• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Human Population Growth & Overpopulation

From NS:


4.3
people are born and
1.8
people die every second

Find out what else can happen in 1 second, as New Scientist counts down to the leap second adjustment of Coordinated Universal Time on 30 June 2015.

(by email)
 
What if the UK population keeps growing?
By Benjamin Zand

The UK population grew by almost half a million last year to 64,596,800. What might happen if it continues to increase?
Since the end of the 1990s the UK has been experiencing a population growth spurt.
Between mid-2013 and mid-2014 its population rose by 491,100 people, compared to an increase of just below 150,000 in 1996-97.
For some this growth represents a strain on public services and quality of life, while others believe it underpins economic growth.

The Victoria Derbyshire programme has been hearing differing viewpoints.

'We are wasting supplies'
Jane Falkingham is director of the Economic and Social Research Council's Centre for Population Change.

"We happen to be alive at an incredible time in human history, where the world's population is undergoing a massive transformation," she says.
"It's difficult to take the UK out of the context of its situation in Europe, and then Europe's situation in the world.
"There will be issues around food, there will be issues around water," she adds.

Ms Falkingham, however, believes the source of the problem is easily identifiable.
"Half of the world's food that we produce is wasted," she says.
"In the West, food is wasted after the point of purchase... and by cafes and supermarkets.
"In the developing world, half of the food goes to waste before it gets to market. They don't have the right pesticides or the right crops, so it either rots in the fields or it rots on the way to market," she explains.
But she says there is a sense of optimism: "I think human beings will find technological solutions to these problems."

Ms Falkingham also believes that global population will reach a point at which it remains stable.
"Most experts think the world's population will stop growing at the end of this century and will level out somewhere between 10 billion and 11 billion," she argues.
This, she says, will be the result of a fall in the birth rate.
"In the past we had high fertility and high mortality. In the future we're going to have low fertility and low mortality," she explains.

In the UK, an average of 12.8 children were born per 1,000 inhabitants over the past five years, compared to 12.6 in France, 8.2 in Germany and 49.8 in Mali.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33882577

(Two more speakers follow Ms. Falkingham.)
 
Again controversially, I am being controversial a lot lately, I always thought it irresponsible to have more than two children (one to replace yourself and one to replace your partner) given that the world had finite resources and is getting rapidly overpopulated.
 
Loquaciousness said:
Again controversially, I am being controversial a lot lately, I always thought it irresponsible to have more than two children (one to replace yourself and one to replace your partner) given that the world had finite resources and is getting rapidly overpopulated.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's controversial, just perfect common sense. The reality is though, no UK government will start telling people how many kids they can have.
 
Loquaciousness said:
Again controversially, I am being controversial a lot lately, I always thought it irresponsible to have more than two children (one to replace yourself and one to replace your partner) given that the world had finite resources and is getting rapidly overpopulated.
Click to expand...

That's fine in theory, but the theory rests on the idea that fertile people stay with the same partner their whole lives, and that is becoming rarer.
 
drbastard said:
I wouldn't say that's controversial, just perfect common sense. The reality is though, no UK government will start telling people how many kids they can have.
Click to expand...
True.
Possibly the only thing any government can do is to restrict the numbers of people coming here to live.
 
Mythopoeika said:
True.
Possibly the only thing any government can do is to restrict the numbers of people coming here to live.
Click to expand...
Well we are doing quite well that way, there are as many Brits living in other EU states as there are other EU nationals living in the UK. I find it weird how Britain is one of the very few EU states were birth rates are over 2 (apart from Ireland), most others are struggling, e.g. Germany and Italy. There must be something about the UK (presumably) that makes it desirable/easier for people to have lots of children.
 
Loquaciousness said:
Well we are doing quite well that way, there are as many Brits living in other EU states as there are other EU nationals living in the UK. I find it weird how Britain is one of the very few EU states were birth rates are over 2 (apart from Ireland), most others are struggling, e.g. Germany and Italy. There must be something about the UK (presumably) that makes it desirable/easier for people to have lots of children.
Click to expand...
And you raise a good point.
Child benefits.
 
Mythopoeika said:
And you raise a good point.
Child benefits.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that. £82/month is hardly going to pay for all the expenses having a child incurs! I am not sure but I think you get less for 2nd and subsequent children.
 
Birth figures in the UK are fascinating: rather erratic across race, region, religion and socio-economic status.
Wish I could find the study I read a while back.
 
Yithian said:
Birth figures in the UK are fascinating: rather erratic across race, region, religion and socio-economic status.
Wish I could find the study I read a while back.
Click to expand...
If you do find it, would love to see a link to it - interesting stuff.
 
Extract from this document https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/family_sizes.pdf
"Socio-economic class does not seem to impact on family size: the proportion of families with 3 or more children is fairly evenly distributed across all socio-economic categories.  Ethnicity does impact on family size, with black and Asian ethnic groups having larger families than white and Chinese ones.  Regionally, families with 3 or more children are most prevalent in Northern Ireland and London."
 
Only got this snippet:

In 2012 the UK's total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.92 children per woman,[25] below the replacement rate, which in the UK is 2.075.[26] In 2001, the TFR was at a record low of 1.63, but it then increased every year till reaching a peak of 1.96 in 2008, before decreasing again.[25] The TFR was considerably higher during the 1960s 'baby boom', peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964.[27]

In 2010 and again in 2012, England and Wales's TFR rose to 1.94.[25] In Scotland however TFR is lower: it decreased from 1.75 in 2010 to 1.67 in 2012.[25] Northern Ireland has the highest TFR in the UK, standing at 2.02 in 2010 and even 2.03 in 2012.[25] The Total Fertility Rate for British residents also varies by country of birth. In England and Wales in 1996, people born in the UK had a TFR of 1.67, India 2.21 and Pakistan and Bangladesh 4.90, for example.[28]

Statistics for 2013 live births in England and Wales:[29]

The overall total fertility rate was 1.85. (Replacement level (i.e. a static population figure) is 2.075).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Fertility
Click to expand...

But it isn't the article I recall reading.
 
So...the birth rate is 1.85?
So...I was right about the immigrant explanation?
What else could it be?
 
Mythopoeika said:
So...the birth rate is 1.85?
So...I was right about the immigrant explanation?
What else could it be?
Click to expand...
If you look at the PDF link above it gives you lots of up to date info, and answer your questions. For instance, Uk born mothers fertility rates = 1.9, non UK born 2.45. But it is not as straight forward as that as it also depends on where those non UK born mothers are from. Interestingly, although non UK born mothers only make up 18% of women of child bearing age, the accounted for 25.1% of live births. Not all ethnic groups have the same high birth rates, again the PDF tells you that 48% of families with 3 or more children were from Black and Asian (British and non British born) families.
I am still digesting all of the info in the document.
 
I suppose it could be argued that immigration has an impact upon population growth, in so much as moving from a place that has a high infant mortality rate to one with a low infant mortality rate, would would make procreation more successful for more people.

I think we'll be OK though. By we, I mean your progeny, as I am childless (by choice, btw). I don't think anyone on the board is in such abject poverty that they are starving, thereby reducing their prospect of becoming a parent, or having very weak children. In the grand scheme of things, us lot are already halfway up the ladder, so to speak.

When the population rises to that tipping point where we cannot produce enough food, medical care or adequate housing for everyone, Darwin will kick in. It will be tragic that your place of birth will dictate your life expectancy far more dramatically than it already does. No doubt there will be rises in famine, disease and war. It will be messy.

They (your great grandchildren and their grandchildren) will have adapted to living in a changed environment, as Darwin pointed out - it's not survival of the best, but the most adaptable. I doubt that financial well being will be any less significant, though he path to financial well being may have changed. Think of the rise in tech jobs in the last 40 years, who knows how sustainable that will be. Will we really still be employing folks in workhouses, I mean, call centres?

That doesn't mean I am blase or uncaring, just trying to be pragmatic.
 
What WILL we do for a living in the future though? This is the stuff that keeps me awake at nights.
 
I'd like to see a rise in artisan trades, y'no, furniture makers and tailors. Not likely mind.

I guess we can predict a rise in funeral directors. Who knows, drive through cremations anyone?
 
There may well be a rise in self-employed people, mostly creatives and craftspeople.
For the rest...? I have no idea. But there will be a lot of self-employment. And plenty of crime.
 
We could put you in the used car forecourt to advertise the owner's wares.
 
I
dreeness . said:
We will probably be waving goodbye, like this banana: :bananas:


:eek:
Click to expand...


I cannot see it ending well Dreeness - It seems that those who can do something about it, really don't give a fuck. It will be dour and dree, in my opinion;

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer—

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.

IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
 
It's been aluded to before on here I know, but I've long been curious about actual population as opposed to "official" numbers - the census is hugely inaccurate, apparently everyone knows it, and yet it's taken as gospel and cited interminably. In conversation yesterday with someone with no reason to fabricate, they told me that Bristol's urban area population alone is routinely understated by as much as 100,000. So I poked about, albeit briefly, and about the only reference I could find was this one from the Indie, eight years ago, which even then mentioned a UK population figure of 77 million.
It is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.

The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one's most definitely a damned lie.

My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It's like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers – the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That's easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.

Consumption – that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat one lunch and one dinner...
Click to expand...
Anyone else got anything on this? If this is the case, what's Whitehall hiding, and why (one or two things spring to mind..)?
 
stuneville said:
It's been aluded to before on here I know, but I've long been curious about actual population as opposed to "official" numbers - the census is hugely inaccurate, apparently everyone knows it, and yet it's taken as gospel and cited interminably. In conversation yesterday with someone with no reason to fabricate, they told me that Bristol's urban area population alone is routinely understated by as much as 100,000. So I poked about, albeit briefly, and about the only reference I could find was this one from the Indie, eight years ago, which even then mentioned a UK population figure of 77 million.

Anyone else got anything on this? If this is the case, what's Whitehall hiding, and why (one or two things spring to mind..)?
Click to expand...


http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ns-think-muslim-population-nine-times-greater
 
When this thread started, back in 2007, population growth still seemed like a mere intellectual debate to most people. But as time has gone on, we have all seen or experienced more and more wars, riots and atrocities, more financial crises, more population movements, and disease outbreaks that we can barely handle. The mood of the thread is getting more panicky.

For me personally things do not seem too bad. I live in a pleasant enough area, with easy access to well-stocked shops - crisis, what crisis? But even here there are signs. There's a big new housing estate being built less than a mile away, and other green-field sites near here are under constant pressure from builders.

I see the same story when I travel elsewhere in the county - new housing estates spring up almost overnight on what used to be country fields. And in the towns, new houses are being shoehorned into whatever spaces can be found, or closed down shops or garages are knocked down and replaced by yet more houses.

So I don't need figures from the Office of National Statistics to tell me how the population is growing. Apart from the evidence of my own eyes, I just have to read in the papers how the government tells us the country needs x thousand new houses, and the County Council is always looking for places to allow another few hundred houses.

Now Britain is far from being concreted over, yet every green field that's built on is a field that can't be used for food production, so we will have to import more. But most other countries have similar problems, so where's the food to come from?

Eventually the Malthusian population checks of war, disease and famine will cut our numbers back, but I probably won't live to see the worst of that here in the UK. The signs are there though; there's no war, but there is increasing terrorism. There are no epidemics, yet already we see the rise of things like MRSA and the decline in the effectiveness of antibiotics. There's no famine, but there are already growing numbers of food banks.

Some people with political, religious, gender-specific, etc, beliefs will argue that there are solutions to all these Malthusian threats, but these groups never seem to agree with each other on an actual plan. I fear that Nature will have to run its course, and whatever remains of the human race afterwards will have to adapt to greatly changed conditions.
 
Sadly, I think you are right, Rynner.
The food will have to be grown in parts of Africa. The Chinese saw this coming a long way off, which is why they've been working with various African countries and buying land. They see Africa as a place where they can get cheap labour and grow food crops. They have a huge amount of grassland that isn't doing anything.
There is more that we in 'the West' can do. We can provide free family planning and better help and incentives to grow food crops. We need to lure farmers away from growing khat and opium poppies. With profitable business comes stability and peace, and eventually a fall in the birth rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top