Dark Ecology

[British Red]

So you mean to say that if some people cannot afford or have no access to a thing then nobody should have it?

Not at all - but neither do I think "everything is okay" and the worlds a wonderful place. Its full of inequity and hardship and as growing population adds pressure, those hardships grow. As Bilbo says, the piece provokes discussion and thought and that must be valuable.

I do think we as a country have an obligation to provide for our own population - that can be through producing for our needs - or fair and equitable trade of materials. Consuming food from countries with real hunger issues though - and paying with meaningless currency that we finance through debt we can't pay seems like a recipe for disaster to me - eventually those supplies on which we depend are going to dry up. There are numerous historical precedents of this happening.

Its on our own interests to become more self sustaining - on a micro and macro scale.

 

[British Red]

Originally Posted by Andy BB
. THe only reason the population is still increasing at present (even if much more slowly than predicted a decade or two ago) is that people are living much longer







Guess you missed the previous posted reference - see again below. Try reading it, especially the bits where it says that "Due to slowing birth rates, population growth rates have started to decline in many countries, although they still remain high in some countries as birth rates have not fallen as rapidly as death rates". Or the bit where it says "Death and birth rates have declined over the past several decades. People are living longer in both the Industrial and developing countries because of increased access to immunisation, primary health care and disease eradication programmes"

Plenty of stats available through the WHO, UN etc to support exactly the same thing. All available - you only have to look!

I didn't miss it - and that's not what it says. You stated that the ONLY reason the population is still increasing is that people are living much longer. Thar is not what the links state - they merely say that longevity is a contributing factor.

For the avoidance of doubt - I don't have a "mansion" - we have a small cottage in one of the cheapest areas of the country that we restored - but as you say - don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant eh?

 

[boatman]

So India has a spinning wheel as a symbol. Why? I am learning to spin using a hand spinning spindle at present which should be enough for anybody. Except of course if you wish to clothe a large population.

Technology such as developing 3D printers may well return production to a human scale especially if the plastic goods so produced can be recycled into feedstocks for the 3D printing. Thus you may eventually create your plastic chair and instead of dumping it reprocess it for credit or to make something else. Think about how much paper is being saved by electronic communication.

We have had a solar powered calculator for years and many many devices are being developed using this power to obviate the need for batteries with all the resulting savings on raw materials and waste disposal.

Ironic that the self-sufficient smallholder would base their production on the use and maintenance of petrol burning machines while apparently ignoring the human powered wheel hoe type devices or perhaps how much can be done with simple spade, fork and hoe.

Even in countries with the majority of the population under thirty the population growth rate is reducing and this would be increased if there wasn't such an "unholy" alliance against the UN work on women's reproductive rights.

 

[Andy BB]

I didn't miss it - and that's not what it says. You stated that the ONLY reason the population is still increasing is that people are living much longer. Thar is not what the links state - they merely say that longevity is a contributing factor.

For the avoidance of doubt - I don't have a "mansion" - we have a small cottage in one of the cheapest areas of the country that we restored - but as you say - don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant eh?

Don't do yourself down, BR - I've seen the pics - its a perfectly lovely place, and you've done a wonderful job on it! A detached cottage and acreage in the countryside, access to free health service and social services if needed, and no doubt a nice set or two of wheels as well - as I said, that would make you better-off than 99.999% (approx!) of the world's population! But I'm the one who should feel guilty about having a hip operation, because others in the world don't have access to it?!

Does not compute, Mr Spock

As for the birth-rate thing - it seems pretty clear to me. Birthrates are falling worldwide (much faster in the developed world, but crucially, even in the developing world too). "Unfortunately", for population growth purposes, people are living longer too. However, the latter stat is self-limiting - even with access to optimal health care and nutrition, its unlikely that the average lifespan will ever exceed 100 years, and will probably settle around a lower base figure than that. In the developed world, we are already seeing net reductions in population despite an ageing population - as the developing world develops, this will follow the same trend.

I suppose, bottom-line - its just that I don't have the pessimistic outlook many do. I've worked on 6 continents and been to over 50 countries outside Europe, so am not naive about the nasties that exist out there. I do take a pragmatic view of the world and its human population, and recognise its failings as well as its beauties. Those who want to return to a simpler way of life I can understand, but recognise that its totally impractical for the human race to do so - we've gotten too populous for that. THose who want all of us to turn our backs on 2000 years of civilisation and get back to the "Good Life" are the ones living in cloud cuckoo land.

Most of all, I have an unquenchable belief that humanity and science will solve our problems in the end. Look how far we've come in just 100 years, the huge leaps in understanding in the sciences, medicine, biology, technology. 100 years ago aircraft could just about stagger into the sky with one slim pilot aboard. Now we're sending half-ton vehicles millions of miles to Mars, and landing them safely on the surface with all their delicate instrumentation intact, and where they are now driving around on, taking samples. Astonishing! We can "see" inside atoms, look at the birth of the universe through time and space, watch the birth and death of stars and galaxies, learn ever more about the Universe's secrets. We can sit at a desk and get access to almost unlimited information, see real-time videos of locations on the other side of the world, communicate instantaneously across the globe. Even plan our next bushcrafting expedition using satellite maps! How cool is that!!

 

[treadlightly]

Most of all, I have an unquenchable belief that humanity and science will solve our problems in the end.

Lucky you.

 

[Corso]

I do think we as a country have an obligation to provide for our own population.

As if we as a country own this country any more....

unless your planning armed revolt we sold this plot of land thrice over decades ago

 

[Andy BB]

Lucky you.

Beats worrying about the alternative

 

[British Red]

Andy, I don't think you should feel guilty - nor did I ever say you should. What I did say is that its a shame that most of the worlds population don't have access to it - I'm not sure why that is contentious.

I do dispute a number of your facts - for example that only longevity is causing population increase - I cannot substantiate that in any of my research. I also do think we can live differently in (for example) the UK - within our national "means" as it were - I cannot see why that is contentious or indeed pessimistic.

This I think is the key difference

Those who want to return to a simpler way of life I can understand, but recognise that its totally impractical for the human race to do so - we've gotten too populous for that. THose who want all of us to turn our backs on 2000 years of civilisation and get back to the "Good Life" are the ones living in cloud cuckoo land.

I don't think we should return to a "simpler" way of life. I do think we should plan for a sustainable way of life. At the moment the UK only survives by consuming finite resources at a massive rate - fossil fuels not just for transport and power but for fertiliser and many other things. Its rather like bacteria breeding up in a petri dish - eventually the Agar is consumed and the population crashes.

The fact that we are too populous for a sustainable way of life we appear to agree on - however I believe we can and indeed must address that population - before nature does it for us. The country and the world has finite resources. We can all have a good quality of life, if we live within those resources.

I can't see why living sustainably needs to involve "turning our back on 2,000 years of civilisation"?

There are very good scientific principles that show that smaller, self contained structures are more robust than large interconnected complex machines - RAID principles and distributed computing - even the internet - shows that smaller self contained but connected structures work well.

 

[Huon]

Andy, I don't think you should feel guilty - nor did I ever say you should. What I did say is that its a shame that most of the worlds population don't have access to it - I'm not sure why that is contentious.

I do dispute a number of your facts - for example that only longevity is causing population increase - I cannot substantiate that in any of my research. I also do think we can live differently in (for example) the UK - within our national "means" as it were - I cannot see why that is contentious or indeed pessimistic.

This I think is the key difference



I don't think we should return to a "simpler" way of life. I do think we should plan for a sustainable way of life. At the moment the UK only survives by consuming finite resources at a massive rate - fossil fuels not just for transport and power but for fertiliser and many other things. Its rather like bacteria breeding up in a petri dish - eventually the Agar is consumed and the population crashes.

The fact that we are too populous for a sustainable way of life we appear to agree on - however I believe we can and indeed must address that population - before nature does it for us. The country and the world has finite resources. We can all have a good quality of life, if we live within those resources.

I can't see why living sustainably needs to involve "turning our back on 2,000 years of civilisation"?

There are very good scientific principles that show that smaller, self contained structures are more robust than large interconnected complex machines - RAID principles and distributed computing - even the internet - shows that smaller self contained but connected structures work well.

I have to say that I agree with pretty much all of this. It feels as though many of the debates in this thread may be because people are at cross-purposes rather than from such fundamental differences as "technology bad, primitive good". My own view is that science and technology can be used to make us live more efficiently. To diminish our impact on the planet rather than increase it. If nothing else science gives us a lens through which to look at the world and start to understand it. Surely with greater understanding there also comes the chance to avoid causing damage.

Of course if we are stupid, greedy and self-destructive we'll go down the pan anyway

 

[Andy BB]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree in population growth then. However, would be interested to hear your propositions in how to make a big dent in England's current population though!

As for sustainability, depends how you define it. Producing all we need to feed, clothe, house and generally care for the population (medical etc), plus provide expected technological recources - internet, transport, security - cannot be done unilaterally - we need to trade to get those commodities we don't have in the UK. And that requires the full participation in the global market - ie what we do today. Maybe you mean a refinement of that where we balance our books - ie clear National Debt, manage a balanced balance of Payments. Achievable over the medium term, but with levels of spending reductions the existing population would never support. Only way to achieve that is through the imposition of a military dictatorship - good luck with that! (Actually there is a second way - come up with an invention so fabulous that we can sell huge quantities to the rest of the world! - good luck with that too...)

If you mean not to worry about national or local defense, just produce enough to feed and house/clothe the population unilaterally, then you're looking at a massive reduction in the population and a lowering of infrastructure standards that is equally unacceptable to the vast majority of the population.

You could mean just cutting down to what the population needs, rather than wants, and to be more economical re electricity etc, packaging materials, CO2 output. OK, no arguments there, apart from the need to persuade the population they don't want a 40" 3-D TV screen. However, there are some that might argue that taking a severe economic impact by reducing CO2 emissions in the UK, whilst the Chinese economy powers ahead on the back of new coal-fired power-stations which- each year - increase their CO2 output by more than the UK's current total CO2 output, is somewhat daft........

 

[British Red]

I mean paying for what we consume - seems reasonable to me - that does indeed mean a neutral balance of payments and removing the National debt. These things are not numbers on a balance sheet - but indicators of both our future wellbeing and our honesty in trading with our partners.

Absolutely we need to manage our population to meet with our lifestyle aspirations. The more people we want, the less well we can all live to a degree.

How can we do this? The same way we always have - via legislation, taxation and policy.

We introduced child benefit to incentivise having children, at a time when we had suffered a blow to population as a result of the war. Incentivising having children when we need to reduce population seems odd - particularly when its not means tested.

There are arguments that say without immigration, our population would not be rising - perhaps that needs to be examined.

I'm sure there are other measures that can be taken and issues that need to be examined (e.g. the pension time bomb).

Its important I think to reflect on the fact that our society has always evolved - how we live, where we live, how many of us there are. It evolved from hunter gatherer to agrarian and again to industrial. Arguably the UK is now "post industrial" and society, its rules and policies need to reflect our current lives, what we produce, our balance of Trade and our available resources.

I don't think that is "doom and gloom" - but rather taking a hard look at how we live right now and having a solid plan. I think we can already see in several European countries that living beyond our means can have very unpleasant results.

 

[Macaroon]

I think I'm going to re-read the piece and then re-read James Lovelock's Gaia, we're in the middle of something that is so complex I sometimes think it's ungraspable in it's entirety and it's only the entirety that means anything...................fiddles and smoke, anyone? atb mac

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

Incentivising having children when we need to reduce population seems odd - particularly when its not means tested.

All child benefit is now means tested Red but not to the extent i think it should be or in a particularly equitable way. I agree with your sentiments though.

 

[Stringmaker]

I like Red's petri dish analogy.

It works on both the small and large scale (for now) because we as a species have yet to expand to the point where the dish is full; we are just slowly consuming the gel and still creeping our way to the edge.

The imbalance is that some of us bacteria are multiplying faster and consuming more gel than others.

 

[Andy BB]

Ah - lots of "issues", bit light on solutions! Child benefit a case in point. With a rapidly ageing population, the active workforce is shrinking as birth rates decrease. As state pensions in the UK are paid out of current revenue (amazingly some still think that NI contributions etc are put by the government into a big pot to pay out future pensions to those who have contributed!), that means fewer people to work to pay for more old people (and more old people means more calls on other services like NHS, transport, social services in general). Immigration has in the past been used to address this problem of a shrinking workforce, and even more so by the last administration as a means of suppressing wage rises and stabilising inflation figures (not a political point - admitted by themselves).

In short, society needs young to provide the workforce and tax revenue, otherwise the old can't be cared for. Thats why child benefit is still there. Means-testing is merely playing around at the edges.

And no-one is really addressing the elephant in the room - how do you get turkeys to vote for christmas? To balance the UK books requires a savage cut in services and government jobs/salaries over a substantial period of years. 25% of working population works directly for, and is paid by, the government. Many more are dependent on government services and pensions. No political party could hope to win an election on that platform, particularly if another party promised a cobntinuation of the bread and circuses. Which is why I said earlier you'd need a military dictatorship to implement it!

 

[British Red]

I did allude to the pension time bomb Andy. Here is the problem though, if we don't do something, we need ever more people - its a huge Ponzi scheme with an inevitable conclusion.

As for Turkeys voting for Christmas - its an apt analogy. But if we don't fix it, then there surely will be consequences. Greece and Spain are only beginning to feel what those might be - they are still being propped up by stronger economies, but there is very real hurt being felt now - with more to come.

I fear you may be correct that we cannot solve these issues - but I can foresee what that might mean. So, in a reversal, I would like to be positive and pragmatic rather than doom and gloom and say "Lets change how we live, before we destroy our economy by living beyond our means".

There are many radical changes we need to make - but they need not all be painful. Why do we live crowded together in cities for example? This strains services (e.g. water supplies in South East), forces up house prices, causes long commutes etc. Its not as though many people work on factory lines which brought the cities into being - most offices could be virtual now - allowing telecommuting, virtual presence etc. This would reduce travel costs, working days and many other things.

Is that alone a solution? No of course not - but its an example of the ways we can change our society to fit the modern world we live in, saving money without reducing service.

I hope we can change - I believe we need to try as the alternative is real economic hardship as we cannot keep borrowing forever.

 

[rik_uk3]

Perhaps if the governments of some 'third world' countries stopped buying weapons, limo's for the ruling class and generally ripping off their own people, they could afford better health care, improvements in farming and clean water et al for the poor buggers living there.

 

[treadlightly]

Perhaps if the governments of some 'third world' countries stopped buying weapons, limo's for the ruling class and generally ripping off their own people, they could afford better health care, improvements in farming and clean water et al for the poor buggers living there.

And who do they buy weapons from?

 

[Maxwellol]

There are many radical changes we need to make - but they need not all be painful. Why do we live crowded together in cities for example? This strains services (e.g. water supplies in South East), forces up house prices, causes long commutes etc. Its not as though many people work on factory lines which brought the cities into being - most offices could be virtual now - allowing telecommuting, virtual presence etc. This would reduce travel costs, working days and many other things.

All roads lead to Rome. The cities are still where most of the money is, most investment, most development, highest concentration of employment opportunities. The cities are the only places with the transport and communications infrastructure necessary to compete in a global market. Hell, our broadband network is one of the worst in the world! How are we gonna set up virtual offices away from the cities when some parts of rural Britain are still listening to the dial-up song?

And why bother anyway, when all our tertiary operations have been outbid and outsourced to Asia already? Couple this with the fact our secondary industries suffered the same fate the previous decade, and you've got a huge workforce and nothing for them to work on. Not that half of our native workforce can be bothered to work - why would they, when they can get a semi-detached, weekly payments and child benefits, compliments of Q.C. Taxpayer.

 

[Maxwellol]

Perhaps if the governments of some 'third world' countries stopped buying weapons, limo's for the ruling class and generally ripping off their own people, they could afford better health care, improvements in farming and clean water et al for the poor buggers living there.

This suggestion would rely on the assumption that such governments give a flying frank about "their own people"?

You think our own government really cares about us, for that matter? Why would they, when they can spend all day spending taxmoney on escort girls and holiday homes.