| 8 billion 10:23 - Nov 15 with 1852 views | britferry |
the number of humans, the best thing that could happen to the planet would be some kind of virus that kills 99% of humans.
We are far too successful as the dominant animal and have destroyed the place. |  |
| |  |
| 8 billion on 10:25 - Nov 15 with 1408 views | onehunglow |
Big subject .
Still,no football to worry about and worth a discussion | |
| |
| 8 billion on 10:33 - Nov 15 with 1393 views | Whiterockin |
It nearly happened but we outsmarted it. |  | | |
| 8 billion on 10:37 - Nov 15 with 1381 views | onehunglow |
What we need is a second coming { the Revelations one] | |
| |
| 8 billion on 11:56 - Nov 15 with 1352 views | A_Fans_Dad |
I am sorry that you are so depressed, can I suggest that you see a doctor or psychiatrist.
Anyone who wishes himself, his loved ones and his family, along with the other 99% of humanity dead needs serious help. | | | |
| 8 billion on 12:01 - Nov 15 with 1340 views | mart66 |
The bigger threat to humanity is a decrease in population rather than an increase.
Common misconception. |  |
| Official Intellectual Property of Dr P.
Registered Trademark. |
| |
| 8 billion on 12:48 - Nov 15 with 1328 views | Gwyn737 |
It's a pretty complex thing IMO.
Population increase can be problematic, especially when the spread of density is uneven - atm we've got the developing world with a much greater birthrate than the developed world which brings obvious issues.
However population decrease brings all the issues asscosiated with an aging population which we're seeing in microcosm in the UK today. | | | |
| 8 billion on 13:06 - Nov 15 with 1320 views | Kilkennyjack |
You are Stanley Johnson - and i claim my £5.
|  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 8 billion on 13:57 - Nov 15 with 1298 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 12:48 - Nov 15 by Gwyn737 |
It's a pretty complex thing IMO.
Population increase can be problematic, especially when the spread of density is uneven - atm we've got the developing world with a much greater birthrate than the developed world which brings obvious issues.
However population decrease brings all the issues asscosiated with an aging population which we're seeing in microcosm in the UK today. |
Many, naturally think that the population increase is being driven by birth rates.
If you look at the UN graphs in this article you can see that now it is actually being driven by increased life expectancy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc
The birth rate has dropped from a peak of 5.2 per woman in the 1960s to 2.2 per woman. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 8 billion on 14:46 - Nov 15 with 1287 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 13:57 - Nov 15 by A_Fans_Dad |
Many, naturally think that the population increase is being driven by birth rates.
If you look at the UN graphs in this article you can see that now it is actually being driven by increased life expectancy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc
The birth rate has dropped from a peak of 5.2 per woman in the 1960s to 2.2 per woman. |
It's because kids are not dying of preventable disease from poor sanitation/lack of clean water and the increased use of vaccination for many diseases. Many countries have vastly improved healthcare and far fewer wine die in childbirth in places like Thailand, India and China than in the 1960s.
Malaria remains a major scourge. | | | |
| 8 billion on 14:49 - Nov 15 with 1285 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 14:46 - Nov 15 by Sandanista |
It's because kids are not dying of preventable disease from poor sanitation/lack of clean water and the increased use of vaccination for many diseases. Many countries have vastly improved healthcare and far fewer wine die in childbirth in places like Thailand, India and China than in the 1960s.
Malaria remains a major scourge. |
Should add- people have fewer children when the risk of infant and child mortality is reduced. And where options are available. | | | |
| 8 billion on 15:16 - Nov 15 with 1275 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 14:46 - Nov 15 by Sandanista |
It's because kids are not dying of preventable disease from poor sanitation/lack of clean water and the increased use of vaccination for many diseases. Many countries have vastly improved healthcare and far fewer wine die in childbirth in places like Thailand, India and China than in the 1960s.
Malaria remains a major scourge. |
Quote "Our booming global population is thanks to increasing life expectancy and decreasing mortality rate as a result of improvements in healthcare, according to the UN."
Go and argue with the UN. | | | |
| 8 billion on 15:25 - Nov 15 with 1271 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 15:16 - Nov 15 by A_Fans_Dad |
Quote "Our booming global population is thanks to increasing life expectancy and decreasing mortality rate as a result of improvements in healthcare, according to the UN."
Go and argue with the UN. |
That's what I wrote- the difference is healthcare including clean water.
The higher rates of mortality are in infants. Thankfully this has been coming down greatly. Fewer have been dying from diarrhoeal disease (from around 18 million per year in the 1980s to somewhere around 2 million now) and far fewer die of other preventable childhood infections
The chart shows average life expectancy. If you die before 5 that brings the mean value down.
It's not so much living longer (though that is the case too) its kids not dying and as a consequence families having fewer children as they don"t die.
Now go read and understand before posting figures without understanding the context. | | | |
| 8 billion on 18:15 - Nov 15 with 1232 views | britferry |
| 8 billion on 11:56 - Nov 15 by A_Fans_Dad |
I am sorry that you are so depressed, can I suggest that you see a doctor or psychiatrist.
Anyone who wishes himself, his loved ones and his family, along with the other 99% of humanity dead needs serious help. |
Its the planet that needs the help or haven't you noticed?
They designated a young girl to be the 8 billionth person, they interviewed her today, then they interviewed the 6 billionth, he was 23 !!! | |
| |
| 8 billion on 19:06 - Nov 15 with 1218 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 18:15 - Nov 15 by britferry |
Its the planet that needs the help or haven't you noticed?
They designated a young girl to be the 8 billionth person, they interviewed her today, then they interviewed the 6 billionth, he was 23 !!! |
No, not having my head filled with doomsday propaganda I haven't noticed that the world needs much help.
Other than cleaning up pollution.
The earth is not being destroyed, it has been changed to benefit man, but so what? it will be here long after we are gone. | | | |
| 8 billion on 19:12 - Nov 15 with 1213 views | KeithHaynes |
Some would say the third world is the problem as they are increasing in population five times more than the alleged first world. |  |
| |
| 8 billion on 19:19 - Nov 15 with 1209 views | britferry |
| 8 billion on 19:06 - Nov 15 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, not having my head filled with doomsday propaganda I haven't noticed that the world needs much help.
Other than cleaning up pollution.
The earth is not being destroyed, it has been changed to benefit man, but so what? it will be here long after we are gone. |
and now you are the one wishing death on everyone  | |
| |
| 8 billion on 10:35 - Nov 16 with 1156 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 19:19 - Nov 15 by britferry |
and now you are the one wishing death on everyone |
Really?
The earth will be around for about 4 billion years, until the Sun expands.
How long do you think Humans as they are now can survive?
Will they even still be earthbound? | | | |
| 8 billion on 11:40 - Nov 16 with 1128 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 19:12 - Nov 15 by KeithHaynes |
Some would say the third world is the problem as they are increasing in population five times more than the alleged first world. |
UK population trebled in the 19th century from around 10 to 30 million. It's largely due to urbanisation and industrialisation. Same thing happening in developing countries where urban populations are the main change. They are just behind us in terms of when this happens. Some enormous cities in Africa now- Lagos, Nairobi, Addis Ababa all grown rapidly over last decade. | | | |
| 8 billion on 11:42 - Nov 16 with 1125 views | britferry |
| 8 billion on 19:06 - Nov 15 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, not having my head filled with doomsday propaganda I haven't noticed that the world needs much help.
Other than cleaning up pollution.
The earth is not being destroyed, it has been changed to benefit man, but so what? it will be here long after we are gone. |
"The earth is not being destroyed, it has been changed to benefit man" so chopping down rain forests to make farms is ok then? | |
| |
| 8 billion on 12:11 - Nov 16 with 1119 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 11:42 - Nov 16 by britferry |
"The earth is not being destroyed, it has been changed to benefit man" so chopping down rain forests to make farms is ok then? |
That's an interesting question. Food Security and water security are a major issue for an increasing population. On that basis you may think freeing up land for food production may be a good idea. However, the balance between deforestation (for cheap beef and feed for the beef) and climate change causing problems for both crop and animal production is an issue. On balance, it's nota good idea and we should use marginal land (like most of Wales) to produce ruminants for meat where they eat grass and have higher welfare. This can be achieved commercially or via pastoralist producers in developing countries. Land use to grow animal feed, especially soya and maize, as well as the cattle themselves is a big issue. It should be clear that we should eat less, but higher quality red meat and make up more protein from vegetable sources and mono gastric livestock, which can be grown more sustainable ways. So yes to welsh lamb and no to Brazilian beef.
Unfortunately the correspondent is a climate change denier, which also seems to sit with other anti-science beliefs. | | | |
| 8 billion on 12:25 - Nov 16 with 1112 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 15:25 - Nov 15 by Sandanista |
That's what I wrote- the difference is healthcare including clean water.
The higher rates of mortality are in infants. Thankfully this has been coming down greatly. Fewer have been dying from diarrhoeal disease (from around 18 million per year in the 1980s to somewhere around 2 million now) and far fewer die of other preventable childhood infections
The chart shows average life expectancy. If you die before 5 that brings the mean value down.
It's not so much living longer (though that is the case too) its kids not dying and as a consequence families having fewer children as they don"t die.
Now go read and understand before posting figures without understanding the context. |
You have mentioned since the 1960s and since the 1980s, the UN is talking about now.
Quote "It's not so much living longer (though that is the case too) its kids not dying"
Do you know what an "age structured chart" looks like?
It displays the population in age groups as a percentage of the whole.
Therefore if you were correct we would expect to see a greater increase in the percentage of children over the increase in over 65s thereby increasing the overall life expectancy more than old people.
Well we don't, so you are wrong and the UN are correct.
In the countries you have mentioned the percentage of under 15s has mostly gone down, not up.
Since 2011.
In Thailand the under 15s have reduced from 18.99% down to 16.3% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 9.19% to 13.54%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In India the under 15s have reduced from 30.4% down to 25.78% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 5.17% to 6.78%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In China the under 15s have increased from 16.5% up to 17.5% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 9.1% to 14.2%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In Africa the most highly populated countries Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Tanzania & South Africa all show the same pattern of greater increases in the percentage Over 65s to under 15s.
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
Can't find the congo.
So it would appear that the second part of your sentence "and as a consequence families having fewer children as they don"t die." is correct.
As we have seen throughout history as conditions improve birth rates go down thus cancelling out the increase due to infant lives saved, while the life expectancy increases. | | | |
| 8 billion on 13:15 - Nov 16 with 1103 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 12:25 - Nov 16 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have mentioned since the 1960s and since the 1980s, the UN is talking about now.
Quote "It's not so much living longer (though that is the case too) its kids not dying"
Do you know what an "age structured chart" looks like?
It displays the population in age groups as a percentage of the whole.
Therefore if you were correct we would expect to see a greater increase in the percentage of children over the increase in over 65s thereby increasing the overall life expectancy more than old people.
Well we don't, so you are wrong and the UN are correct.
In the countries you have mentioned the percentage of under 15s has mostly gone down, not up.
Since 2011.
In Thailand the under 15s have reduced from 18.99% down to 16.3% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 9.19% to 13.54%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In India the under 15s have reduced from 30.4% down to 25.78% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 5.17% to 6.78%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In China the under 15s have increased from 16.5% up to 17.5% while at the same time over 65s have increased from 9.1% to 14.2%
https://www.statista.com/stati
In Africa the most highly populated countries Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Tanzania & South Africa all show the same pattern of greater increases in the percentage Over 65s to under 15s.
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
https://www.statista.com/stati
Can't find the congo.
So it would appear that the second part of your sentence "and as a consequence families having fewer children as they don"t die." is correct.
As we have seen throughout history as conditions improve birth rates go down thus cancelling out the increase due to infant lives saved, while the life expectancy increases. |
This is just statistical twaddle and completely meaningless and without any context-you are now trying to compare middle-income and lower-income countries as being the same. I will maintain, because you have admitted it, the biggest change is kids are not dying. Fewer are born, so you will see change there. People are living longer, especially in China and Thailand-examples you use, which are a lot more developed than Ethiopia for example.
So the biggest change is reducing infant and child mortality, which means fewer births as people don't have 6, 7, 8 or 9 children on the chance they will die. This is by far the biggest change.
Health improvement, including public health provision -water, vaccination and easier access to treatments increase lifespan. As such the percentage of under 18 s is fewer-see we can agree that.
It would help if you understood a bit better and used stats less. I doubt you have been to any of the places or seen how they change. You have essentially proved my point because you don't understand context. | | | |
| 8 billion on 13:31 - Nov 16 with 1094 views | Sandanista |
| 8 billion on 13:15 - Nov 16 by Sandanista |
This is just statistical twaddle and completely meaningless and without any context-you are now trying to compare middle-income and lower-income countries as being the same. I will maintain, because you have admitted it, the biggest change is kids are not dying. Fewer are born, so you will see change there. People are living longer, especially in China and Thailand-examples you use, which are a lot more developed than Ethiopia for example.
So the biggest change is reducing infant and child mortality, which means fewer births as people don't have 6, 7, 8 or 9 children on the chance they will die. This is by far the biggest change.
Health improvement, including public health provision -water, vaccination and easier access to treatments increase lifespan. As such the percentage of under 18 s is fewer-see we can agree that.
It would help if you understood a bit better and used stats less. I doubt you have been to any of the places or seen how they change. You have essentially proved my point because you don't understand context. |
And the other point, that's never clear from numbers alone, is risk. Basically if you get to 10 then the chances of anyone, in any country of dying from infection is low until past 40 to 50. So surviving beyond 10 gives you a good chance to get old unless you are killed by trauma or childbirth. Until your diet changes and metabolic and chronic disease take over. | | | |
| 8 billion on 13:58 - Nov 16 with 1088 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 13:15 - Nov 16 by Sandanista |
This is just statistical twaddle and completely meaningless and without any context-you are now trying to compare middle-income and lower-income countries as being the same. I will maintain, because you have admitted it, the biggest change is kids are not dying. Fewer are born, so you will see change there. People are living longer, especially in China and Thailand-examples you use, which are a lot more developed than Ethiopia for example.
So the biggest change is reducing infant and child mortality, which means fewer births as people don't have 6, 7, 8 or 9 children on the chance they will die. This is by far the biggest change.
Health improvement, including public health provision -water, vaccination and easier access to treatments increase lifespan. As such the percentage of under 18 s is fewer-see we can agree that.
It would help if you understood a bit better and used stats less. I doubt you have been to any of the places or seen how they change. You have essentially proved my point because you don't understand context. |
The UN numbers show you are wrong.
The statistics for the very countries you named show you are wrong But you can't admit that you are wrong.
No change there then.
Did you really just write " which means fewer births as people don't have 6, 7, 8 or 9 children on the chance they will die. " as the reason for an increase in Population?
You couldn't make it up, but you just did.  [Post edited 19 Nov 2022 15:17]
| | | |
| 8 billion on 14:09 - Nov 16 with 1083 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 8 billion on 12:11 - Nov 16 by Sandanista |
That's an interesting question. Food Security and water security are a major issue for an increasing population. On that basis you may think freeing up land for food production may be a good idea. However, the balance between deforestation (for cheap beef and feed for the beef) and climate change causing problems for both crop and animal production is an issue. On balance, it's nota good idea and we should use marginal land (like most of Wales) to produce ruminants for meat where they eat grass and have higher welfare. This can be achieved commercially or via pastoralist producers in developing countries. Land use to grow animal feed, especially soya and maize, as well as the cattle themselves is a big issue. It should be clear that we should eat less, but higher quality red meat and make up more protein from vegetable sources and mono gastric livestock, which can be grown more sustainable ways. So yes to welsh lamb and no to Brazilian beef.
Unfortunately the correspondent is a climate change denier, which also seems to sit with other anti-science beliefs. |
Remind us how much marginal land like Wales that Brazil and especially the Amazon has.
You have used the wrong nomenclature, I am not a Climate Change denier, nobody could be as it has always changed.
I am a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) now called climate change emergency and other incorrect names denier.
I don't here you berating the Carbon Zero world for cutting down millions of trees to clear the area for Wind Turbines. 12 million trees in Scotland alone.
Or cutting down US forests to supply Wood Pellets in the UK to burn in place coal. When it is more polluting than coal.
Or using Foodstocks to add Ethanol to petrol which increases fuel consumption.
Can you provide any proof that Man is causing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
