XPost: alt.home.repair, alt.politics.scorched-earth, uk.politics.misc   
   XPost: uk.legal, alt.politics.uk   
   From: hex@unseen.ac.am   
      
   On 13/05/2017 19:59, Peter Pan wrote:   
   > Norman Wells  wrote:   
      
   >> What you said was:   
   >>   
   >> "Populations in western countries would be stable or   
   >> declining if not for immigration.  Japan, iirc, is   
   >> actually experiencing population decline."   
   >>   
   >> That may be fact in respect of certain selected countries.  But it   
   >> discloses no *cause* that would imply or prove that *world* population   
   >> will not continue its inexorable rise.   
   >   
   > A possible *cause* of population stabilization (or   
   > reduction) is affluence.  That's why post-industrial   
   > western countries are not replacing their populations as   
   > fast.   
      
   No, that's not a cause since the two are not directly connected.  It may   
   be a correlation, but correlations have a habit of being proved   
   transient or even false.   
      
   > It doesn't apply to the whole world.  But it does mean   
   > that part of the world is in a position to potect itself   
   > economic immigrants spilling in.  Whether affluent   
   > countries have the political will to keep out starving   
   > hordes, is another question.   
      
   Even if we could defend ourselves and become totally isolated we would   
   still have an enormous problem.  We are only able to produce enough food   
   in these isles for 50-60% of the population.  Before long a large number   
   of us will also be starving.   
      
   > Another *cause* is, eg, china's 1-child policy, plus the   
   > unintended bonus that relatively fewer girls have been   
   > born.  That resulted in many of the male children not   
   > reproducing.  IIRC, china's population is not growing,   
   > tho i'm not really sure.   
      
   That was a positive step towards controlling the population.  However,   
   it has now been phased out, so is no longer.   
      
   >> Indeed, you added:   
   >>   
   >> "That's the affluent first world.  In the 3rd world,   
   >> lacking SS or other forced systems of retirement saving,   
   >> people are still determined to make as many babies as   
   >> possible, to provide for their old age.  Doesn't matter   
   >> whether the parents can support their children or not.   
   >> That's what poverty does."   
   >>   
   >> And that's what will continue to drive world population growth ever   
   >> upwards.  Their numbers vastly exceed ours.  And fewer of their children   
   >> die young because of greater knowledge of hygiene and medicine than ever   
   >> in the past.   
   >   
   > So the 3rd-worlders wreck their own countries and die of   
   > war or starvation.  Doesn't mean the whole world is   
   > necessarily doomed.  But, of course, if the 1st world   
   > opens the floodgates to starving refugees, we are also   
   > fucked.   
      
   The critical consideration is the amount of food you can grow to feed   
   your population.  That depends only on the fertile land area you can   
   defend.  It doesn't matter whether you're in the first world or third   
   world.  If you can't produce enough to feed your own people, many of   
   them will die of starvation.  And that includes in the UK.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)