The Decline and Fall of the EU

[doc_bean]

Demographic. Economic wouldn't be such a big issue.

Then please elaborate why demographic stagnation would be such a disaster.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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 ?

Some 280 million, like it says.

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.

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 .

Dunno, but numbered in millions, not tens of millions.

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.

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?

Well the Algerians certainly didn't seem to think so.

[Husar]

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.

Have you ever heard about a country right next to Pakistan called India?
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?

[A.Saturnus]

Then please elaborate why demographic stagnation would be such a disaster.

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.

[doc_bean]

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.

The laws of thermodynamics ???????? They just say that all energy will eventually be heat to me...

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...

[Papewaio]

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.

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?

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.

[doc_bean]

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 !

[Husar]

The solution:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/