I reckon we are due a population drop - only question is how

And herein lies the answer. Populations continue to grow exponentially, but only in areas where education, particularly for women, and healthcare/ birth control is absent.
Witness the success of education and birth control programmers in Bangladesh and many parts of India. Populations have stabilized quite dramatically, in spite of patriarchal dominance. Improved mortality rates have obviated the need for ever larger numbers of offspring.
Give them the knowledge and the tools, and witness the understanding that follows.
Entirely agree, but sections of fundamentalist religions are actively campaigning to overcome this and I'm not convinced we've got there yet. See graph below, no area is actually falling, only three of the seven areas are trending towards control and one of those is moving very slightly from a very high starting rate.
1550561736836.png
 
No disrespect intended to those who lost their lives in the two wars, but they were the flower of manhood the breeding stock of their time and if they had all survived there would only be standing room now in this green and pleasant land. someone on here could work out three generations on what the figure would be.
I'd argue against. Obviously this is an unprovable what if, but in particular we wouldn't have had the post war baby booms without the wars. This would not have distorted the population spread creating the bulge in pensioners that is causing the problem today. A more stable world probably makes for better economic conditions which should be expected to create more stable birth rates. As observed improved education leads to lower birth rates and it's easier to improve education during times of peace and economic stability.
 
Problem is there's more of us and we might shoot back.
You're more likely to suffer from:

Parkinson's - you'll miss what you're aiming at
Alzheimer's - you'll forget where the rifle is
Muscle wastage - you can't lift the rifle even if you find it

Also, there's less over 60 year olds than under:
SmartSelect_20190219-080954_Chrome.jpg


Good luck, Gramps.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
If the Gulf Stream goes south (in both meanings), we're going to be a tad chilly & energy use for even the current population would more than double.
Gosh - that would see me spending £1,200 a year on energy, rather than £600...
I remember several decades ago a theory that if a supervolcano in Central America let go (think Yellowstone caldera), it could split the isthmus in half, allow the cold Humboldt current to divert through the Caribbean and replace the warm Gulf Stream with a cold current, leaving UK winter temperatures equivalent to Canada's West coast at 50-60° latitudes. Vancouver is at 49°N.
 
I imagine grot-sits are surprisingly cheap to heat and the newspaper you spend your day wrapped in must also help.
Nope. Nice small sandstone terrace, with neighbours who like tropical temperatures - the dividing walls act like huge storage heaters, so despite being set at 20°C my heating rarely kicks in unless it's Baltic out.

How do you manage the cold nights; set fire to your cardboard nest, or slip into something warm, like a wheelie bin? :razz:
 
Entirely agree, but sections of fundamentalist religions are actively campaigning to overcome this and I'm not convinced we've got there yet. See graph below, no area is actually falling, only three of the seven areas are trending towards control and one of those is moving very slightly from a very high starting rate.
View attachment 378515
I get the interval differences between continental groupings, but like Hans Roswell, I think it’s more important to allow things to develop at their own pace, rather than trying to force change.
Globally the religious entities are gaining more exposure to western education and maternal health along with prophylaxis. I live in a part of Indonesia where all the branded minimarts have a colourful choice of condoms. Not so in hard line parts of the country, but they, and the catholic strongholds are getting there.
Accept that this issue won’t go away over night, but the problems are being addressed, just not as quickly as we might like.
I happen to think that Africa is likely to be the last stronghold of large families.
 
...Africa is likely to be the last stronghold of large families.
Not least because an educated populace tend to ask awkward questions, so it's in the interest of the despot du jour to keep them in the dark, dependant on patronage and compliant.
 
Not least because an educated populace tend to ask awkward questions, so it's in the interest of the despot du jour to keep them in the dark, dependant on patronage and compliant.
I agree. The Indian sub continent accepted greater education opportunities more willingly than many African nations will. NGOs (and missionaries got their work cut out there.
In the meantime they’ll just have to make do with despots and genocide. :frustrated::frustrated::frustrated:
 
You seem to have missed the last 15 years. The polar ice is melting, glaciers are retreating. It's a volume of frozen water that is turning into liquid water and will top up the sea level; it's not difficult to estimate how much the sea levels will go up. If anything, it seems the estimators of these things have underestimated the rate at which the polar ice is melting.

Besides that, the normal weather patterns are being disrupted. An error of a century or two is to be expected in such estimates, there is no empirical data on ******* up a planet that they can work from.
Polar ice is sea ice. Therefore it won't increase sea levels. Sea levels have been rising at the same rate for approximately 8,000 years. If Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming were true then we would observe an increase in the rate of sea level rise. We don't:



Ergo there's no threat. Sea level has been rising at an average of 1.3mm per year. To rise 1m would take 770 years at the current rate.

Normal weather patterns are not being disrupted. This is nonsense spouted by the media and loony greens. The planet has warmed a little bit since the the last period of cooling around 1850 which was part of the Little Ice Age. It's disingenuous to take that temperature as a normal global average and then decide that a large part of the subsequent natural warming is down to human beings and what's more say that this warming will be catastrophic. There hasn't been an increase in catastrophic weather events due to warming. For example US hurricane frequency and energy have been static since 1851 and 1970 for the Atlantic and Pacific respectively:

Hurricanes and Tropical Storms - Annual 2018 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Mankind has survived far warmer periods. In fact we've flourished when the earth has been warm. The Vikings were farming parts of Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period:


Greenland settlement starts at 3 and ends at 8.

History of Greenland - Wikipedia

It's cold that kills, but we've survived really bad periods of cold too. The Black Death killed 60% of Europeans in the middle of the 14th century and it took 200 years to recover to the pre-plague population figure. It's going to take a little more than a couple of degrees extra warming to have any impact on human survival.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
So you're suggesting rampant homosexuality and cannibalism is the answer?

Or am I reading too much into the book's cover illustration?
It's a post-nuclear apocalypse novel from the 1960s....Northern Hemisphere is uninhabitable, clouds of radiation drifting south to where crew of a nuclear boat have popped up after unleashing hell, for some Miller Time.....get with the beat Daddio

( kids these days...what do they teach at Uni?....I blame that there Interweb...pass my duffle coat, I hear there's a march to Aldermaston.... )
\\
(I:-}}
//
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
It's a post-nuclear apocalypse novel from the 1960s....Northern Hemisphere is uninhabitable, clouds of radiation drifting south to where crew of a nuclear boat have popped up after unleashing hell, for some Miller Time.....get with the beat Daddio

( kids these days...what do they teach at Uni?....I blame that there Interweb...pass my duffle coat, I hear there's a march to Aldermaston.... )
\\
(I:-}}
//
The original movie was really good.
 
Polar ice is sea ice. Therefore it won't increase sea levels.
The North pole is sea ice. The South Pole is ice piled upon the underlying land mass, Antarctica, to an average depth of 2.2 km, with adjacent attached sea ice. There's also formerly permanently frozen ice in Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Iceland, etc., in glaciers etc.. The world is getting warmer, the mass of non-seasonal ice is reducing.

If you seriously believe that environmental changes pose no threat, you are seriously misinformed. I suspect the more imminent threat (I'm not an expert) might be posed by traditional farming methods becoming unprofitable, something similar to the depression-era drought and dust bowl that affected the US mid-west. People will migrate to survive.
 
The North pole is sea ice. The South Pole is ice piled upon the underlying land mass, Antarctica, to an average depth of 2.2 km, with adjacent attached sea ice. There's also formerly permanently frozen ice in Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Iceland, etc., in glaciers etc.. The world is getting warmer, the mass of non-seasonal ice is reducing.

If you seriously believe that environmental changes pose no threat, you are seriously misinformed. I suspect the more imminent threat (I'm not an expert) might be posed by traditional farming methods becoming unprofitable, something similar to the depression-era drought and dust bowl that affected the US mid-west. People will migrate to survive.
The loss of ice cover, be it seawater or fresh, also creates a feedback loop. The white surface disappears, and no longer reflects the sun, accelerating loss of greater areas of ice coverage.
The same principle accelerates loss of glaciers.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top