Page 1 of 2

population

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:32 pm
by jimcee
Most of my previous posts have met with very little in the way of generating discussion - whether this is because what I have said is indisputable or because age is respected, I know not.
However in the attempt to provoke discussion on topics other than wind and fish farms, I would like to submit the following observation for consideration -
"If it were not for wars, genocide, pestilence, famine, and natural or man made disasters, this planet would now be very seriously overcrowded with homo sapiens. And that while continuous efforts are made to try to eradicate all these afflictions (fortunately? fairly unsuccessful),the control of population growth (apart from China, and to a lesser extent India) receives scant attention."

Re: population

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:52 pm
by canUsmellthat
What are you suggesting...compulsory sterilisation...eugenics???not a goos subject to try and stimulate..."indisputable...respected"...I don't seem to think so...

Re: population

Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:58 pm
by Husker Doo
Some Scandanavian countries indulged in sterilization mid 20th century i believe , its some decision to make

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:03 am
by Husker Doo
HOW ARE YOU SMELL THAT?

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:46 pm
by jimcee
Well that got a bit of response, but not what I expected.
I was not suggesting a solution to what I perceived to be a fairly legitimate supposition - all the ills that mankind has suffered in the past have kept the numbers within manageable limits, but if continuing efforts at eradicating the ills are successful, then the increase in numbers will put a serious strain on living space, and it has even been predicted that the heat given off by these extra bodies will have a considerable effect on global warming.
So will mankind find a solution or will nature sort it out without our assistance?

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:57 pm
by NickB
.
World population looks set to stabilise at 10 - 11 billion in the second half of this century.

Theoretically the earth could support that number, but the way we run it I doubt it.

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:13 pm
by Peter Connelly
Check out Derek Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion re populations and population ethics.

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:31 pm
by jimcee
WHERE?

Re: population

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:19 pm
by NickB

Re: population

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:44 pm
by jimcee
Thanks moderator.
So I click on your URL
This produces hundreds of leads to people who who have something to say about Mr Parfir (whoever he is) and mostly they seem to be critical in a highly complex philosophical language of his pronouncements.
So is there someone out there among the 150+ readers of this thread who can distil Mr Parfit's message/theory/forecast into a sentence or two which could make sense to a mere mortal.

Re: population

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:13 pm
by 'Yin Yang'
hmmmm, 10- 11 billion, now thats a lot of rubish to bury underground and some amount of heat to get rid of, man ive been in some big rooms with lots of people in, it sure does get damn hot. Wonder what that would do to the climate? :realslow

Re: population

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:22 pm
by jimcee
So nobody seems to be forthcoming on Mr Parfit's pronouncements.
However, I would like to question our moderators assertion that come the later part of this century, the population will stabilise around 10-11 billion.
How is this going to be achieved ? By economical constraints, by political diktats, by, as yet unheard of new natural killers (like AIDS), by nuclear warfare, or this is a longshot - by asteroid strike.?
Stabilisation suggests a conscious effort on the part of humankind to make this planet habitable to a certain number of inhabitants - all enjoying a reasonable lifestyle, and living peacably with one another.
So far there is scant evidence that things are moving in this direction and nation states are more interested in belligerently defending their own interests than working towards a common goal.
The United Nations has a long way to go, before it has the clout to sort out these problems - if it ever will.

Re: population

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:42 pm
by NickB
jimcee wrote:I would like to question our moderators assertion that come the later part of this century, the population will stabilise around 10-11 billion.
How is this going to be achieved ?
It is not my assertion, rather that of the WHO, who have access to more information and a bigger computer than me.

As I understand it the rate of population increase is dropping over most of the world at the moment, and this is forecast to continue. Essentnially families are having fewer children.

Re: population

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:07 pm
by abelincoln2
Hey SMELL THAT, I hear the Swedes are increasing the population up the west coast of Scotland :stir

Re: population

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:27 pm
by 'Yin Yang'
'MR Parfit'? has he given up the guitar for the 'Quo' then, damn shame :cry: Writing books now then, not very rock and roll

Mind you, the track 'Living On an Island' may help:) 8)

Re: population

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:34 pm
by canUsmellthat
Swedes???

Re: population

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:10 pm
by jimcee
In an attempt to return this debate to it's original track, and not be sidetracked into pop groups or Scandinavians, could I venture the following -
WHO thinks that the population will stabilise because fewer children will be produced.
Now admittedly this is already taking place in the developed world due to economics, and a iiberal approach to family planning and abortion.
China (the biggest player in the field) has taken steps to limit growth, and India has held out the prospect of a free transistor radio for every vasectomy performed.
But what about the rest of the world - South America (predominately Catholic). Africa (full of tin-pot dictators whose only desire is to stay in power) and the rest of Asia where the rulers have other things on their mind more pressing than population control.
As long as the papal decrees on this subject remain constant there is little chance of much change in the areas where his pronouncements hold sway. Tribal customs in undeveloped countries go for multiple births in the hope of a modicum of survivors, and are hard to change, and at the rate that Islam is being radicalised to produce martyrs they need the bodies.
My wife thinks that this subject is too serious for this forum and I should bow out and stick to frivolous or local issues.
So here is something completely frivolous - who is responsible, and why, for burning out a set of tyres between Cuan and Duachy, or wherever they eventually expired ?

Re: population

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:40 pm
by solesurvivor
when seil gets its windfarm :stir
that will reduce the population on this island :lol: :lol:

with the government we have we dont have to worry about population they have it all in hand

burning of tyres at duachy think that may have been wife going for early morning papers

canusmell thats back give us your pearls of wisdom :P :P

Re: population

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:14 am
by abelincoln2
Were the tyres from a car or a motorbike ?? I've clocked a few people burning rubber up and down that road. :doh

Re: population

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:26 pm
by Husker Doo
As far as i have heard the world population will plataue because of ageing . t he percentage of oldies is increasing and there will be less baby making and according to the bbc population will fall in the future.

Smell that i have missed you