ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,336
- Location
- Eblana
A bit much to call it an apocalypse but it very likely is unsustainable development.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
The title of this thread is, Population growth - the real apocalypse, not Comfortably Off Baby Boomer Home Owner Retirement Property Speculators.ramonmercado said:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
An increase in the number of homes being built is index of the rising population, which, left unchecked, would become, first a crisis, and untimately an apocalypse.Pietro_Mercurios said:
Property speculators wouldn't build these homes if they didn't have a market.
And WTF have 'comfortably off baby boomers' got to do with it?
I've said before that many people don't understand the maths of exponential growth, and therefore choose to ignore the problems that the maths foretells.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
It's still hardly the case that when there's no more room left in Hell, or Devon for that matter, they'll build in Cornwall. It's also an indication that property developers like to make money. The article says that the land in question has been earmarked for new development for 25 years, they've finally got permission.rynner2 said:
Persimmon also have some very nice new properties in Truro, for asking prices starting at only, £259,995.
I lived and worked in Cornwall, for three or four years, back in the Eighties. Even then, incomers were mostly of two sorts: second home owners wanting a get away from it all cottage by the sea and the recently retired looking for a nice cottage by the sea, warmer weather and an easy stress free retirement. I doubt things have improved in the last 25 years, either. The baby boomer generation are the ones either retiring, or about to retire, with the money to buy these nice new homes.
Population growth may be a factor, but I doubt it's as much of a factor as the fact that West Cornwall is a very nice place to live, as long as you don't have to worry too much about the readies.
I find the idea that blaming population growth might become an easy excuse and justification for all sorts of NIMBY or social Darwinist claptrap, rather worrying.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
You can worry about what MIGHT happen when you find evidence for it.Pietro_Mercurios said:
Meanwhile, the hands on the population clock keep ticking around the dial.
Type this in Wolfram Alpha: "What is the population of the UK?"
( http://www.wolframalpha.com/ )
It returns the answer "63.2 million."
But it also gives two graphs of population growth, one from 1970 to now, and the other from 1600, as well as other associated data.
The graphs show continuous growth, which actually steepens towards the present day - the rate of growth is accelerating.
Continuous growth is unsustainable on a finite planet. As Malthus warned us, it will be ended by famine, war, or disease, or some combination of all three.
An extra 300 houses may seem no big deal by itself, but it's another straw in the wind. Especially when they're built on farmland...
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
And they'll spoil the view and bring down property prices.rynner2 said:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
We may already be seeing it.rynner2 said:
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,336
- Location
- Eblana
The Wickerman style locals & the pixies will make short work of incomers.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
For some reason, this BBC piece from October 2011 has leaped to the top of the Most Popular list!
The world at seven billion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515
But the widgets to calculate your place in the great scheme of things still work, so it's worth highlighting again for those who may have missed it first time around.
My results:
When you were born, you were the:
2,418,906,506th
person alive on Earth
[and the]
75,252,229,081st
person to have lived since history began
Frightening how my 2.4 billionth position compares with the world population of 7 billion today. That means that during my lifetime, 4.6 billion more people were born than have died in the same period. :shock:
The world at seven billion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515
But the widgets to calculate your place in the great scheme of things still work, so it's worth highlighting again for those who may have missed it first time around.
My results:
When you were born, you were the:
2,418,906,506th
person alive on Earth
[and the]
75,252,229,081st
person to have lived since history began
Frightening how my 2.4 billionth position compares with the world population of 7 billion today. That means that during my lifetime, 4.6 billion more people were born than have died in the same period. :shock:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
This article could go in other threads, but I'm putting it here because I think it poses the question,"Does society have more people than it needs?"
Third of young unemployed 'rarely leave house'
By Sean Coughlan, BBC News education correspondent
Many young unemployed people feel marginalised, pessimistic and lacking in control over their lives, claims a survey by the UCU lecturers' union.
The survey of youngsters not in education, employment or training - so-called Neets - found a third had experienced depression and more than a third "rarely left the house".
The poll examined views of some 1,000 youngsters aged 16-24 across the UK.
The UCU's Simon Renton said it showed the "personal impact" of unemployment.
There are about 900,000 young people classified as being Neet and the lecturers' union survey provides an insight into how they see their circumstances.
It reveals that many feel isolated and are lacking in confidence - 40% feel they are not part of society, 36% believe they will never have a chance of getting a job.
One third have suffered depression, 37% rarely go outside the house and 39% suffer from stress.
There has been a long-term problem with youth unemployment, particularly for youngsters who have left school with poor qualifications.
A study earlier this year found there were now more jobs in the UK which required a degree than were available for those without any qualifications.
Toni Pearce, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said: "Long periods out of work or education not only have a devastating impact on individuals both in terms of their immediate health and well-being but have knock-on effects for the rest of their lives."
Mr Renton, the UCU's president, said: "It is truly heartbreaking to see so many people who want to contribute more to society but are left feeling their outlook is desperate and hopeless.
"The individual human tragedy is only part of the story as young people outside education or work cost the country millions of pounds every year. We need to give our young people a commitment of proper guidance and stable, properly rewarded jobs, or educational opportunities."
A government spokeswoman said: "Being out of work or education can be an enormous waste of a young person's potential.
"To tackle the problem the government is funding a place in education or training for every 16 and 17 year old who wants one, raising the participation age to 18, and investing in quality traineeships and apprenticeships."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23315438
It seems likely that increasing automation and robotics will only reduce the relative size of the job pool still more. Perhaps the apathy and depression created will prove a way of restricting population growth that Malthus never thought of... (A sad way, admittedly, but then there's nothing cheerful about war, famine or disease either.)
Third of young unemployed 'rarely leave house'
By Sean Coughlan, BBC News education correspondent
Many young unemployed people feel marginalised, pessimistic and lacking in control over their lives, claims a survey by the UCU lecturers' union.
The survey of youngsters not in education, employment or training - so-called Neets - found a third had experienced depression and more than a third "rarely left the house".
The poll examined views of some 1,000 youngsters aged 16-24 across the UK.
The UCU's Simon Renton said it showed the "personal impact" of unemployment.
There are about 900,000 young people classified as being Neet and the lecturers' union survey provides an insight into how they see their circumstances.
It reveals that many feel isolated and are lacking in confidence - 40% feel they are not part of society, 36% believe they will never have a chance of getting a job.
One third have suffered depression, 37% rarely go outside the house and 39% suffer from stress.
There has been a long-term problem with youth unemployment, particularly for youngsters who have left school with poor qualifications.
A study earlier this year found there were now more jobs in the UK which required a degree than were available for those without any qualifications.
Toni Pearce, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said: "Long periods out of work or education not only have a devastating impact on individuals both in terms of their immediate health and well-being but have knock-on effects for the rest of their lives."
Mr Renton, the UCU's president, said: "It is truly heartbreaking to see so many people who want to contribute more to society but are left feeling their outlook is desperate and hopeless.
"The individual human tragedy is only part of the story as young people outside education or work cost the country millions of pounds every year. We need to give our young people a commitment of proper guidance and stable, properly rewarded jobs, or educational opportunities."
A government spokeswoman said: "Being out of work or education can be an enormous waste of a young person's potential.
"To tackle the problem the government is funding a place in education or training for every 16 and 17 year old who wants one, raising the participation age to 18, and investing in quality traineeships and apprenticeships."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23315438
It seems likely that increasing automation and robotics will only reduce the relative size of the job pool still more. Perhaps the apathy and depression created will prove a way of restricting population growth that Malthus never thought of... (A sad way, admittedly, but then there's nothing cheerful about war, famine or disease either.)
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
More UK births than any year since 1972, says ONS
More babies were born in the UK in 2011-12 than any year since 1972, the Office for National Statistics says.
In all, 813,200 UK births were recorded in the year, said the ONS, contributing to population growth that was, in absolute terms, the highest in the EU.
UK population grew by 419,900 to 63.7 million between between June 2011 and June 2012, according to ONS estimates.
There were 254,400 more births than deaths and 165,600 more people coming to the UK than leaving.
The UK remains the third-most populous EU member state, behind Germany and France.
France's population grew by 319,100 to 65,480,500 over the same period while Germany's went up by 166,200 to 80,399,300, says the ONS.
There were 517,800 migrants from overseas while 352,100 people left the country, putting net migration at 165,600.
The mid-2012 populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now estimated to have been 53.5 million, 5.3 million, 3.1 million, and 1.8 million respectively.
London's population has surged by 104,000, with high birth and immigration rates.
Together London, south-east and east England accounted for 53% of growth across the UK in the year while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland jointly accounted for 8%.
More than 51,000 people moved out of London, largely to the South East and East of England, the ONS data shows.
London recorded net international migration of 69,000 - the highest of all regions. Northern Ireland had the lowest net migration growth of about 400, the ONS said.
The capital also recorded 86,000 more births than deaths in the past year, while Scotland notched up 4,200 more births than deaths.
Alp Mehmet, of campaign group Migration Watch, claimed that immigration was "the main driver of population growth in the UK".
Mr Mehmet highlighted earlier ONS data which showed babies born to foreign born mothers "now account for over a quarter of the total while births to UK born mothers are remaining static".
"These figures have a significant bearing on future needs like school places and housing as well as services," he said.
"This is why the government has to stay the course in its efforts to bring immigration under control."
But some economists argue that there are advantages in having more children.
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: "The medium to long-term benefits are substantial.
"The people who are being born now or the immigrants who are coming here now will help pay for our pensions and public services in the future."
A Home Office spokesman said: "Net migration is now at its lowest level for a decade showing we are continuing to bring immigration back under control.
"We will continue to work hard to bring net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament."
Royal College of Midwives chief executive Cathy Warwick said the high number of births was putting "considerable pressures on maternity services and we are struggling to provide high quality antenatal and postnatal care".
She said: "England remains around 5,000 midwives short of the number required to provide mothers and babies with the high-quality service they need and deserve.
"Maternity care is the earliest health intervention of all and getting care right for mothers and babies is a vital part of supporting families and building a foundation for good health in later life."
In January, Health Minister Dr Dan Poulter said there had been a "historical shortage" of midwives but he added: "The number of midwives is increasing faster than the birth rate."
There were 581,800 more children aged six and under in the UK in mid-2012 than in mid-2001.
But because of lower birth numbers around the turn of the millennium, the number of seven to 16-year-olds is 453,300 less than mid-2001.
At the other end of the population tree, the number of men aged 75 and over has increased by 26%, since mid-2001 compared with a 6% increase for women.
The ONS put this down to positive changes in male smoking habits and advances in health treatments for circulatory illnesses.
Male occupations over the same period have also become less physical and safer, it said.
Separately, the ONS has also released data showing that four million homes in the UK are still not connected to the internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487
Sidebar and Table also on page.
More babies were born in the UK in 2011-12 than any year since 1972, the Office for National Statistics says.
In all, 813,200 UK births were recorded in the year, said the ONS, contributing to population growth that was, in absolute terms, the highest in the EU.
UK population grew by 419,900 to 63.7 million between between June 2011 and June 2012, according to ONS estimates.
There were 254,400 more births than deaths and 165,600 more people coming to the UK than leaving.
The UK remains the third-most populous EU member state, behind Germany and France.
France's population grew by 319,100 to 65,480,500 over the same period while Germany's went up by 166,200 to 80,399,300, says the ONS.
There were 517,800 migrants from overseas while 352,100 people left the country, putting net migration at 165,600.
The mid-2012 populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now estimated to have been 53.5 million, 5.3 million, 3.1 million, and 1.8 million respectively.
London's population has surged by 104,000, with high birth and immigration rates.
Together London, south-east and east England accounted for 53% of growth across the UK in the year while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland jointly accounted for 8%.
More than 51,000 people moved out of London, largely to the South East and East of England, the ONS data shows.
London recorded net international migration of 69,000 - the highest of all regions. Northern Ireland had the lowest net migration growth of about 400, the ONS said.
The capital also recorded 86,000 more births than deaths in the past year, while Scotland notched up 4,200 more births than deaths.
Alp Mehmet, of campaign group Migration Watch, claimed that immigration was "the main driver of population growth in the UK".
Mr Mehmet highlighted earlier ONS data which showed babies born to foreign born mothers "now account for over a quarter of the total while births to UK born mothers are remaining static".
"These figures have a significant bearing on future needs like school places and housing as well as services," he said.
"This is why the government has to stay the course in its efforts to bring immigration under control."
But some economists argue that there are advantages in having more children.
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: "The medium to long-term benefits are substantial.
"The people who are being born now or the immigrants who are coming here now will help pay for our pensions and public services in the future."
A Home Office spokesman said: "Net migration is now at its lowest level for a decade showing we are continuing to bring immigration back under control.
"We will continue to work hard to bring net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament."
Royal College of Midwives chief executive Cathy Warwick said the high number of births was putting "considerable pressures on maternity services and we are struggling to provide high quality antenatal and postnatal care".
She said: "England remains around 5,000 midwives short of the number required to provide mothers and babies with the high-quality service they need and deserve.
"Maternity care is the earliest health intervention of all and getting care right for mothers and babies is a vital part of supporting families and building a foundation for good health in later life."
In January, Health Minister Dr Dan Poulter said there had been a "historical shortage" of midwives but he added: "The number of midwives is increasing faster than the birth rate."
There were 581,800 more children aged six and under in the UK in mid-2012 than in mid-2001.
But because of lower birth numbers around the turn of the millennium, the number of seven to 16-year-olds is 453,300 less than mid-2001.
At the other end of the population tree, the number of men aged 75 and over has increased by 26%, since mid-2001 compared with a 6% increase for women.
The ONS put this down to positive changes in male smoking habits and advances in health treatments for circulatory illnesses.
Male occupations over the same period have also become less physical and safer, it said.
Separately, the ONS has also released data showing that four million homes in the UK are still not connected to the internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487
Sidebar and Table also on page.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
This is a stark example of the competition for resources that ever-growing populations will have to deal with, the struggle to control much of the world's water.
China and India 'water grab' dams put ecology of Himalayas in danger
More than 400 hydroelectric schemes are planned in the mountain region, which could be a disaster for the environment
John Vidal
The Observer, Saturday 10 August 2013 13.59 BST
The future of the world's most famous mountain range could be endangered by a vast dam-building project, as a risky regional race for water resources takes place in Asia.
New academic research shows that India, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan are engaged in a huge "water grab" in the Himalayas, as they seek new sources of electricity to power their economies. Taken together, the countries have plans for more than 400 hydro dams which, if built, could together provide more than 160,000MW of electricity – three times more than the UK uses.
In addition, China has plans for around 100 dams to generate a similar amount of power from major rivers rising in Tibet. A further 60 or more dams are being planned for the Mekong river which also rises in Tibet and flows south through south-east Asia.
Most of the Himalayan rivers have been relatively untouched by dams near their sources. Now the two great Asian powers, India and China, are rushing to harness them as they cut through some of the world's deepest valleys. Many of the proposed dams would be among the tallest in the world, able to generate more than 4,000MW, as much as the Hoover dam on the Colorado river in the US.
The result, over the next 20 years, "could be that the Himalayas become the most dammed region in the world", said Ed Grumbine, visiting international scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Kunming. "India aims to construct 292 dams … doubling current hydropower capacity and contributing 6% to projected national energy needs. If all dams are constructed as proposed, in 28 of 32 major river valleys, the Indian Himalayas would have one of the highest average dam densities in the world, with one dam for every 32km of river channel. Every neighbour of India with undeveloped hydropower sites is building or planning to build multiple dams, totalling at minimum 129 projects," said Grumbine, author of a paper in Science.
[Graphic: Observer]
China, which is building multiple dams on all the major rivers running off the Tibetan plateau, is likely to emerge as the ultimate controller of water for nearly 40% of the world's population. "The plateau is the source of the single largest collection of international rivers in the world, including the Mekong, the Brahmaputra, the Yangtse and the Yellow rivers. It is the headwater of rivers on which nearly half the world depends. The net effect of the dam building could be disastrous. We just don't know the consequences," said Tashi Tseri, a water resource researcher at the University of British Columbia in Canada.
"China is engaged in the greatest water grab in history. Not only is it damming the rivers on the plateau, it is financing and building mega-dams in Pakistan, Laos, Burma and elsewhere and making agreements to take the power," said Indian geopolitical analyst Brahma Chellaney. "China-India disputes have shifted from land to water. Water is the new divide and is going centre stage in politics. Only China has the capacity to build these mega-dams and the power to crush resistance. This is effectively war without a shot being fired."
etc...
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... yas-danger
China and India 'water grab' dams put ecology of Himalayas in danger
More than 400 hydroelectric schemes are planned in the mountain region, which could be a disaster for the environment
John Vidal
The Observer, Saturday 10 August 2013 13.59 BST
The future of the world's most famous mountain range could be endangered by a vast dam-building project, as a risky regional race for water resources takes place in Asia.
New academic research shows that India, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan are engaged in a huge "water grab" in the Himalayas, as they seek new sources of electricity to power their economies. Taken together, the countries have plans for more than 400 hydro dams which, if built, could together provide more than 160,000MW of electricity – three times more than the UK uses.
In addition, China has plans for around 100 dams to generate a similar amount of power from major rivers rising in Tibet. A further 60 or more dams are being planned for the Mekong river which also rises in Tibet and flows south through south-east Asia.
Most of the Himalayan rivers have been relatively untouched by dams near their sources. Now the two great Asian powers, India and China, are rushing to harness them as they cut through some of the world's deepest valleys. Many of the proposed dams would be among the tallest in the world, able to generate more than 4,000MW, as much as the Hoover dam on the Colorado river in the US.
The result, over the next 20 years, "could be that the Himalayas become the most dammed region in the world", said Ed Grumbine, visiting international scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Kunming. "India aims to construct 292 dams … doubling current hydropower capacity and contributing 6% to projected national energy needs. If all dams are constructed as proposed, in 28 of 32 major river valleys, the Indian Himalayas would have one of the highest average dam densities in the world, with one dam for every 32km of river channel. Every neighbour of India with undeveloped hydropower sites is building or planning to build multiple dams, totalling at minimum 129 projects," said Grumbine, author of a paper in Science.
[Graphic: Observer]
China, which is building multiple dams on all the major rivers running off the Tibetan plateau, is likely to emerge as the ultimate controller of water for nearly 40% of the world's population. "The plateau is the source of the single largest collection of international rivers in the world, including the Mekong, the Brahmaputra, the Yangtse and the Yellow rivers. It is the headwater of rivers on which nearly half the world depends. The net effect of the dam building could be disastrous. We just don't know the consequences," said Tashi Tseri, a water resource researcher at the University of British Columbia in Canada.
"China is engaged in the greatest water grab in history. Not only is it damming the rivers on the plateau, it is financing and building mega-dams in Pakistan, Laos, Burma and elsewhere and making agreements to take the power," said Indian geopolitical analyst Brahma Chellaney. "China-India disputes have shifted from land to water. Water is the new divide and is going centre stage in politics. Only China has the capacity to build these mega-dams and the power to crush resistance. This is effectively war without a shot being fired."
etc...
http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... yas-danger
Mythopoeika
I am a meat popsicle
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2001
- Messages
- 51,775
- Location
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Kondoru said:
din·gy 1 (dnj)
adj. din·gi·er, din·gi·est
1. Darkened with smoke and grime; dirty or discolored.
2. Shabby, drab, or squalid.
Mythopoeika
I am a meat popsicle
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2001
- Messages
- 51,775
- Location
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Kondoru said:
:lol:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Green-belt housing doubles in a year
The number of houses planned for England’s green belt has doubled in a year, a report discloses.
By Robert Watts
9:00PM BST 24 Aug 2013
Plans now exist for more than 150,000 homes to be built on protected land, an analysis of council documents has found.
The sites include some of England’s most scenic areas, including parts of Dorset and the rural outskirts of York.
In addition, more than 1,000 acres will be lost to office blocks, warehouses and the HS2 rail link, according to the research carried out by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
The increase comes after planning reforms diluted the protection given to the green belt and introduced a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
The CPRE analysis shows that there are now dozens of areas of protected land where councils have given the go-ahead to development, including:
• More than 46,000 dwellings and 607 acres of warehouses proposed across Yorkshire, with Leeds, York and Calderdale to lose the most of their surrounding countryside;
• Up to 30,000 homes to be built as part of a development around Birmingham’s airport;
• Nearly 10,000 homes at sites across the South West, including plots close to Bristol, Bath, Cheltenham and Gloucester;
• Plans for 1,250 homes in Epping Forest and 1,400 on the edge of Oxted, Surrey.
Widespread building on unspoilt land comes despite repeated promises by Coalition ministers that they would safeguard the green belt.
Approximately 12.4 per cent of England is designated as green-belt land, a status introduced in the Fifties to protect the countryside around major towns and cities, prevent urban sprawl and encourage the re-use of derelict urban land.
But in total, the CPRE found that 150,464 houses are planned for green-belt sites, compared with just over 81,000 when the same exercise was conducted in August last year.
The CPRE’s report says that “swathes” of green-belt land in the Midlands and the North will be lost to HS2, including large sites near Manchester and Birmingham, to accommodate stations.
The proposed high-speed rail line between London and the North will also cut into green-belt land near Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire and Ruislip in north-west London.
Campaigners have suggested that Conservative ministers are at war over the building programme, with George Osborne, the Chancellor, at loggerheads with Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary.
The extent of green space at risk of development is also causing growing alarm on the Tory back benches.
Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the CPRE, said ministers are “deeply divided” over how much protection the green belt should have from development.
He said that Mr Pickles is fighting to preserve the countryside but Mr Osborne, regards the green belt as an “irritating impediment” to economic growth.
Nick Boles, the planning minister, has indicated that the large increase in Britain’s population has made modest building on these areas unavoidable.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenp ... -year.html
The number of houses planned for England’s green belt has doubled in a year, a report discloses.
By Robert Watts
9:00PM BST 24 Aug 2013
Plans now exist for more than 150,000 homes to be built on protected land, an analysis of council documents has found.
The sites include some of England’s most scenic areas, including parts of Dorset and the rural outskirts of York.
In addition, more than 1,000 acres will be lost to office blocks, warehouses and the HS2 rail link, according to the research carried out by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
The increase comes after planning reforms diluted the protection given to the green belt and introduced a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
The CPRE analysis shows that there are now dozens of areas of protected land where councils have given the go-ahead to development, including:
• More than 46,000 dwellings and 607 acres of warehouses proposed across Yorkshire, with Leeds, York and Calderdale to lose the most of their surrounding countryside;
• Up to 30,000 homes to be built as part of a development around Birmingham’s airport;
• Nearly 10,000 homes at sites across the South West, including plots close to Bristol, Bath, Cheltenham and Gloucester;
• Plans for 1,250 homes in Epping Forest and 1,400 on the edge of Oxted, Surrey.
Widespread building on unspoilt land comes despite repeated promises by Coalition ministers that they would safeguard the green belt.
Approximately 12.4 per cent of England is designated as green-belt land, a status introduced in the Fifties to protect the countryside around major towns and cities, prevent urban sprawl and encourage the re-use of derelict urban land.
But in total, the CPRE found that 150,464 houses are planned for green-belt sites, compared with just over 81,000 when the same exercise was conducted in August last year.
The CPRE’s report says that “swathes” of green-belt land in the Midlands and the North will be lost to HS2, including large sites near Manchester and Birmingham, to accommodate stations.
The proposed high-speed rail line between London and the North will also cut into green-belt land near Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire and Ruislip in north-west London.
Campaigners have suggested that Conservative ministers are at war over the building programme, with George Osborne, the Chancellor, at loggerheads with Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary.
The extent of green space at risk of development is also causing growing alarm on the Tory back benches.
Shaun Spiers, the chief executive of the CPRE, said ministers are “deeply divided” over how much protection the green belt should have from development.
He said that Mr Pickles is fighting to preserve the countryside but Mr Osborne, regards the green belt as an “irritating impediment” to economic growth.
Nick Boles, the planning minister, has indicated that the large increase in Britain’s population has made modest building on these areas unavoidable.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenp ... -year.html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Thin end of the wedge?
China 'to rent five per cent of Ukraine'
Ukraine has agreed a deal with a Chinese firm to lease five per cent of its land to feed China's burgeoning and increasingly demanding population, it has been reported.
By Alex Spillius, Diplomatic Correspondent
7:18PM BST 24 Sep 2013
It would be the biggest so called "land grab" agreement, where one country leases or sells land to another, in a trend that has been compared to the 19th century "scramble for Africa", but which is now spreading to the vast and fertile plains of eastern Europe.
Under the 50-year plan, China would eventually control three million hectares, an area equivalent to Belgium or Massachusetts, which represents nine per cent of Ukraine's arable land. Initially 100,000 hectares would be leased.
The farmland in the eastern Dnipropetrovsk region would be cultivated principally for growing crops and raising pigs. The produce will be sold at preferential prices to Chinese state-owned conglomerates, said the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp (XPCC), a quasi-military organisation also known as Bingtuan.
XPCC said on Tuesday that it had signed the £1.7 billion agreement in June with KSG Agro, Ukraine's leading agricultural company. KSG Agro however denied reports that it had sold land to the Chinese, saying it had only reached agreement for the Chinese to modernise 3,000 hectares and "may in the future gradually expand to cover more areas".
Any sort of "land-grab" deal can be highly sensitive politically. Madagascar was forced to scrap a plan to lease 1.2 million hectares to South Korea in 2009 after angry protests against "neo-colonialism". The Philippines has also blocked a China investment deal.
"This reminds us of a colonial process even when there is no colonial link between the two countries involved," said Christina Plank, co-author of a report by the Transnational Institute on "land-grabbing".
With its current population of 1.36 billion predicted by the UN to rise to 1.4 billion by 2050, China is among the leading renter of overseas farmland in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia, though the XPCC deal would make Ukraine China's largest overseas farming centre.
China consumes about one-fifth of the world's food supplies, but is home to just nine per cent of the world's farmland, thanks in part to rapid industrialisation.
"As urbanisation speeds up, consumption has led to greater food demand and domestic grain prices have stayed above global prices," Ding Li, a senior researcher in agriculture at Anbound Consulting in Beijing, told the South China Morning Post. "Therefore, China has been importing more and more grain."
Apart from China, India, South Korea, the Gulf states and western European corporations began taking tracts of land, especially in Africa, after global food prices spiked in 2008.
XPCC however is making the first such major foray into continental Europe. It has a country that has the largest land area in the continent and was known as the "bread basket as the Soviet Union" but which has progressed slowly since the fall of the Iron Curtain.
"The special thing about Ukraine is that there is so much land and so much food left, so there is not a danger of shortage. They already export a lot of grain that they cannot consume on their own," said Ms Plank.
Campaigners are however concerned about major land deals pushing smaller farmers off the land, causing unemployment and blocking long-term rural development.
The Dnipropetrovsk transaction comes with considerable side benefits for the region. The Chinese firm said it would help build a motorway in the Crimea and a bridge across the Strait of Kerch to connect the Crimea with the Taman peninsula in Russia.
Cultivation methods in the area controlled by the Chinese would be modernised.
"On the one hand you can say this is good because you have these technological innovations and more efficient production, but then you have got to ask 'is it sustainable'?" said Ms Plank.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... raine.html
"Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp (XPCC), a quasi-military organisation..." How long before 'quasi' and 'lease' get dropped, and a physical take-over becomes the reality?
There's only so much planet to go round - population growth must be curbed.
China 'to rent five per cent of Ukraine'
Ukraine has agreed a deal with a Chinese firm to lease five per cent of its land to feed China's burgeoning and increasingly demanding population, it has been reported.
By Alex Spillius, Diplomatic Correspondent
7:18PM BST 24 Sep 2013
It would be the biggest so called "land grab" agreement, where one country leases or sells land to another, in a trend that has been compared to the 19th century "scramble for Africa", but which is now spreading to the vast and fertile plains of eastern Europe.
Under the 50-year plan, China would eventually control three million hectares, an area equivalent to Belgium or Massachusetts, which represents nine per cent of Ukraine's arable land. Initially 100,000 hectares would be leased.
The farmland in the eastern Dnipropetrovsk region would be cultivated principally for growing crops and raising pigs. The produce will be sold at preferential prices to Chinese state-owned conglomerates, said the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp (XPCC), a quasi-military organisation also known as Bingtuan.
XPCC said on Tuesday that it had signed the £1.7 billion agreement in June with KSG Agro, Ukraine's leading agricultural company. KSG Agro however denied reports that it had sold land to the Chinese, saying it had only reached agreement for the Chinese to modernise 3,000 hectares and "may in the future gradually expand to cover more areas".
Any sort of "land-grab" deal can be highly sensitive politically. Madagascar was forced to scrap a plan to lease 1.2 million hectares to South Korea in 2009 after angry protests against "neo-colonialism". The Philippines has also blocked a China investment deal.
"This reminds us of a colonial process even when there is no colonial link between the two countries involved," said Christina Plank, co-author of a report by the Transnational Institute on "land-grabbing".
With its current population of 1.36 billion predicted by the UN to rise to 1.4 billion by 2050, China is among the leading renter of overseas farmland in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia, though the XPCC deal would make Ukraine China's largest overseas farming centre.
China consumes about one-fifth of the world's food supplies, but is home to just nine per cent of the world's farmland, thanks in part to rapid industrialisation.
"As urbanisation speeds up, consumption has led to greater food demand and domestic grain prices have stayed above global prices," Ding Li, a senior researcher in agriculture at Anbound Consulting in Beijing, told the South China Morning Post. "Therefore, China has been importing more and more grain."
Apart from China, India, South Korea, the Gulf states and western European corporations began taking tracts of land, especially in Africa, after global food prices spiked in 2008.
XPCC however is making the first such major foray into continental Europe. It has a country that has the largest land area in the continent and was known as the "bread basket as the Soviet Union" but which has progressed slowly since the fall of the Iron Curtain.
"The special thing about Ukraine is that there is so much land and so much food left, so there is not a danger of shortage. They already export a lot of grain that they cannot consume on their own," said Ms Plank.
Campaigners are however concerned about major land deals pushing smaller farmers off the land, causing unemployment and blocking long-term rural development.
The Dnipropetrovsk transaction comes with considerable side benefits for the region. The Chinese firm said it would help build a motorway in the Crimea and a bridge across the Strait of Kerch to connect the Crimea with the Taman peninsula in Russia.
Cultivation methods in the area controlled by the Chinese would be modernised.
"On the one hand you can say this is good because you have these technological innovations and more efficient production, but then you have got to ask 'is it sustainable'?" said Ms Plank.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... raine.html
"Xinjiang Production and Construction Corp (XPCC), a quasi-military organisation..." How long before 'quasi' and 'lease' get dropped, and a physical take-over becomes the reality?
There's only so much planet to go round - population growth must be curbed.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
This looks like the right thread for this:
Emphasis mine. Rest of the links at link.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert:
Is population growth out of control?
By Hannah Barnes, BBC News
The respected broadcaster and naturalist, Sir David Attenborough, told the BBC recently that population growth was "out of control" - but one expert says the number of people on the planet could peak in 40 years. Who should we believe?
"The world's population is increasing out of control," Sir David told the BBC's Today programme.
"Since I first started making programmes 60 years ago, the human population has tripled."
Two striking claims.
Let's take the second one first - that the world's population has tripled in 60 years.
In 1950, around the time Sir David began his broadcasting career, there were 2.53 billion people in the world. Sixty-three years later and the latest estimate of world population is 7.16 billion.
That is a little shy of tripling - more like a factor of 2.8 - but it's not far off.
The "out of control" claim is less easily measurable, but perhaps it could be interpreted as the idea that the population will continue to grow at the same rate, roughly tripling in 60 years.
If this happened, the world population would reach almost 40 billion people by the end of this century.
But the latest United Nations projection puts the figure at little more than a quarter of that - less than 11 billion.
That's still 50% more than we have today, but it shows the UN expects much slower population growth in the decades to come than in decades gone by.
Some might consider that an increase in the world population from seven billion to 11 billion by 2100 still represents out-of-control population growth.
But this UN figure - contained in its World Population Prospects, published every two years - is considered by one expert, at least, to be much too high.
"When I looked at them I discovered that they were almost certainly wrong," says Sanjeev Sanyal, Global Strategist for Deutsche Bank, of the latest update of the World Population Prospects, released in June this year.
Population growth projections feed into many other forecasts and models - projections of energy use, for example, or corporate profits - so people like Sanyal scrutinise these UN figures carefully.
And he finds the UN projections "difficult to justify" for a number of reasons.
"If you look at fertility rates - the number of babies that a woman has over the course of her life - in very large parts of the world, those fertility rates are now below what is needed to replace the population," he says.
"Much of Europe, Japan, large countries like China, even Brazil, don't produce [the necessary] 2.2 or 2.3 babies [per woman]. Some of them are way below that level and as a result it is almost certain that these huge countries are going to see rapidly declining populations within a few decades from now."
The replacement rate is higher than two, because some women will die before they reach the end of their child-bearing years.
Also, in developing countries the UN predicts rapidly expanding populations.
In Nigeria, for example, it expects the current figure of roughly 160 million to increase to almost one billion by the end of the century.
Sanyal is sceptical.
"Surely Nigerians will recognise at some points that things are getting crowded and stop having so many babies?" he argues.
He predicts the Nigerian population in 2100 will be 400 million fewer than the UN suggests.
His forecasts are lower for the world's two largest countries too. He predicts China's population will be 60 million fewer than the UN forecasts for 2100, and India's 100 million.
"Even the US is quite suspect," Sanyal says.
Here, the UN predicts a rise from 312 million today to 462 million in 2100.
"That would be extraordinary for a country which already has birth rates below the replacement rate… You will need huge amounts of migration into the US to reach anywhere near [that]."
It is likely that lots of people will migrate to the US. Sanyal accepts that the US population will grow.
But to increase at this rate he insists that other countries would have to be showing falls in population - falls that do not appear in the UN figures.
Overall, Sanyal paints a very different picture from the UN, with world population peaking around 2050 at 8.7 billion and declining to about 8 billion by the end of the century. That's about a billion higher than it is now, but well short of the UN's 11 billion.
Both Sanyal and the UN start with the same data - national censuses from 2010. The difference arises because they make different assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration.
"I took into account two or three things which I think are inadequately reflected in the UN [report]," Sanyal explains.
"I have probably accounted more aggressively for things like gender bias in countries like China and India. The fact that they are countries with far fewer women of childbearing age than their overall population would suggest."
The UN predictions also assume, according to Sanyal, that all fertility rates will eventually converge towards the replacement rate - an "odd assumption" in his view.
"We have not seen any country where fertility rates have declined very dramatically [only] to have seen them drift back up to the replacement rate," he says.
And the UN has underestimated the impact of urbanisation on reducing fertility rates, he argues. Up to now, as he puts it, urbanisation has been "a very powerful contraceptive" in all countries.
For their part, the UN experts say that Sanyal must have been assuming very sharp declines in fertility rates, which they do not share, and very small changes to the global fertility rate can have a huge impact decades down the line.
The UN's own predictions highlight this.
[Graph]
The blue line is the medium variant, red is high and green low
The 10.9 billion figure in 2100 is what is known as the "medium-variant" - it represents what the UN sees as the middle road.
But if you assume a fertility rate of half a child below that, the world's population would have fallen to 6.8 billion by the end of the century. Go up by half a child in the UN's model and it hits 16.6. billion.
What's more, small changes in fertility rates have a more pronounced effect over time. Sanyal's forecast and the UN's differ by 800 million at 2050. Yet, this increases to 2.8 billion by 2100.
There is plenty of room for disagreement. Let's hope the disagreements don't get "out of control".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
Discussion of figures and the effects of small changes is mathematically very interesting, but the fact is the world population continues to grow. The more we highlight the problem, the more chance of this growth being halted, or even reversed, before Nature kicks in with its more drastic methods of population control.
Is population growth out of control?
By Hannah Barnes, BBC News
The respected broadcaster and naturalist, Sir David Attenborough, told the BBC recently that population growth was "out of control" - but one expert says the number of people on the planet could peak in 40 years. Who should we believe?
"The world's population is increasing out of control," Sir David told the BBC's Today programme.
"Since I first started making programmes 60 years ago, the human population has tripled."
Two striking claims.
Let's take the second one first - that the world's population has tripled in 60 years.
In 1950, around the time Sir David began his broadcasting career, there were 2.53 billion people in the world. Sixty-three years later and the latest estimate of world population is 7.16 billion.
That is a little shy of tripling - more like a factor of 2.8 - but it's not far off.
The "out of control" claim is less easily measurable, but perhaps it could be interpreted as the idea that the population will continue to grow at the same rate, roughly tripling in 60 years.
If this happened, the world population would reach almost 40 billion people by the end of this century.
But the latest United Nations projection puts the figure at little more than a quarter of that - less than 11 billion.
That's still 50% more than we have today, but it shows the UN expects much slower population growth in the decades to come than in decades gone by.
Some might consider that an increase in the world population from seven billion to 11 billion by 2100 still represents out-of-control population growth.
But this UN figure - contained in its World Population Prospects, published every two years - is considered by one expert, at least, to be much too high.
"When I looked at them I discovered that they were almost certainly wrong," says Sanjeev Sanyal, Global Strategist for Deutsche Bank, of the latest update of the World Population Prospects, released in June this year.
Population growth projections feed into many other forecasts and models - projections of energy use, for example, or corporate profits - so people like Sanyal scrutinise these UN figures carefully.
And he finds the UN projections "difficult to justify" for a number of reasons.
"If you look at fertility rates - the number of babies that a woman has over the course of her life - in very large parts of the world, those fertility rates are now below what is needed to replace the population," he says.
"Much of Europe, Japan, large countries like China, even Brazil, don't produce [the necessary] 2.2 or 2.3 babies [per woman]. Some of them are way below that level and as a result it is almost certain that these huge countries are going to see rapidly declining populations within a few decades from now."
The replacement rate is higher than two, because some women will die before they reach the end of their child-bearing years.
Also, in developing countries the UN predicts rapidly expanding populations.
In Nigeria, for example, it expects the current figure of roughly 160 million to increase to almost one billion by the end of the century.
Sanyal is sceptical.
"Surely Nigerians will recognise at some points that things are getting crowded and stop having so many babies?" he argues.
He predicts the Nigerian population in 2100 will be 400 million fewer than the UN suggests.
His forecasts are lower for the world's two largest countries too. He predicts China's population will be 60 million fewer than the UN forecasts for 2100, and India's 100 million.
"Even the US is quite suspect," Sanyal says.
Here, the UN predicts a rise from 312 million today to 462 million in 2100.
"That would be extraordinary for a country which already has birth rates below the replacement rate… You will need huge amounts of migration into the US to reach anywhere near [that]."
It is likely that lots of people will migrate to the US. Sanyal accepts that the US population will grow.
But to increase at this rate he insists that other countries would have to be showing falls in population - falls that do not appear in the UN figures.
Overall, Sanyal paints a very different picture from the UN, with world population peaking around 2050 at 8.7 billion and declining to about 8 billion by the end of the century. That's about a billion higher than it is now, but well short of the UN's 11 billion.
Both Sanyal and the UN start with the same data - national censuses from 2010. The difference arises because they make different assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration.
"I took into account two or three things which I think are inadequately reflected in the UN [report]," Sanyal explains.
"I have probably accounted more aggressively for things like gender bias in countries like China and India. The fact that they are countries with far fewer women of childbearing age than their overall population would suggest."
The UN predictions also assume, according to Sanyal, that all fertility rates will eventually converge towards the replacement rate - an "odd assumption" in his view.
"We have not seen any country where fertility rates have declined very dramatically [only] to have seen them drift back up to the replacement rate," he says.
And the UN has underestimated the impact of urbanisation on reducing fertility rates, he argues. Up to now, as he puts it, urbanisation has been "a very powerful contraceptive" in all countries.
For their part, the UN experts say that Sanyal must have been assuming very sharp declines in fertility rates, which they do not share, and very small changes to the global fertility rate can have a huge impact decades down the line.
The UN's own predictions highlight this.
[Graph]
The blue line is the medium variant, red is high and green low
The 10.9 billion figure in 2100 is what is known as the "medium-variant" - it represents what the UN sees as the middle road.
But if you assume a fertility rate of half a child below that, the world's population would have fallen to 6.8 billion by the end of the century. Go up by half a child in the UN's model and it hits 16.6. billion.
What's more, small changes in fertility rates have a more pronounced effect over time. Sanyal's forecast and the UN's differ by 800 million at 2050. Yet, this increases to 2.8 billion by 2100.
There is plenty of room for disagreement. Let's hope the disagreements don't get "out of control".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
Discussion of figures and the effects of small changes is mathematically very interesting, but the fact is the world population continues to grow. The more we highlight the problem, the more chance of this growth being halted, or even reversed, before Nature kicks in with its more drastic methods of population control.
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,844
Since 2013 the majority of countries in the world have had sub-replacement fertility. If this goes on we will start having a population crisis all right, but it will be a crisis of too few people rather than too many.
I don't think it will go on, by the way - fertility is almost certain to continue to reduce over this century, but life expectancy will increase over time until the death date is astonishingly low. If this happens we will have a population mostly made of older people.
I don't think it will go on, by the way - fertility is almost certain to continue to reduce over this century, but life expectancy will increase over time until the death date is astonishingly low. If this happens we will have a population mostly made of older people.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Prof Hans Rosling:
As part of his ambition to educate people about the world they live in, Rosling appears in an hour-long BBC Two programme tonight. At first glance, the show, which is called Don’t Panic: The Truth About Population, was a riposte to the apocalyptic doom-mongering that has been spearheaded in recent months by the Microsoft scientist Stephen Emmott. In 10 Billion, his play and subsequent book of the same name, Emmott, who is British, says that we should treat the issue of the world’s population “with the same urgency we’d give if we’d just discovered an asteroid on a collision path with Earth, likely to wipe out 70 per cent of all life.” In some ways, Rosling actually goes further than Emmott, using projections from the UN Population Division that suggest global population will rise from its current level of seven billion to hit 11 billion at the end of this century. However, his response to the issue is a little more measured.
“We face huge challenges,” Rosling says. “But do you solve problems by panicking? Did Britain win the war for us against Hitler by panicking?” More efficient use of resources will be required to meet these challenges, climate change will have to be confronted head-on, while agricultural yields and irrigation must improve markedly to feed the rapidly growing population of Africa. But, Rosling says, as fundamental and far-reaching as these challenges may be, they are surmountable.
And we’d all better hope that he’s right. Because a near 50 per cent increase in global population by the end of the century is already a done deal. In the BBC programme, Rosling explains that the mechanism that will power population growth on such a scale has already – and irreversibly – been put into motion and to suggest that efforts should be made to limit its growth is to effectively propose a “holocaust” and prepare “the intellectual ground for killing people”. This is because of a phenomenon that Rosling describes as “Peak Child”. Briefly put, the surge in the number of people on Earth isn’t any longer being caused by more people being born, but because of those who are alive. There are now more children on the planet than ever (about two billion under the age of 15) but the global decline in birth rates means that the number has levelled off, and is not expected to increase. The reason the global population will continue to rise until around 2100 is because of a “demographic lag” and longer life expectancies.
So, the good news is that one of the major challenges facing the planet – the increasing number of births – has been met. But, much to Rosling’s dismay, few people seem to realise this or, indeed, other truths about the world.
Straight out of medical school, Rosling spent two years in Mozambique as one of only two qualified doctors in a hospital that served an area of 300,000 people. His experiences here pushed him towards statistics in an effort to quantify the gulf in living standards but it wasn’t until he joined the Karolinska Institute that he realised the gaping holes in people’s knowledge of the world – and resolved to fill them.
He did a test in which students were presented with five pairs of countries – Sri Lanka and Turkey; Poland and South Korea; Malaysia and Russia; Pakistan and Vietnam; Thailand and South Africa – and asked to pick the country in each pair that had twice the child mortality rate of the other. The answers were, respectively, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Pakistan and South Africa, and the students did so badly that Rosling concluded, they must have been victim to preconceived, outdated ideas. (In fact, he points out, they did worse than a chimpanzee would have done if he’d been set the test with the answers written on pairs of bananas.)
As you might expect, the great British public suffers from similar problems to Rosling’s Swedish students. In modern-day Bangladesh, for example, the average number of children per woman has fallen from seven to just over two since 1972. But given a four-answer multiple choice question, only 12 per cent of people in this country answered correctly. The results for a similar question about the global literacy rate (which, in reality, stands at about 80 per cent) was answered correctly by only 8 per cent of respondents.
It’s the sort of thing that motivated Rosling to set up the non-profit organisation Gapminder in 2005, and make free, up-to-date statistics and educational resources available to as many people as possible. Gapminder’s mission is to “fight devastating ignorance with fact-based world views that everyone can understand”. “If people are convinced beyond all doubt that in Muslim countries women have [an average of] five children and that Islam is a religion that can never change and that Muslims will never use condoms or the pill, then they will make a lot of mistakes in their lives,” says Rosling. “We want people to think: ‘Wow. Muslims are just like me’.”
...
Don't Panic: The Truth About Population is on BBC Two tonight at 9pm
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... -sing.html
As part of his ambition to educate people about the world they live in, Rosling appears in an hour-long BBC Two programme tonight. At first glance, the show, which is called Don’t Panic: The Truth About Population, was a riposte to the apocalyptic doom-mongering that has been spearheaded in recent months by the Microsoft scientist Stephen Emmott. In 10 Billion, his play and subsequent book of the same name, Emmott, who is British, says that we should treat the issue of the world’s population “with the same urgency we’d give if we’d just discovered an asteroid on a collision path with Earth, likely to wipe out 70 per cent of all life.” In some ways, Rosling actually goes further than Emmott, using projections from the UN Population Division that suggest global population will rise from its current level of seven billion to hit 11 billion at the end of this century. However, his response to the issue is a little more measured.
“We face huge challenges,” Rosling says. “But do you solve problems by panicking? Did Britain win the war for us against Hitler by panicking?” More efficient use of resources will be required to meet these challenges, climate change will have to be confronted head-on, while agricultural yields and irrigation must improve markedly to feed the rapidly growing population of Africa. But, Rosling says, as fundamental and far-reaching as these challenges may be, they are surmountable.
And we’d all better hope that he’s right. Because a near 50 per cent increase in global population by the end of the century is already a done deal. In the BBC programme, Rosling explains that the mechanism that will power population growth on such a scale has already – and irreversibly – been put into motion and to suggest that efforts should be made to limit its growth is to effectively propose a “holocaust” and prepare “the intellectual ground for killing people”. This is because of a phenomenon that Rosling describes as “Peak Child”. Briefly put, the surge in the number of people on Earth isn’t any longer being caused by more people being born, but because of those who are alive. There are now more children on the planet than ever (about two billion under the age of 15) but the global decline in birth rates means that the number has levelled off, and is not expected to increase. The reason the global population will continue to rise until around 2100 is because of a “demographic lag” and longer life expectancies.
So, the good news is that one of the major challenges facing the planet – the increasing number of births – has been met. But, much to Rosling’s dismay, few people seem to realise this or, indeed, other truths about the world.
Straight out of medical school, Rosling spent two years in Mozambique as one of only two qualified doctors in a hospital that served an area of 300,000 people. His experiences here pushed him towards statistics in an effort to quantify the gulf in living standards but it wasn’t until he joined the Karolinska Institute that he realised the gaping holes in people’s knowledge of the world – and resolved to fill them.
He did a test in which students were presented with five pairs of countries – Sri Lanka and Turkey; Poland and South Korea; Malaysia and Russia; Pakistan and Vietnam; Thailand and South Africa – and asked to pick the country in each pair that had twice the child mortality rate of the other. The answers were, respectively, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Pakistan and South Africa, and the students did so badly that Rosling concluded, they must have been victim to preconceived, outdated ideas. (In fact, he points out, they did worse than a chimpanzee would have done if he’d been set the test with the answers written on pairs of bananas.)
As you might expect, the great British public suffers from similar problems to Rosling’s Swedish students. In modern-day Bangladesh, for example, the average number of children per woman has fallen from seven to just over two since 1972. But given a four-answer multiple choice question, only 12 per cent of people in this country answered correctly. The results for a similar question about the global literacy rate (which, in reality, stands at about 80 per cent) was answered correctly by only 8 per cent of respondents.
It’s the sort of thing that motivated Rosling to set up the non-profit organisation Gapminder in 2005, and make free, up-to-date statistics and educational resources available to as many people as possible. Gapminder’s mission is to “fight devastating ignorance with fact-based world views that everyone can understand”. “If people are convinced beyond all doubt that in Muslim countries women have [an average of] five children and that Islam is a religion that can never change and that Muslims will never use condoms or the pill, then they will make a lot of mistakes in their lives,” says Rosling. “We want people to think: ‘Wow. Muslims are just like me’.”
...
Don't Panic: The Truth About Population is on BBC Two tonight at 9pm
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... -sing.html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Hans Rosling: How much do you know about the world?
By Hans Rosling, Professor of Global Health, Karolinska Institutet
Many people don't know about the enormous progress most countries have made in recent decades - or maybe the media hasn't told them. But with the following five facts everyone can upgrade their world view.
1. Fast population growth is coming to an end
It's a largely untold story - gradually, steadily the demographic forces that drove the global population growth in the 20th Century have shifted. Fifty years ago the world average fertility rate - the number of babies born per woman - was five. Since then, this most important number in demography has dropped to 2.5 - something unprecedented in human history - and fertility is still trending downwards. It's all thanks to a powerful combination of female education, access to contraceptives and abortion, and increased child survival.
The demographic consequences are amazing. In the last decade the global total number of children aged 0-14 has levelled off at around two billion, and UN population experts predict that it is going to stay that way throughout this century. That's right: the amount of children in the world today is the most there will be! We have entered into the age of Peak Child! The population will continue to grow as the Peak Child generation grows up and grows old. So most probably three or four billion new adults will be added to the world population - but then in the second half of this century the fast growth of the world population will finally come to an end.
2. The "developed" and "developing" worlds have gone
Fifty years ago we had a divided world.
There were two types of countries - "developed" and "developing" - and they differed in almost every way. One type of country was rich and the other poor. One had small families, the other large families. One had long life expectancy, the other short. One was politically powerful, the other was politically weak. And between these two groups, in the middle, there was hardly anyone.
So much has changed, especially in the last decade, that the countries of the world today defy all attempts to classify them into only two groups. So many of the formerly "developing" group of countries have been catching up that the countries now form a continuum. From those nations at the top of the health and wealth league, like Norway and Singapore, to the poorest nations torn by civil war, like DR Congo and Somalia, and at every point in between, there are now countries right along the socio-economic spectrum. And most of the world's people live in the middle. Brazil, Mexico, China, Turkey, Thailand, and many countries like them, are now in most ways more similar to the best-off than the worst-off. Half the world's economy - and most of the world's economic growth - now lies outside Western Europe and North America.
3. People are much healthier
Fifty years ago, the average life expectancy in the world was 60 years. Today it's 70 years. What's more, that average of 60 years in the 1960s masked a huge gap between long lifespans in "developed" and short lifespans in "developing" countries.
But today's average of 70 years applies to the majority of people of the world. Most of the world's countries have caught up far more quickly in health than in wealth. For instance, Vietnam has the same health as the US had in 1980 but so far only the same income per person as the US had in 1880! Behind the increased lifespan lies an impressive drop in child mortality. Tragically, seven million of the 135 million children born each year still die before they reach five years old. But in 1960 one in five children died before the age of five. Today it's one in 20, and the rate is still falling. One common myth is that healthcare - by saving the lives of poor children - just leads to faster population growth. But paradoxically the opposite is true. Why? Because there is only ever demand for family planning when child mortality drops sufficiently. Before that happens, women keep on having babies. The fastest population growth rates today are in the poorest and most war-torn countries with the highest child mortality, like Afghanistan and DR Congo. Get the mortality rate down, and the demand for family planning goes up.
4. Girls are getting better education
The greatest change for girls and young women in the world today is probably more education. In the world as a whole, men aged between 25 and 34 have on average spent eight years at school - and women from the same age group are now just behind them, with an average of seven years' schooling. In fact, in some poorer countries such as Bangladesh, girls now attend primary and secondary school in the same numbers as boys. Of the 60 million children in the world who still don't even go to primary school, it's almost always because of their extreme poverty - they are needed by their families to work. Only about 10% of girls who can't go to school are stopped by cultural taboos.
The better education of girls is just a first step on the long road to gender equity. But sadly it is also changing the character of gender inequity. Violence against young women and restrictions on their rights to choose how to live their lives are now replacing lack of schooling as the main gender injustice.
5. The end of extreme poverty is in sight
What is "extreme poverty"? Economists define it as an income of less than $1.25 per day. In reality, it means that a family cannot be sure from one day to the next that they will have enough to eat. Children have to work instead of going to school. Children die from easily preventable causes such as pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. And for women it means uncontrolled fertility and families of six or more children.
But the number of people in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, has fallen from two billion in 1980 to just over one billion today. Though many people in the world still live on a very low income, six out of seven billion are now out of extreme poverty and this is a critical change. These families have fewer children, of whom the vast majority survive, get enough food and go to school. In fact, for the first time ever, the evidence suggests it is now possible for the last billion to also get out of the misery of extreme poverty in the next few decades. It will mainly be through their own hard work - but it will only happen if they receive, from their governments and from the world at large, the focused help they need to stay healthy, get educated and increase their productivity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822
All perhaps towards the Pollyanna end of the spectrum, but let's hope he's right!
By Hans Rosling, Professor of Global Health, Karolinska Institutet
Many people don't know about the enormous progress most countries have made in recent decades - or maybe the media hasn't told them. But with the following five facts everyone can upgrade their world view.
1. Fast population growth is coming to an end
It's a largely untold story - gradually, steadily the demographic forces that drove the global population growth in the 20th Century have shifted. Fifty years ago the world average fertility rate - the number of babies born per woman - was five. Since then, this most important number in demography has dropped to 2.5 - something unprecedented in human history - and fertility is still trending downwards. It's all thanks to a powerful combination of female education, access to contraceptives and abortion, and increased child survival.
The demographic consequences are amazing. In the last decade the global total number of children aged 0-14 has levelled off at around two billion, and UN population experts predict that it is going to stay that way throughout this century. That's right: the amount of children in the world today is the most there will be! We have entered into the age of Peak Child! The population will continue to grow as the Peak Child generation grows up and grows old. So most probably three or four billion new adults will be added to the world population - but then in the second half of this century the fast growth of the world population will finally come to an end.
2. The "developed" and "developing" worlds have gone
Fifty years ago we had a divided world.
There were two types of countries - "developed" and "developing" - and they differed in almost every way. One type of country was rich and the other poor. One had small families, the other large families. One had long life expectancy, the other short. One was politically powerful, the other was politically weak. And between these two groups, in the middle, there was hardly anyone.
So much has changed, especially in the last decade, that the countries of the world today defy all attempts to classify them into only two groups. So many of the formerly "developing" group of countries have been catching up that the countries now form a continuum. From those nations at the top of the health and wealth league, like Norway and Singapore, to the poorest nations torn by civil war, like DR Congo and Somalia, and at every point in between, there are now countries right along the socio-economic spectrum. And most of the world's people live in the middle. Brazil, Mexico, China, Turkey, Thailand, and many countries like them, are now in most ways more similar to the best-off than the worst-off. Half the world's economy - and most of the world's economic growth - now lies outside Western Europe and North America.
3. People are much healthier
Fifty years ago, the average life expectancy in the world was 60 years. Today it's 70 years. What's more, that average of 60 years in the 1960s masked a huge gap between long lifespans in "developed" and short lifespans in "developing" countries.
But today's average of 70 years applies to the majority of people of the world. Most of the world's countries have caught up far more quickly in health than in wealth. For instance, Vietnam has the same health as the US had in 1980 but so far only the same income per person as the US had in 1880! Behind the increased lifespan lies an impressive drop in child mortality. Tragically, seven million of the 135 million children born each year still die before they reach five years old. But in 1960 one in five children died before the age of five. Today it's one in 20, and the rate is still falling. One common myth is that healthcare - by saving the lives of poor children - just leads to faster population growth. But paradoxically the opposite is true. Why? Because there is only ever demand for family planning when child mortality drops sufficiently. Before that happens, women keep on having babies. The fastest population growth rates today are in the poorest and most war-torn countries with the highest child mortality, like Afghanistan and DR Congo. Get the mortality rate down, and the demand for family planning goes up.
4. Girls are getting better education
The greatest change for girls and young women in the world today is probably more education. In the world as a whole, men aged between 25 and 34 have on average spent eight years at school - and women from the same age group are now just behind them, with an average of seven years' schooling. In fact, in some poorer countries such as Bangladesh, girls now attend primary and secondary school in the same numbers as boys. Of the 60 million children in the world who still don't even go to primary school, it's almost always because of their extreme poverty - they are needed by their families to work. Only about 10% of girls who can't go to school are stopped by cultural taboos.
The better education of girls is just a first step on the long road to gender equity. But sadly it is also changing the character of gender inequity. Violence against young women and restrictions on their rights to choose how to live their lives are now replacing lack of schooling as the main gender injustice.
5. The end of extreme poverty is in sight
What is "extreme poverty"? Economists define it as an income of less than $1.25 per day. In reality, it means that a family cannot be sure from one day to the next that they will have enough to eat. Children have to work instead of going to school. Children die from easily preventable causes such as pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. And for women it means uncontrolled fertility and families of six or more children.
But the number of people in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, has fallen from two billion in 1980 to just over one billion today. Though many people in the world still live on a very low income, six out of seven billion are now out of extreme poverty and this is a critical change. These families have fewer children, of whom the vast majority survive, get enough food and go to school. In fact, for the first time ever, the evidence suggests it is now possible for the last billion to also get out of the misery of extreme poverty in the next few decades. It will mainly be through their own hard work - but it will only happen if they receive, from their governments and from the world at large, the focused help they need to stay healthy, get educated and increase their productivity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822
All perhaps towards the Pollyanna end of the spectrum, but let's hope he's right!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Now on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... opulation/
Available until 9:59PM Thu, 14 Nov 2013
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
UK population growing faster than any other EU country
Measured by absolute numbers of people, Britain's population is growing faster than anywhere else in the European Union
By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels
1:46PM GMT 21 Nov 2013
Britain had Europe’s fastest growing population last year in terms of absolute numbers of people, according to European Union statistics.
The latest Eurostat population figures show that there were 392,600 more people in Britain in 2012 compared to the previous year, putting the total population of the UK at 63,888,000.
More than a third of the increase, 38 per cent or 148,700 people, was accounted for by immigration with the rest accounted for by “natural change”, the fact that 243,900 more babies were born than people that died.
The number of live births in Britain was 813,000 in 2012, the second highest in Europe, falling just behind France where 822,000 babies were born.
Britain’s population growth rate, including immigration, is almost three times the EU average, mainly accounted by its high birth rate compared to countries such as Germany where the number of people who died in 2012 was greater than the number of newborn babies by almost 200,000.
“England is already Europe’s most densely populated country. Why should we also have Europe’s highest population growth rate? More people make things worse,” said Simon Ross, chief executive of Population Matters, a campaign group. “If we are serious about tackling the many issues we face as a society, we need to address one of the principal underlying causes, which is population growth.”
France was the second fastest growing EU country, with 305,500 more people in 2012, the vast majority of whom 82 per cent, or 251,700, were accounted for by births. Its total population now stands at 65,633,200.
While immigration is a major political controversy in Britain, the country’s net inwards migration of less than 149,000 people was less than half of the immigrants entering Germany, 391,000 and in Italy, 369,000.
Without immigration, the EU’s total population would be stagnant or in decline: it grew by just over one million people in 2012, 882,000 of whom were migrants.
Economic crisis in the eurozone has led to a contraction in the population of some countries as unemployed young people move elsewhere, either within the EU or beyond.
Emigration was highest in Ireland during 2012, where 35,000 people left the country. High rates of emigration were also recorded in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... untry.html
Measured by absolute numbers of people, Britain's population is growing faster than anywhere else in the European Union
By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels
1:46PM GMT 21 Nov 2013
Britain had Europe’s fastest growing population last year in terms of absolute numbers of people, according to European Union statistics.
The latest Eurostat population figures show that there were 392,600 more people in Britain in 2012 compared to the previous year, putting the total population of the UK at 63,888,000.
More than a third of the increase, 38 per cent or 148,700 people, was accounted for by immigration with the rest accounted for by “natural change”, the fact that 243,900 more babies were born than people that died.
The number of live births in Britain was 813,000 in 2012, the second highest in Europe, falling just behind France where 822,000 babies were born.
Britain’s population growth rate, including immigration, is almost three times the EU average, mainly accounted by its high birth rate compared to countries such as Germany where the number of people who died in 2012 was greater than the number of newborn babies by almost 200,000.
“England is already Europe’s most densely populated country. Why should we also have Europe’s highest population growth rate? More people make things worse,” said Simon Ross, chief executive of Population Matters, a campaign group. “If we are serious about tackling the many issues we face as a society, we need to address one of the principal underlying causes, which is population growth.”
France was the second fastest growing EU country, with 305,500 more people in 2012, the vast majority of whom 82 per cent, or 251,700, were accounted for by births. Its total population now stands at 65,633,200.
While immigration is a major political controversy in Britain, the country’s net inwards migration of less than 149,000 people was less than half of the immigrants entering Germany, 391,000 and in Italy, 369,000.
Without immigration, the EU’s total population would be stagnant or in decline: it grew by just over one million people in 2012, 882,000 of whom were migrants.
Economic crisis in the eurozone has led to a contraction in the population of some countries as unemployed young people move elsewhere, either within the EU or beyond.
Emigration was highest in Ireland during 2012, where 35,000 people left the country. High rates of emigration were also recorded in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... untry.html
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
Some real food for thought.
http://www.upworthy.com/a-smartypan...sy-analogy-about-our-planet-and-now-im-scared
http://www.upworthy.com/a-smartypan...sy-analogy-about-our-planet-and-now-im-scared
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,844
What a twat. The population of our planet isn't growing exponentially; take a look at Hans Roslin's much more informative presentation, showing that growth rates are declining everywhere except the poorest African countries.
Hans Rosling: The best stats you've ever seen
Hans Rosling: The best stats you've ever seen
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
I posted about Rosling and his ideas on this thread, last month, starting here:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 50#1365850
But as soon as most people start to think the problem is going away, you can bet it will come back and bite you on the arse!
So it's good that some people keep putting out info on Exponential Growth - provided we're prepared to read the warning signs, we'll be prepared to take action.
But as soon as people become complacent, and think it's been sorted, Goodnight Vienna, It's all over now, Baby Blue, etc!
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 50#1365850
But as soon as most people start to think the problem is going away, you can bet it will come back and bite you on the arse!
So it's good that some people keep putting out info on Exponential Growth - provided we're prepared to read the warning signs, we'll be prepared to take action.
But as soon as people become complacent, and think it's been sorted, Goodnight Vienna, It's all over now, Baby Blue, etc!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Too much of a good thingrynner2 said:
Antibiotics have transformed human health and saved millions of lives. Now, as a result of overuse, they are no longer working. The golden age of medicine has come to an end
by Joe Shute
...
A decision is expected shortly on Midland Pig’s so-called Foston Mega Farm, which will house 25,000 intensively reared indoor pigs, making it one of the largest in Europe. The proposal has attracted huge opposition, with more than 20,000 letters from across the world. Pig welfare is, of course, an emotive issue. But campaigners insist that something greater is at stake here - something that the Chief Medical Officer has referred to as one of the greatest threats of the 21st century, alongside terrorism and climate change, and which this spring, is expected to be placed on the national risk register. Such farms rely on the use of antibiotics for sick animals, but as we rush to produce industrial quantities of ever cheaper food, we have sleepwalked into a human health crisis.
Antibiotics are no longer effective. The drugs that have transformed life and longevity and saved countless millions since penicillin was discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928 now saturate every corner of our environment. We stuff them into ourselves and our animals; we spray them on crops, dump them in rivers, and even – as emerged at a meeting of science ministers from the G8 last year - paint them on the hulls of boats to keep off barnacles.
As a result an invisible army of super-resistant bacteria has evolved, one that is increasingly claiming lives – currently more than 25,000 a year in Europe alone, around as many as die on the continent’s roads.
Many leading scientists and doctors and politicians are freely adopting the language of global catastrophe. Infections such as tuberculosis and septicaemia - the scourge of earlier centuries - are once again killing us at frightening rates. We have used, or are using, our so-called drugs of last resort. There is nothing left in the armoury and new drugs are not being developed. Welcome to the post-antibiotic age.
In 2012, at Needwood House Farm, a pneumonia outbreak swept through the herd. The piglets were taken off site and sows fed antibiotics with their food for six weeks. Those few that didn’t survive were incinerated. The outbreak – the first in eight years at the Farm - cost Midland Pig Producers £100,000.
“Antibiotics are expensive,” says owner James Leavesley. “The last thing we want to do as a business is use them. We don’t unless we have to. It’s done because an animal – just like a human – can fall ill. If we need to stop using them on farms, can we stop using them in hospitals as well, please?”
Leavesley says intensive farming has come a long way since “barbaric” and “abhorrent” practices in the Sixties and Seventies. Nowadays, pens are better ventilated and excrement is sluiced away through grates.
“What we are proposing [at Foston] is going to be a cultural evolution. The whole point of the thing is to create an environment where we don’t need antibiotics.”
It is an admirable goal, but the reality is that modern British farms rely on antibiotics and on a vast scale. In 2012, some 409 tonnes of antibiotics were sold for animal use (a rise on the 346 tonnes sold the previous year), of which 85 per cent was for food-producing animals. The use of three classes of antibiotics classified by the World Health Organisation as “critically important in human medicine” has also increased. According to the latest Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) report, in 2012, 2.4 tonnes of fluroquinolone antibiotics were given to animals compared to 2.1 tonnes in 2011. Sales of the other “critically important” antibiotic classes - third and fourth generation cephalosporins (1.3 tonnes) and macrolides (40.9 tonnes) - also recorded small rises on the previous year.
Veterinary medicine accounts for around 30 per cent of antibiotics use in this country, and yet, we are one of the better regulated in the world. An EU-wide ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock has been in place since 2006. In Britain, only vets can prescribe antibiotics for animals, although critics say this raises an obvious conflict of interest when they also sell them. Worldwide, the majority of the 100,000-200,000 tonnes of antibiotics manufactured every year is freely used in the agricultural, horticultural and veterinary sectors to keep animals healthy on industrial-scale farms. “It’s getting worse, not better,” says Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP for Richmond and treasurer of the newly-formed All Party Parliamentary Group on Antibiotic Resistance. “When you concentrate a very large number of animals, particularly pigs, in very cramped conditions, you are going to create all kinds of local and environmental problems.
“History tells us you can’t keep animals in those conditions without almost daily use of antibiotics. It may be OK for five to 10 years but it’s not a sustainable model for the future. Otherwise we will lose our antibiotics. There are all kinds of implications about mega farms. I know that the total use [of antibiotics] per head per animal has gone up 18 per cent in the past 10 years.”
Goldsmith talks with a quiet urgency from the corner of a tearoom in the Houses of Parliament. For a long time, he says, he has been one of the few outspoken voices from the backbenches on antibiotic resistance. But not any longer. There is growing concern at the highest levels of Government over the seriousness of the issue. The June meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee to discuss antibiotics was standing room only in the Commons committee room. Looking down from the wall was a portrait of Lord Palmerston (prime minister 1855 to 1858 and 1859 to 1865). Once more we are engaged in gunboat diplomacy, the rhetoric of war.
etc, etc...
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/proje ... index.html