We had the ideal opportunity to have a good cull a couple of years ago, but no, some eejit invented a vaccine.

You're knickering yourself.

Those quotes are from one interview with Ehrlich, where the majority of the discussion is along those lines. Not much political bias, unless you're suggesting your boy himself is in fact a lefty activist, or he didn't in fact say those things at all?

Strange.

I also never said the global population was decreasing now. I said according to the data (UN) the birth rate is decreasing and that based on that data projections show the population will peak around 2080-2100 (60-80 years) then start to decrease, globally. It's also worth pointing out that the UK population is expected to grow by about 10 million between now and 2100. Not 30m+. It only grew by around 3m in the last decade, use that for reference if you're intent on making up your own trends.

You prefer to ignore the consensus and go for the highest figure you can get away with to fit your narrative. Amusingly you're also seemingly making your own conclusions that because population has increased by 10m in 30 years since 1993, it will do so exponentially into the future. That's not how you make considered projections – I'm not a statistician but even I know that's pretty dumb.

So I'll say it for a third time – the issue appears not to be population size or growth based on todays projections and declining global birth rates. The issue is fair and even distribution of resources, efficiency (reduction of waste, which in some countries is near 50%, madness) and innovation about food production, water conservation and use, and so on. This would and should be aconsideration at 100million, 3billion, 8billion... thoughtless consumption is not and has never been the right answer.

Food rationing would not need to be considered if we were smarter about how we consume and what we actually need to live comfortable lives, rather than out and out gluttony. To quote da bomb himself once again...

'The problem isn’t that there’s not enough to go around, says Ehrlich – the problem is that it’s not going around to everyone.'

I think you have a pre-conceived narrative here, as per usual, and anything else regardless of truth or probability is dismissed as 'political' as it doesn't suit your narrative.

As for 'ideological drones' – I'm literally quoting the guy who co-wrote da bomb and he's objectively countering his own work (quite rightly, as things have changed somewhat since the 1970s). I'm inclined to go with him and the community consensus more than your dated and dogmatic ramblings.

if the projections consensus shifted to say the UK will be 30m larger by 2100 and the global population will hit 20bn, then I'd follow the science and change my view accordingly, and you'd be right. But it doesn't... and you're not.

Clearly the ideological droning on this specific topic is yours, and yours alone.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (23 Feb 2023 6.11pm)

Everybody knows there is not an even distribution of resources and that is good for the likes of us. If you think that reducing our share of the pot is a good idea then it explains your thinking very neatly.

And I'd like an explanation of how our population will only rise by 10 million in 80 years when it has grow by 10 million in the last thirty because of immigration. That sounds like bulls*** to me, especially when the rate of immigration has been growing since the 1950s.
New migrants have more kids, so the birthrate will climb in the UK all the time wave after wave of immigrants arrive here.

Use your logic rather than looking it up on google.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 Feb 2023 7.38pm)

'That is good for the likes of us' – it won't be when those resources run out, not because of population expansion, but because of inefficiency, misuse and gluttony. The amount of choice and cheap food we have is firstly unsustainable and secondly entirely unnecessary.

Coupled with 50% wastage rate it's pretty obvious that the way we view and use resources such as food could be vastly improved, all without needing to 'give away our share of the pot' to the foreigns. In fact, you could probably do that just by reducing waste. We don't need to be able to buy light up gin bottles and 300 different types of sausages. Overconsumption needs to be viewed as borrowing from the future, rather than gratifying the rapacious wants of the now.

'And I'd like an explanation' – maybe look into statistical and mathematical best practice first, then the historical data, then the projected data, and then the hypotheses behind the reasoning for those projections. Neither of us are specialists in that area – so in a debate like this qualified, specialist research carries significantly more weight than hackneyed interpretations of statistics presented as fact, such as this doozy

'Our population grew 10 million over the last 30 years. Therefore I must conclude that it will grow by at least another 30 million over the next 80.'

Now I'm no expert (hence why I'm referencing experts as the basis for my stance) but even to me that makes little sense, simply based on the amount of things it ignores, no1 being statistical best practice.

But yeah sure, 'logic' etc. What's logical is the scientific/statistical consensus. What would also be logical is if that changed to project 30m growth instead of 10m due to well researched and proven challenge to the accepted thinking. Y'know, science

Christ. I do hope you're not in education

My local co op seemed to have plenty as well. The cynic in me feels this could be the old ‘report the worst case’ it sells new and gets clicks. Almost like the financial crisis which appears strange with how busy the roads and shops are. Maybe it’s political to have a pop at the tories