of population VS nationality? Can't help thinking that wouldn't be very interesting, to be honest. In most of those countries, surely 99.99% of the census population are of the host country, i.e. the vast majority of the Mexican population are Mexican, the vast majority of the Indonesian population are Indonesian. Even in the US, of those counted most will be naturalised Americans, even if they originated in Mexico or El Salvador.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 11, 2017 21:54:59 GMT
I think they are very scary. Some of the most populous countries - particularly China and India - will have, and already have, burgeoning middle classes demanding more consumer goods (possibly a good thing, possibly not given depleting resources) and a western diet that will be increasingly difficult to satisfy. Most of the world population will remain poor and powerless, but in massively greater numbers. Half of Bangladesh's land area is already prone to annual flooding. It doesn't bear thinking about the problems that an extra 20/50/100 million Bangladeshis will face. Also appear to be rapid growth in countries with multiple domestic issues be it famine, poverty, anti-liberalism, or internal conflict. Ultimately Malthusian theory will take the human race apart First time I've heard Malthus mentioned since A Levels! But yes, the earth has a definitive ability to support its human population. I wonder at what point that ability will be reached?
|
|
|
Post by KLYellow on Oct 12, 2017 2:41:23 GMT
These are country populations right but dont specify nationality. It would be good to see for example what percentage of population VS nationality? Can't help thinking that wouldn't be very interesting, to be honest. In most of those countries, surely 99.99% of the census population are of the host country, i.e. the vast majority of the Mexican population are Mexican, the vast majority of the Indonesian population are Indonesian. Even in the US, of those counted most will be naturalised Americans, even if they originated in Mexico or El Salvador. Okay, I feel it would be good to see or alternatively ethnicity as for example Indonesia has a large Indonesian Chinese population. Sent from my XIAOMI NOTE PRO using telepathy
|
|
|
Post by huggett on Oct 12, 2017 8:12:31 GMT
I have always thought the world needs a few more Ugandans so I am good with it, as long as they stay away from Oxfordshire obviously. Well, I have been training my Springer Spaniel pup, Oscar (now 14 weeks old) to bark at any of those foreign types to stay away from west oxforshire so I am doing my bit to uphold the UKIP wisdom. And, if any of those lefty types want some, come and have a go if you think you're soft enough!! Were you out again on the lash with Oscar? Does he have his own custom jacket & scarf for the up & coming cold months? Once you've trained him up to type, will he create his own account & voice his own unique original posts here?
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Oct 12, 2017 8:24:10 GMT
Also appear to be rapid growth in countries with multiple domestic issues be it famine, poverty, anti-liberalism, or internal conflict. Ultimately Malthusian theory will take the human race apart First time I've heard Malthus mentioned since A Levels! But yes, the earth has a definitive ability to support its human population. I wonder at what point that ability will be reached? In our children's, grandchildren's or great grandchildren's life times? Before we get to that breaking point, as I've rather depressingly said before I suspect there will be a devastating major world war/ nuclear in the future, probably over ever depleting natural resources. (Due to over population) So what's the answer? Educate citizens of the world to stop over reproducing, tor something more draconian?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2017 9:09:36 GMT
Can't help thinking that wouldn't be very interesting, to be honest. In most of those countries, surely 99.99% of the census population are of the host country, i.e. the vast majority of the Mexican population are Mexican, the vast majority of the Indonesian population are Indonesian. Even in the US, of those counted most will be naturalised Americans, even if they originated in Mexico or El Salvador. Okay, I feel it would be good to see or alternatively ethnicity as for example Indonesia has a large Indonesian Chinese population. Sent from my XIAOMI NOTE PRO using telepathy Yep, it would be interesting to know the ethnic mix rather than just nationality. The figures given were a mix of census data and official UN estimates, but not sure how many countries' censuses measure ethnic origin, or whether the UN even care to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2017 9:21:04 GMT
First time I've heard Malthus mentioned since A Levels! But yes, the earth has a definitive ability to support its human population. I wonder at what point that ability will be reached? In our children's, grandchildren's or great grandchildren's life times? Before we get to that breaking point, as I've rather depressingly said before I suspect there will be a devastating major world war/ nuclear in the future, probably over ever depleting natural resources. (Due to over population) So what's the answer? Educate citizens of the world to stop over reproducing, tor something more draconian? Frankly, I pessimistically can't see any solution working. The Chinese enforced a 'one child policy' which did curtail their population explosion, but that was only possible in such a centrally planned, militaristic economy. In past decades poor people in poor countries produced lots of offspring to secure the blood line and provide workers for family farms, because the infant death rate through disease, famine and natural disasters was so high. We now have international efforts galore to reduce deaths and improve living standards, and the populations are exploding. Individual famines (Geldof's Ethiopia) and humanitarian crises (Myanmar) are targeted in efforts to prevent massive loss of life. I'm not advocating leaving the poor to their own devices, by the way. The genie is out of the bottle. As the world population increases we'll do our best to keep as many of them as possible alive for as long as possible. (PS Catholic church values in Latin America don't help the situation).
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Oct 12, 2017 13:24:09 GMT
In our children's, grandchildren's or great grandchildren's life times? Before we get to that breaking point, as I've rather depressingly said before I suspect there will be a devastating major world war/ nuclear in the future, probably over ever depleting natural resources. (Due to over population) So what's the answer? Educate citizens of the world to stop over reproducing, tor something more draconian? Frankly, I pessimistically can't see any solution working. The Chinese enforced a 'one child policy' which did curtail their population explosion, but that was only possible in such a centrally planned, militaristic economy. In past decades poor people in poor countries produced lots of offspring to secure the blood line and provide workers for family farms, because the infant death rate through disease, famine and natural disasters was so high. We now have international efforts galore to reduce deaths and improve living standards, and the populations are exploding. Individual famines (Geldof's Ethiopia) and humanitarian crises (Myanmar) are targeted in efforts to prevent massive loss of life. I'm not advocating leaving the poor to their own devices, by the way. The genie is out of the bottle. As the world population increases we'll do our best to keep as many of them as possible alive for as long as possible. (PS Catholic church values in Latin America don't help the situation). I'm not up to date with the current child benefit that parent/guardian receives, but there was talk a little while ago about child benefits only being paid out for the first two children. Perhaps reduce this to the first child only? Incentivise parents not to have more than two children, or no children at all! In what way I'm not sure. Interestingly up until fairly recently it was often seen as the duty of a woman to have children, and couples that chose not to were often labelled as selfish. Maybe society will view these couples as not so selfish after all. Of course it's a very strong natural instinct to reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2017 14:21:39 GMT
Frankly, I pessimistically can't see any solution working. The Chinese enforced a 'one child policy' which did curtail their population explosion, but that was only possible in such a centrally planned, militaristic economy. In past decades poor people in poor countries produced lots of offspring to secure the blood line and provide workers for family farms, because the infant death rate through disease, famine and natural disasters was so high. We now have international efforts galore to reduce deaths and improve living standards, and the populations are exploding. Individual famines (Geldof's Ethiopia) and humanitarian crises (Myanmar) are targeted in efforts to prevent massive loss of life. I'm not advocating leaving the poor to their own devices, by the way. The genie is out of the bottle. As the world population increases we'll do our best to keep as many of them as possible alive for as long as possible. (PS Catholic church values in Latin America don't help the situation). I'm not up to date with the current child benefit that parent/guardian receives, but there was talk a little while ago about child benefits only being paid out for the first two children. Perhaps reduce this to the first child only? Incentivise parents not to have more than two children, or no children at all! In what way I'm not sure. Interestingly up until fairly recently it was often seen as the duty of a woman to have children, and couples that chose not to were often labelled as selfish. Maybe society will view these couples as not so selfish after all. Of course it's a very strong natural instinct to reproduce. That might reduce birth rates and therefore population increase in the UK and other western countries, but unfortunately these countries are not the problem. I doubt the government of Pakistan, for example, pays any child benefit at all so there's nothing to cut as an incentive. How do you 'educate' an impoverished Brazilian favela-dweller, for example, not to reproduce?
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Oct 12, 2017 15:00:29 GMT
I'm not up to date with the current child benefit that parent/guardian receives, but there was talk a little while ago about child benefits only being paid out for the first two children. Perhaps reduce this to the first child only? Incentivise parents not to have more than two children, or no children at all! In what way I'm not sure. Interestingly up until fairly recently it was often seen as the duty of a woman to have children, and couples that chose not to were often labelled as selfish. Maybe society will view these couples as not so selfish after all. Of course it's a very strong natural instinct to reproduce. That might reduce birth rates and therefore population increase in the UK and other western countries, but unfortunately these countries are not the problem. I doubt the government of Pakistan, for example, pays any child benefit at all so there's nothing to cut as an incentive. How do you 'educate' an impoverished Brazilian favela-dweller, for example, not to reproduce? Well quite! I'm sure there are many better minds out there than mine who are wrestling with the problem of over population. My point was perhaps to try and incentivise people not to have children (or at least fewer) rather than penalise those that choose to have many. How that is done I'm not sure. Maybe those in the U.K. and other western countries need to 'show the way' Anyway perhaps there isn't a socially acceptable solution, certainly not one that any modern politician would be happy to endorse.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on Oct 12, 2017 16:22:11 GMT
Once had a biology teacher who said that the economic empowerment of women is the best form of population control. He's probably right.
|
|
|
Post by HeyMcAleny on Oct 12, 2017 20:14:22 GMT
Would recommend checking out Hans Rosling. Having babies is generally no longer the problem. The world average fertility rate has dropped from 5 to 2.5 over the last 50 years, and the reason for that is better child survival rates, female education, contraceptives and abortion.
We have therefore reached "peak child". The number of kids aged 0-14 has stabilized. Population growth is now occurring because people are living longer. Whilst the population Will reach 11BN by the second half of this century, it will then stabilize (or collapse if you fear the worst).
The problem is all the other environmental factors that will increasingly come into play during this century combined with over population. Related to over consumption and climate change, there's no need to worry about asteroids or nuclear war if the planet warms by 5 degrees this century.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 13, 2017 5:57:41 GMT
Monaco is the world's most densely populated country. Sent from my SM-G930F using proboards Actually its Macau, 21k per sq Km,compared to Monacos 18k. That is the more interesting statistic,population per square Km,rather than total population. China is the 85th most densely populated country in the world. India 33rd, USA 185th and Russia is actually 225th,which equates to 9 people per square Km ! The Uk is 50th with 271 people per square Km. But England has a population density of 460 per square Km,which would be 27th or more than 50 times more densely populated than Russia. The most densely populated country(loosely) in the UK,is Gibraltar with with 4,784 per square Km or the 5th most populated in the world, surprisingly Jersey,with a population of 898 per square Km is the 13th most populated country in the world,followed by Guernsey in 14th with 804 per square Km. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
|
|
|
Post by berliner on Oct 13, 2017 7:01:25 GMT
Monaco is the world's most densely populated country. Sent from my SM-G930F using proboards Actually its Macau, 21k per sq Km,compared to Monacos 18k. Macau is not a country...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 13, 2017 7:06:10 GMT
Actually its Macau, 21k per sq Km,compared to Monacos 18k. Macau is not a country... Don't spoil Saddle's fun! His major aim as a board member is to prove others wrong. His interesting fact is far more interesting than anyone else's interesting fact, don't you know?
|
|