doom and gloom as reported in the Sun with big pages and no tits (Times of London):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0267_1,00.html
Printable View
doom and gloom as reported in the Sun with big pages and no tits (Times of London):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0267_1,00.html
That certainly is the Worst Case Scenario.
Measures could easily be put in place to prevent such things. Sure, we now have low cost flights, but if such a problem arose they could be curtailed.
Every time immigrants come to another country it is the end of the world. Be it the French, the Dutch, the Jews, the Carribeans or whatever. All were somehow going to destroy the UK.
Barbaray pirates? A few small ships is not going to bring Europe to its knees. The Yacht sailing minority I am less concerned about. Perhaps they could pleasure cruise elsewhere?
Worst case scenario for those that think Africa is about to destroy the enirety of Europe:
Flights are reduced, ticket prices are increased and people are checked thoroughly, and deported very quickly (next plane).
Police the north coast of Africa to a depth of a mile or so. No more boats!
Come on! We're Anglo-Saxons! Historially from Saxony or supposed to be. Britain has always been a "mongrel race". Sure, we might the country might be altered by immigrants, but isn't that always the way the world changes?
~:smoking:
That Rear Admiral is clearly wearing his head up his military rank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
Boy, am I weary of all the implausible doom scenarios we hear; British and American commentators predicting the demise of the EU, continental Europeans revelling in unreal visions of the downfall of the United States. These days, when I spot the words 'Roman Empire' in an article on the U.S. or EU, I stop reading.
:skull:
To be fair, its his job to think up the worst case scenarios. As reported by the Times, nothing in what he was saying seemed at all impossible, indeed it all seems fairly reasonable. Its not his job to predict the most likely future, its his job to try to prepare for the worst possible one.Quote:
Parry, head of the development, concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, is charged with identifying the greatest challenges that will frame national security policy in the future
Indeed, in some respects the situation is worse than he seems to be suggesting. The article posits a large gender imbalance in thrid world countries as a destablising factor, but the age imbalance that we already know will unquestionably happen is likely to be just as destabalising without the need to imagine any one family-one child policies.
Average age in the UK today: 39.3, 17.5% under 15
Average age in Italy today, 42.2, 13.8% under 15
Average age in Iran today: 24.8, 26% under 15
And so on. Go...figure...
Average age in the UK today: 39.3, 17.5% under 15
Average age in Italy today, 42.2, 13.8% under 15
Average age in Iran today: 24.8, 26% under 15
And so on. Go...figure...
Go figure???? Iran had a bloody big war where human waves were sent off with the keys to heaven , that does tend to have a bit of an impact on certain age groups .
My bad.
Average age in Pakistan today: 19.8, 39% under 15
Average age in Morrocco today: 23.9 31.6% under 15
Average age in Turkmenistan today: 21.8, 35.2% under 15
I could go on...
Don´t many of these countries have a comparatively low life-expectancy anyway?
What does the average age tell us? I already knew we Europeans have too few children, but I am not sure whether that will be our destruction. We could just stop immigration anyway and throw any troublemakers out, some people shouldn´t be here anymore anyway, and while we´re at it, do not forget about Nazis and the likes, we have no use for them either.:juggle2:
I maintain that the greatest challenge to any national security is the end-of-growth event that will inevitably come some day in the future. But no one wants to hear about it.Quote:
Parry, head of the development, concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, is charged with identifying the greatest challenges that will frame national security policy in the future
The same was in the Telegraph, its not impossible but it is a worst case. More dicerning, less paper bashing.
Depends how close to Sci Fi books we end up.
It is possible that structures could continue to rise and population density continues to increase. Perhaps those at the bottom might end up utterly disenfranchised and form a subclass away from the rest. Then there is outer space. 500 years ago mobile phones would have been inconceivable. Now being without is bieng viewed the same way.
If we are stuck on this planet there will have to be a strange world for the economy to continue. Perhaps more on restoration buildings and the ecosystem. Who knows?
~:smoking:
Life expectancy is not the issue: these are the population profiles TODAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I think those demographic figures are very interesting. As for what they tell you, that depends in part on what you ask them.
For me, for example, the fact that the average age in Pakistan is under 20, and 40% of the WHOLE COUNTRY is under 15, tells me something about a cause of radical Islam in that country: teenage boys. Teenage boys like causes and death. Teenage boys start behaving better once they have a girl, but only if the girl has choices and some power, so she can force him to stop behaving like a [bottom] or she will leave.
Therefore defeating radical islam in Pakistan means giving boys jobs and girls rights.
And so on.
Incidentally, not that it may matter much, (although it may matter a lot), but exactly HOW will we stop immigration to Europe, when our average age is in the 40s and the surrounding nations is in the low 20s? short of recruiting some of the surrounding people and paying them to keep the rest out, physically how would you keep people out? You can't. Even the USA can't and they are in a far better position geographically. Another reason to work to make our neighbours better disposed to us.
Just to forestall the inevitable wiff of racism (hello, its immigration control, it necessarily discriminates on the grounds of nationality) why does this matter? Well, one for instance is that we are starting to feel our way towards consuming less and paying more in order to have a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle. Recent arrivals from poor countries are much less likely to accept that they should make those sacrifices. They will feel, accurately, that we had it good for years, and now its their turn. Their views on other issues, civil rights for instance, are likely to differ considerably from ours.
I make no apology for saying I like European culture and want to continue to live under it. That is in no way incompatible with immigration, but its incompatible with the namby pamby approach we have had to immigration so far.
What! we have a policy on immigration?
I just heard on Radio 5 that illegal immigrants are now getting tax credits from Brown, just by providing a NI number, given to them by the DWP. Even though they knew that they were here illegally.
Wait! So we do have an immigration policy. The policy is that we don't have one. :dizzy2:
Of course it is, if the average life expectancy is 30, how can you expect the average age to be 45?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
That sounds nice, but you have to defeat radical Islam first in order to give girls rights, otherwise you could end up in exile.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
And giving boys jobs means to establish some kind of industry and education and that means establishing something similar to what these people hate so much.
It´s always easy to say that this and that needs to be changed, but keep in mind, that to change that, you may need a lot of force to keep the haters down and maybe fight a civil war, because the people won´t just go and say: "Oh, nice, a job, screw Islam, I´ll be a capitalist now...":oops:
economic or demographic ?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Point, but missing my point, which is it doesn't matter WHY the average age is 19, all that matters is you have a country with 120 million or so people and the average age IS 19. Which has to be very relevant to how that country will behave. Incidentally life expectancy in Pakistan is low 60s, which is low, but not totally stupid. For a country where excess mortality really is skewing the figures you have to go to the extreme of sub-saharan Africa and the AIDS epidemic (look up Tanzania for instance, its terrible)Quote:
Of course it is, if the average life expectancy is 30, how can you expect the average age to be 45?
That is exactly what they will say, but your point that its not easy to get there and there is an element of chicken and egg is also right.Quote:
the people won´t just go and say: "Oh, nice, a job, screw Islam, I´ll be a capitalist now
End of growth of what? Population or economy? The latter has already happened in some countries. On the former, I am not sure I would write off economic growth just yet. Taking a long view, it has already really just started (industrial revolution & after). Taking a short view, the recent good fortunes of China and India suggest the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
EDIT #1: Just noticed Doc_Bean beat me to my question. :bow:
EDIT #2: Just read the article. What a load of expletive deleted. UK immigrants are going to form a fifth column for a foreign power (which one exactly? the immigrants are incredibly divided in terms of nationality). Africans are going to start raiding the med? (I wish the continent were in a position to be as strong military relative to Europe as the Goths were to Rome). Yes, there may well be homegrown terrorism (July 7th anyone?) and possibly even Mediterranean piracy (already happens of West Africa). But to say this is going to lead to a "fall of Rome" kind of event is just too stupid.
from http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...ook/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
CBR
Another interesting demographic factor:
1950:
Soviet Union: 280 million inhabitants
Pakistan: 35 million
2000:
Russia: 150 million
Pakistan 150 million
2050 estimate:
Russia: 130 million
Pakistan 300 million
It appears that within decades, demography will have completely altered the power balance between Pakistan and Russia.
In 1950, it would've been inconcievable, a science-fiction scenario, that Pakistan could challenge the Soviet Union in the foresable future. Yet, this is exactly what has happened over the span of just a century.
It is not at all inconcievable that the demographic disparity between Europe and it's neighbours will have the far-reaching consequences that some people say it will have...
One more:
1950:
Algeria: 10 million, of which 10% French
France: 50 million, 1% Algerian
2000:
Algeria: 35 milion, 0% French
France: 60 million, 6% Algerian
2050 estimate:
Algeria: 70 million, 0% French
France: 70 million, 10% Algerian
I think you guys have proved the point, also, 10% tacit support is what you need for sustainable terrorism, which is why we have only had one attack in the UK by Muslims but the Civil War in Ireland went on, off, on again for 80 years.
Just one thought...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
~:smoking:
Demographic. Economic wouldn't be such a big issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Then please elaborate why demographic stagnation would be such a disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Another interesting demographic factor:
1950:
Soviet Union: 280 million inhabitants
Pakistan: 35 million
2000:
Russia: 150 million
Pakistan 150 million
Interesting , but what is the population of all of the states that were part of the soviet Union in 1950 ?
And since this is partly about immigaration , how many of those former soviet citizens have emigrated to Europe/America/Australia or Israel since the end of the Union .
edit to add , Louis...
One more:
1950:
Algeria: 10 million, of which 10% French
France: 50 million, 1% Algerian
shoudn't that be Algeria :10 million and they are all French
France :50 million , whats an Algerian ?
Some 280 million, like it says. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
To be fair, the big drop in population is of course owing to what you hint at: the break-up of the Soviet Union. I don't have exact figures ready, but on top of my head the population of Russia proper has been stable at about 150 million for most of the period.
Dunno, but numbered in millions, not tens of millions.Quote:
And since this is partly about immigaration , how many of those former soviet citizens have emigrated to Europe/America/Australia or Israel since the end of the Union .
The main point is, that in 1945, Pakistan was a backward province of an English colony. Russia / the SU a victorious world power. Central Asia was controlled by Moscow, the unchallenged, nuclear armed, undisputed champion and economic power horse of central Eurasia.
Is it at all unlikely that in 2050 Central Asia will look to Islamabad (what's in a name?) as the undisputed leader of the region? That Pakistan will be the unchallenged, nuclear armed economic power horse of the region?
No, I don't think so.
We can all have a good laugh at generals who describe the contemporary world in terms of Goths, Romans and collapsing Empires. But history has shown that these things do happen. They are happening.
Well the Algerians certainly didn't seem to think so. ~;)Quote:
edit to add , Louis...
Algeria: 10 million, of which 10% French
France: 50 million, 1% Algerian
shoudn't that be Algeria :10 million and they are all French?
It isn't. Quite the contrary. At the moment we have exponential growth of population. The laws of thermodynamics require that the rise has to stop and population reach a (meta-)stable level. The concern is how this happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Have you ever heard about a country right next to Pakistan called India?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If you weigh power by the amount of population, why don´t you see India as the main power in that region?
Do you think Pakistan can have as many people as India?
Do you know that India´s population is still growing faster than that of China?
Surely the end of population growth would be a glorious day for the world providing it could still grow economically (which it would) and would bring about an end to misery. Malthus' prediction of ever decreasing living standards due to populations growing larger than the economy could sustain (law of diminishing returns) would become redundant and his desire to stop the population growing would have come to fruition.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The end of economic growth would be a disaster, especially if coupled with population growth for the exact reason Malthus proposed: less things to go around more people. Look at what happenned in the 30s...
The laws of thermodynamics ???????? They just say that all energy will eventually be heat to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
It seems likely that such a level will be reached, based on extrapolation of data of current western countries. Or simply because we will run out of food. But please don't make in this into pseudo-science...
Are we using the actual 3 laws of thermodynamics or the couple of non-physics ones tacked on the end like a couple of groupies desperate for some reflected glory?Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The laws of thermodynamics (not the proposed core ones like maximum power theorem) obviously would lead to a point where there isn't enough energy to sustain life.
As it stands humans are the most common large mammal with over 6000,000,000 of us, while the next most common large mammal the crabeater seal numbers 15,000,000 to 40,000,000 ... a ratio of about 200:1 of humans to the next most common large mammal.
Obviously there is a lot of us. The question is how many more of us can there be and have a nice level of life that is sustainable and that will allow others to coexist at similar levels.
Soylent Green will solve all !Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The solution:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Turning all energie in the universe into humans would reduce enthropy.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Since the universe is finite, an infinite growth is obviously impossible. More relevant of course are the limits of growth here on earth. The ecosystem will at some point cease to support the amount of human life. It is however naive to think that reaching the maximum will necessarily be a unexciting event. Imagine the following example: more and more people enter a boat. At some point the weight of the people will become to much for the boat.
There are two ways that can end:
- enough people get off the boat again
- the boat sinks
Which is more likely to happen?
What always happens, people kill eachother and the survivers carry on. Do the evolution !Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
It's very unlikely that we will make earth completely inhabitable without a major nuclear war or such event, there will always be places were humans can live, and the population will adjust itself to the circumstances. If we have more people than we can support the 'boat' will unlikely sink, we'll just fight a few wars until we've reached an acceptable level of population again.
Of course, it doesn't have to be that grim, it might be that the growth stops on its own, it has in the west anyway. I always find the overpopulation panic way overhyped. Africa's agricultural sector suffers because the EU exports to there, the EU and the US have strict trade limits when it comes to agricultural products to protect their own markets. There is enough food available for *a lot* more people. Unless global warming suddenly destroys a big percentage of useable soil, but like one of my professors once said "they can't predict the weather a day in advance, you expect me to believe what they predict for over 50 years ?"
Besides, even if overpopulation is a problem, it's mostly an Asian-African one, no need for us to really worry about it, except for protecting and maintaining our agricultural potential. (Or do you want to interfere in the countries that have a population problem ?)
I suppose this is the sort of stuff that inspires Parry:
The usual stuff. Imams preaching hatred and terror in western mosques, established immigrants and fresh recruits plotting chemical attacks, instable Islamic regimes at the root of it all.Quote:
PARIS, France (AP) -- A court on Wednesday convicted 25 people for their roles in preparing an attack in France in support of Islamic fighters in Chechnya.
All but one defendant had been accused of helping Islamic fighters in Chechnya in what prosecutors said underscored the "globalization of the jihad movement."
The network was dismantled in two waves, the first in December 2002 as investigators stormed two houses in the Paris suburb of La Courneuve and the nearby town of Romainville. They found gas canisters, fuses, chemicals and a suit to protect against chemical attacks.
Prosecutor Anne Kostomaroff, profiling the network, put the origins of the group in Chlef, Algeria, in 1999, where eight members had refused an Algerian government amnesty plan for Islamic insurgents in the North African country. Various members then traveled to Spain, France, Italy and the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, while a core group formed in the Paris region in late 2000 to create a support ring for Islamic militants in the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya.
However, the Benchellali family has long been established in Lyon. Imam Benchellali is known to have occasionally used his makeshift mosque on the ground floor of a high-rise building to collect funds for Islamic fighters in Chechnya.
French terror plot
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Actually, it's easier to predict what will happen over 50 years than over a few days. The weather of tomorrow is bound to random variance, but over 50 years, the variance is equaled out.
Yes, you're right. We won't make earth completely inhabitable. The only way the human race wipes itself out is via WMDs (and even that wouldn't be easy). But I didn't mean to say it's the end of the world. You say we will fight "a few wars", but no war ever killed a significant percentage of the earth's population. Even all wars rolled into one probably won't compare to this event. Whether it will be an epic war, a shortage of food or a shift in the ecosystem (or all together), if we don't stop the exponantial growth of population, it will stop by itself, in a crash. You're of course right that it will hit Africa and Asia more than us but
1)that doesn't make it ok
2)it may be bad enough for us
My point is that it doesn't matter how many food resources we have. The amount only determines when it happens, not whether.
The West has had a population explosion, and we are now static / falling. With enough time this may happen in other areas of the world as well. Then the amount of food is important, as whether the upper limit can be buffered or not. If it can there is a chance that things could rise, level out then gradually fall. If there is not enough food then things will be far more... unpleasant.
~:smoking:
I know, I just love the quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Regardless, i don't see how we can stop it then.Quote:
Yes, you're right. We won't make earth completely inhabitable. The only way the human race wipes itself out is via WMDs (and even that wouldn't be easy). But I didn't mean to say it's the end of the world. You say we will fight "a few wars", but no war ever killed a significant percentage of the earth's population. Even all wars rolled into one probably won't compare to this event. Whether it will be an epic war, a shortage of food or a shift in the ecosystem (or all together), if we don't stop the exponantial growth of population, it will stop by itself, in a crash. You're of course right that it will hit Africa and Asia more than us but
1)that doesn't make it ok
2)it may be bad enough for us
That it will happen seems reasonable considering biology (breed ! breed !). But when is important, if population growth in asia slows down (which seems likely) it's a long way off. According to a lot of people (economists and such) a stable, high level of population of about 10 billion can and will be achieved, and maintained for a long time (unless we bring in the WMDs, or a comet hits, or something like that).Quote:
My point is that it doesn't matter how many food resources we have. The amount only determines when it happens, not whether.
The situations of Europe back then and Africa/Asia now are difficult to compare. Besides, I don't think the growth in Europe was ever as steep as it is now in some parts of Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Food is an important factor in the equation, but not the only one. If we had unlimited food - we still might get a crash.
China has employed severe measures to reduce growth, with limited effect. And I don't think a population of 10 billions will become stable all by itself. We have now 6 billion, and it's far from stable. Why should it suddenly become stable?Quote:
That it will happen seems reasonable considering biology (breed ! breed !). But when is important, if population growth in asia slows down (which seems likely) it's a long way off. According to a lot of people (economists and such) a stable, high level of population of about 10 billion can and will be achieved, and maintained for a long time (unless we bring in the WMDs, or a comet hits, or something like that).
You can see the ecosystem as a dynamic system. The current socio-cultural situation in many parts of the world generates a high amplification. Food shortage, wars, disease and other constraints make a damping factor of the system. A stable maximum or slow turning is achieved if the damping factor is large enough relative to the amplification. If not, it happens as I said, the growth will rapidly hit a maximum and then become hugely negative.
There are two options: increase the damping factor or reduce the amplification. Reducing the amplification would mean to change the socio-cultural structure of many societies. At the moment, means of population control are the best help the West could offer the third world. Somehow we have to bring them to use it.Quote:
Regardless, i don't see how we can stop it then.
There are more Irish Americans than there are Irish. There are more Hispanics than Spanish. People adapt to their environment, if there are a lot of excess resources available than people breed like rabbits, if there aren't, growth usually slows down until a stable popualtion is reached. humans aren't all that different from other animals, we consume resources as much as we can in order to reproduce. If resources are limited than usually less offspring are produced but given relatively plenty of resources so they have a good chance of surviving and prodcuing offspring of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
(Note: spawning lots of offspring with little chance of survival also seems liek a human reproduction tactic, but for the most part only used in unusual circumstances, mostly when not enough resources are available to even raise one child to relative wealth/status, see Africa, and to a lesser extent, chavs)
That would also mean a change of socio-cultural structure. face it, Africa is pretty much a lost cause these days. :shame:Quote:
There are two options: increase the damping factor or reduce the amplification. Reducing the amplification would mean to change the socio-cultural structure of many societies. At the moment, means of population control are the best help the West could offer the third world. Somehow we have to bring them to use it.
So, in many places in Africa employing a long term view would be best. As such I feel that a "clean sheet" approach would be the most workable, as clearly the stopgap measures we are currently using suffer from corruption sapping the money whereas the problems get worse by the year.
And after the land has recovered in a few hundred years time, new people can be let into the areas that have been "swept and cleaned". :skull:
No omlette was made without the odd egg being broken.
~:smoking:
Or, you know, we could:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
-severely limit arms trading
-allow African nations some protectionism (especially when considering agricultural products)
-stop giving corrupt governments so much money
-support organization which actually try to help the people
-stop the anti-condom propaganda
-stop exploitation of their natural resources by western companies (blood diamonds anyone)
-give proper information about aids
etc.
There are a lot of things that could be done to make Africa a better place, I'm just saying you can't expect any miracles to happen, it won't be changed easily, and certainly not quickly.
Arms trading - limit how? E.g. China wants to sell arms. How do we stop them?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Protectionism - why just Africa? Many other countries could benefit.
Corrupt governments and money - good theory, but in practice doesn't this just hurt those at the bottom?
Exploitation of natural resources - that's how India and China are doing so well. And Brazil, and many others. How do these countries use their own resources when we say they're bieng exploited?
AIDS / condom propaganda - useful of course.
As usual lovely ideals, but as I said they just simply won't work as things are. The West plays nice, then China, Russia and possibly India take up the slack with glee. Like the Slave Trade, there are groups that want guns. They will get them one way or the other. They get things to trade for the weapons. Africa tends to be very macho. The biggest get to the top. How can we suddenly tell them otherwise? We go in and fight the lot of them? Hardly useful.
~:smoking:
Indeed, that's why I'm saying Africa is pretty much a hopeless cause right now, the few things that can be done to make things better aren't likely to actually be done, since it's not in the current bast interest of the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Hence why removing humans in the long term give the possibility of a successful Africa.
Sometimes there is not a road to recovery that includes humans. Without the constant drain there is a chance.
~:smoking:
To facilitate further debate on whether populations of humans can regulate themselves effectively, there is the cautionary tale of Rapa Nui. There are many sources, but this is quite accessible:
The Catastrophe of Rapa Nui.
The thought provoking question at the end is one that has often occupied my mind when I first read about this disaster:
What was in the mind of the man who cut down the very last tree?
Probably something like: "Oh well, we're screwed anyways...least those damned flatheads didn't get it!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Yeah, it wasnt the LAST tree that really mattered that much, it was a non renewable resource because the rats prevented anything from growing... AT that stage they were so screwed anyway that they probably simply needed the tree to cook food. Very interesting story. I had heard it before, but that went into a lot of detail. Kind of scary though.
O, you were being serious...:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I agree, a further 300 years of starvation, anarchy and death is a much better way to go... :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Steep population peaks are common to many species. Yes, the species as a whole will adapt. Many many individuals will not have the time or chance for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Excess breeding is usually used by animals that have low control over their environment.Quote:
(Note: spawning lots of offspring with little chance of survival also seems liek a human reproduction tactic, but for the most part only used in unusual circumstances, mostly when not enough resources are available to even raise one child to relative wealth/status, see Africa, and to a lesser extent, chavs)