World overpopulation

Agreed, but I thought you were trying to argue that a higher birth rate among immigrants would alleviate the problem.

"....it will be impossible to maintain the same standards of care we are used to"

...or the same living standards.

Nothing to do with the reducing the average age but with providing the necessary infrastructure to support society. If as predicted the percentage of people over 65 increases to almost 30% that is almost 1 in 3 people who are approaching retirement, or already retired. If you consider that there is also likely to be a large number of these older people requiring medical help and support and smaller numbers of young people working and making tax contributions it will be impossible to maintain the same standards of care we are used to.

"With huge numbers of elderly people, some needing extra care it can be argued that more children are needed to provide the necessary support."

No it can't. It's not possible to achieve a sustained reduction in the average age by increasing the birth rate.

Imagine we start with a birth rate of 2 babies per woman and a stable population, and then increase the birth rate to 2.5 BPW. At first there will be a reduction in the average age, but babies grow up, by which time you will be left with the same average age you started with and a population that's now growing out of control because you increased the BR. If you want to maintain the lower average age you now have to increase the BR again and again, with the population escalating at ever faster and faster rates.

The converse is true as well of course. Although most of the increase in age is due to longevity, some of it will be due to the recent reductions in the birth rate, but just as before, that will only be temporary as the change works it's way through the system.

The big problem is not in fact the population increase, as there are indications that birth rates are slowing down, but the increasing age of populations and the resulting effects upon society. Interestingly immigration slows down the projected rate of age increase because immigrants seem to have more children. With huge numbers of elderly people, some needing extra care it can be argued that more children are needed to provide the necessary support. longevity-science.org/Population_Aging.htm

Crun has made a very sensible point.

There is probably quite enough water for us if it were managed properly by individuals and corporations. However it is often in the "wrong places" for populations.

In places like Africa many years of rich western european colonisation has forced the native Africans out of the most fertile water secure parts of Africa into the drier less fertile parts of the country.
"We" (the developed world) squander billions of gallons of water in our daily household use, too many long high volume shower's, too many deep baths! Washing all clothes and towels daily. Never mind filling swimming pools, watering our gardens golf courses, parks etc etc.

Poorer countries do not have the money to build good safe water supply infrastructures. Then there are political problems with rivers that cross many different countries and who takes how much water from which particiular parts of it.
Then there are companies like Coca Cola owning springs and wells in poorer countries to produce their drinks and companies like Nestle buying up springs for them to sell us expensive bottled water.

You could be right about food.
Water I dont know enough about to comment.

Jobs - people have been coming off the land for the last 50 or 60 years due to increased technology.

Room - where? Which countries exactly?
A lot of the world is inhospitable, and is not lived on for a reason.

As the world in general becomes better educated and developing countries reorganise their argriculture so that it's more than subsistence farming there will be more food available. Water may be more problematic but surely we can use desalination plants or other technology. Jobs....I guess a lot of people will still work the land. Room...the world is a big place and can deal with 11 billion.

A very very interesting link from crun. Thanks.

However.
If I understand the documentary correctly, and as vampirequeen says, there will be 11 billion [not sure exactly from when to when] on this planet at some point. In 40 years time and ongoing?

I really really cant see how the earth is going to manage comfortably with that number.
I think he said 1 billion more in Asia, and 2 billion more in Africa. [And I know that much of Asia has been coming out of extreme poverty over the last 50 years]. I mean manage as regards food, water, jobs and sheer room.

theconversation.com/welcome-to-the-uk-land-of-the-two-child-policy-44756

The government is controlling the population of the UK.
As nobody knows if they will end up on benefits in future, nobody should have more than two children.
Perhaps it's a good idea, but not for the reasons Osborne thinks.

I have just watched DIY SOS.
There was a family with three daughters, none of whom would have been born a generation ago. I sat and watched it with a grin on my face all the way through at the way people will help others.
Twin daughters were born early with a form of Dysplasia.
The parents had fertility problems.
It made me wonder about whether we mess around with nature to our detriment. Nature usually wins.

Another variable:
"Obesity threatens to cut US life expectancy." And that of other developed nations.
Effect on fertility too?
So another factor affecting size of world population, though govts are trying to combat this.

It will rise to 11 billion as the 2 billion children reach adulthood and have their own children but then it will level out as the 2 billion children simply replace the 2 billion who die of old age.

11 billion is a sustainable population.

So the population will even out at 7 billion or so?
I am going to have to watch the rest of the link when I can.

Soon: No, the point is that the birth rate already has dropped to a sustainable 2.2 children per woman across almost the whole world. The rampant population explosion is a temporary effect that occurs during the period between the reduction in mortality that triggered the growth, and people recognising the lower mortality then reacting to it by having fewer children. The population will stabilise, but it will take a few generations for the effect to finish working its way through the system.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study

This is a problem of too many people in one place, overpopulation of London.

TriciaF
1. Cant make a decent living in the other parts I think.
2. They are born in that country and dont want to move or cant move[more of a guess with this answer]
3. Not much being done I dont think.

crun - watched 10 minutes worth so far. Finding it all a bit slow for my taste.
Is his point that some countries are becoming westernised so reduce how many children they have?
Or is there a bigger point at some point in the programme?

Health as well, crun. Rich countries tell poor countries that they ought to eat the way we do. Then they get all the illnesses that are rife in the west.

I've just got round to re-watching my own link, I remembered it changing my view, but couldn't recall the detail.

The point is that we already have 2bn children, and that is not set to increase. The population explosion occurred because mortality dropped first, and then the birth rate fell afterwards as a consequence.

The other point is that the poor consume so little that their impact on the environment is negligible, so they could enjoy a huge increase in living standards and still be making a negligible contribution to climate change. Solving the problem is wholly down to the rich consuming less, and yet every first world country still runs society founded on a policy of even more economic growth.

My degree was 76-80, granjura, so we were probably studying the same sources.
That's when we became vegetarian, when we realised it wasn't necessary to eat meat.
Too many people say it isn't going to happen. The Chinese are building too many coal fired power stations, so what's the point of us trying to conserve energy.
However, the Chinese are now building lots of wind turbines and are fast catching up in their use of renewable energy.

Never thought that I wouldn't do something just because others do not. I usually think they will follow in time, granjura. You are right about teaching the following generations. Best by example, I always think.

Thanks, glad you understand what I meant to say. And of course, you are totally free to disagree. An interesting concept anyhow, and food for thought. If you look at the chart about the amount of fossil fuel used to raise red meat, + water and grain, etc- I think, personally, that it does make sense.

But I am truly interested- why do you think it is 'not going to happen?' many people are understanding the need for change in 1000s of ways, and move from fossil fuel to renewable energy- and also the need to educate yourself and our children (personally and as a society too, via education) about how to achieve this, by making personal changes but mainly by supporting research and new ways of organising infrastructure, etc. Here where I live, but continued State support for great and integrated public transport (which was lost a long time ago during the Thatcher area and Beeching before that- as a small example. We also have a new heating system in the village for public amenities (school, sports hall, village hall and town hall- using locally grown wood from sustainable forests instead of oil... again, just a small example.

The recycling/composting station heats a whole section of a village down the road with the gas produced by decomposition, etc, etc.) Many people now choose to eat more local, be it veg, fruit or meat- pay a bit more, eat less, and respect the animals and excellent husbandry + local slaughter. It's a choice- personal and even more important, societal. It can happen- if it doesn't we are 'stuffed' - and that really grieves me for my grand-children and all the children of the world.

Just a few ideas:
1) One of the reasons the world seems to be overpopulated is the tendency of people to crowd together in a small area of land, when millions of hectares are bare of humans. Why?
2) There are several parts of the world where these crowds of folk live which have very limited potential for food production, plus water shortage, yet they still settle there. Why?
3) Yet other places have a surplus of food much of which is wasted.
Is anything being done about the unfair distribution of food, and if so what?

You said:

The world is over populated particularl because of the increasing desire for energy guzzling and polluting cars, planes and luxury foods worst being red meat- especially as most of the animal, the offal and lower cuts, are wasted.

From your last post I now understand what you meant to say, although I'm not sure I agree with you. Even if it were true in theory, it's not going to happen.

Well I am not surprised you find this puzzling- I do too. Must re-read what I wrote, but I don't think this is what I said at all. What I am saying is that the world can/could sustain a much larger number of people if we had a more vegetarian diet (I am not a vegetarian btw- but we do try to eat much less meat of better quality and local)- and have a less fossil fuel guzzling life-style. Does that make more sense?

has

Sorry granjura, I still don't see why an increasing desire for cars, planes and luxury foods have caused the world to become over populated.