Maybe, but as it was a very long time ago I doubt whether anyone really knows. Apocryphal stories are like that. The point remains whatever version is true.

You do post some rubbish!

We can agree that 2050 is only 30 years away. That's obvious. You claim was that the world population would increase to 15 to 20 million in a few years, which is double what the UN say will happen by 2050. You then say it will "climb well above that" because 2050 isn't the "levelling point". It might not be but if it will only reach 10.7 billion in another 50 years it means the rate of growth will markedly decline. I asked you where you got your figures so we can see if they are more authoritative than the UN. An answer has not been given.

So if we refuse to accept refugees who else will take our share? How do you think they will feel about that? Would they want to do business with such a country? Or do you plan to let the innocent, including many women and children, face death from war or starvation because you refused to help?

The whole world does not want to exist at the same standard as the west. Some do, but some just want enough food, water and security to live their own lives, in their own ways.

The world can certainly sustain itself as it does now. By harnessing change rather than fighting it and harvesting all it's benefits we can use it to provide all we need. Science and technology will provide the answers. The use of such things as GM to produce drought resistant crops, higher yields and disease resistance will ensure we get much more from the land and oceans. We must do that whilst combating climate change which more certainly has been impacted by man whose contribution to it must be curtailed. This can only be done on a global scale and countries like the UK need to be at the forefront as the leaders, both in making the argument and taking the necessary action.

Scare mongering about the future level of the world population being the reason why we need to limit immigration now is disingenuous nonsense. We need to ensure we manage immigration and ensure we develop the necessary resources to make sure no-one is disadvantaged. We need to ensure that all new immigrants intend to respect British culture and not seek to interfere with it. They need to understand that British law applies to all without any exceptions.

Exactly how do you think we should reduce the world population, which is, as I have shown, unnecessary anyway?

Along with the rising world population there is also the question of what people will actually do in the future. Honda have been working on humanoid robots for years but their model called Asimo is already perfectly capable of acting as a waiter or doing other manual tasks, bar and shop work for example.There are already driverless trains and driverless busses are being trialled so why not driverless taxis? If not in the next five years then certainly in the next twenty or thirty.

You do have stamina. You definitely deserve a medal.

I do foresee a need to control immigration quite strongly in the future by the way, when the food wars start looming.

It's all about the sex robots.

You do post some rubbish!

We can agree that 2050 is only 30 years away. That's obvious. You claim was that the world population would increase to 15 to 20 million in a few years, which is double what the UN say will happen by 2050. You then say it will "climb well above that" because 2050 isn't the "levelling point". It might not be but if it will only reach 10.7 billion in another 50 years it means the rate of growth will markedly decline. I asked you where you got your figures so we can see if they are more authoritative than the UN. An answer has not been given.

So if we refuse to accept refugees who else will take our share? How do you think they will feel about that? Would they want to do business with such a country? Or do you plan to let the innocent, including many women and children, face death from war or starvation because you refused to help?

The whole world does not want to exist at the same standard as the west. Some do, but some just want enough food, water and security to live their own lives, in their own ways.

The world can certainly sustain itself as it does now. By harnessing change rather than fighting it and harvesting all it's benefits we can use it to provide all we need. Science and technology will provide the answers. The use of such things as GM to produce drought resistant crops, higher yields and disease resistance will ensure we get much more from the land and oceans. We must do that whilst combating climate change which more certainly has been impacted by man whose contribution to it must be curtailed. This can only be done on a global scale and countries like the UK need to be at the forefront as the leaders, both in making the argument and taking the necessary action.

Scare mongering about the future level of the world population being the reason why we need to limit immigration now is disingenuous nonsense. We need to ensure we manage immigration and ensure we develop the necessary resources to make sure no-one is disadvantaged. We need to ensure that all new immigrants intend to respect British culture and not seek to interfere with it. They need to understand that British law applies to all without any exceptions.

Exactly how do you think we should reduce the world population, which is, as I have shown, unnecessary anyway?