The changing face of Britain

[amateur51]

This puerile points-scoring is disappointing and does no credit to what is mainly an interesting and occasionally educative place to lurk. It isn't even quality "trolling".

Point well-made, anotherbob

[MrGongGong]

This post seems to be the work of a troll

Same old simon same old shit i'm afraid ..............

[amateur51]

I fail to see how the use of the word "tragedy" can be contentious. You may think that the gun crime, the drugs, the slavery of other immigrants, the trafficking etc. - even things like the appalling abuse in Rochdale - are some sort of acceptable consequence of the ghettoisation and segregation of groups in society, but most rational people don't. Most people, like me, think it's a tragedy - and a preventable one
.
Such things would have been far less prevalent had the unrestricted border policy that only now the lot that approved it is admitting was a complete disaster, had never occurred.

I know it irks you that those of us on the centre right who foresaw the problems have been proven correct, but get over it.

But you still haven't told us what the tragedy is!

[MrGongGong]

But you still haven't told us what the tragedy is!

I think he is in despair about all the non British musicians in the LSO

[Bryn]

This post seems to be the work of a troll

Appearances can be deceptive, but not in that case, I would suggest. I don't follow the God-botherers thread, so don't know how he deports himself there, but elsewhere on these boards, it is rare to find anything constructive in his contributions, whether on music or social matters.

[gurnemanz]

I know it irks you that those of us on the centre right who foresaw the problems have been proven correct, but get over it.

Racial stereotyping is not limited to the right but is all too prevalent across the political spectrum. Many left wingers succumb to this kind of crude prejudice. My dear Dad, now passed on, was a Tory party member and would have called himself "centre right" but was racially enlightened and am grateful that he brought us up to be tolerant and open-minded.

[Lateralthinking1]

Sorry Lat , its just a regular spreadsheet, but I couldn't copy it in.
here is a key stat. I think the figures need multiplying by 1k.
2001
All families 13,271
One child 3,145
Two children 6,025
Three or more children 4,101

2011

13,153
3,506
5,933
3,714

Others may read it differently, but i am sure it does show the percentage of 3 chldren families of all types falling.

Thank you ts for those figures. I agree that they appear to show a slight downward trend. I suppose two people who have two children together are effectively keeping the population numerically stable where immigration and emigration are roughly equal.

It is very possible that the figures obscure the cases of those who have children with several partners over a period of time. The impression one could have is that some individuals are having many and hence a higher number than is recognised don't have any.

Much is made of the post war baby boom but arguably people had more children earlier in the last centrury. The overall impact of numbers in old age is still higher now given advances in medical knowledge and housing and an absence of world wars. The loss of effectiveness of antibiotics, poverty in declining economies and climate change could reverse these trends in the longer term.

[Pabmusic]

...Much is made of the post war baby boom but arguably people had more children earlier in the last centrury. The overall impact of numbers in old age is still higher now given advances in medical knowledge and housing and an absence of world wars. The loss of effectiveness of antibiotics, poverty in declining economies and climate change could reverse these trends in the longer term.

In post 78 I said that "According to a report from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, average global fertility in 1900 was about six children per woman. This fell, particularly from 1950, and today’s average world fertility stands at 2.5 children per woman." Here is the source article:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast

One seriously large factor may be the growth of the world-wide availability of contraception.

[Lateralthinking1]

In post 78 I said that "According to a report from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, average global fertility in 1900 was about six children per woman. This fell, particularly from 1950, and today’s average world fertility stands at 2.5 children per woman." Here is the source article:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/g...on-not-so-fast

Yes, sure. Thank you. When I said "arguably", I was referring specifically to the UK, but there was no need for the word "arguably" even in the case of the UK.

One thing that concerns me is the tendency of politicians to argue for radical pension reform on the grounds that more people will live to older age and even 100. I don't believe for one moment that this is likely given medical and global challenges. If we are not at the peak now, we will be in the next ten years, after which I predict a rapid and dramatic decline of peak and average lifespans.

[Resurrection Man]

Originally Posted by Eine Alpensinfonie
QUOTE:
Where a person is born is immaterial.
What concerns me is that the population continues to increase to a level that is not sustainable in that resources and food need to be imported on a vast scale. There are many people who still think it's their human right to have as many children as they want. I beg to differ.
Well said, EA.

Was the post you supported. If it's not going to be a human right to have as many children as you want, then somebody else is going to have to decide, aren't they?

Not at all. There is no logical imperative in that. It is down to personal choice but with that personal choice comes responsibility not only to ones own offspring (2 or less) but also to the planet and all other living things on it.

You mentioned en passant that you thought the world could feed some population figure....I forget the exact number you quoted. Do you have any reference to back up that statement? Leaving aside that point, it's not just about food. It's about water, housing, welfare, health service, pollution, energy requirements......

[Serial_Apologist]

One thing that concerns me is the tendency of politicians to argue for radical pension reform on the grounds that more people will live to older age and even 100. I don't believe for one moment that this is likely given medical and global challenges. If we are not at the peak now, we will be in the next ten years, after which I predict a rapid and dramatic decline of peak and average lifespans.

Indeed - one doesn't hear much of the likely irreversible childhood obseity effect being an added factor.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well from what i recall of market research and analyses in my days working for retail clients most of Europe is not replacing the population at all all the large EU Countries are well under 2 per woman; so the global average is a tad misleading if applied to EU countries ... and the UK average at 1.86 last time i looked masks a marked variability ... naturally the birth rate in the arriving populations is higher than the already here ...

[teamsaint]

Not at all. There is no logical imperative in that. It is down to personal choice but with that personal choice comes responsibility not only to ones own offspring (2 or less) but also to the planet and all other living things on it.

You mentioned en passant that you thought the world could feed some population figure....I forget the exact number you quoted. Do you have any reference to back up that statement? Leaving aside that point, it's not just about food. It's about water, housing, welfare, health service, pollution, energy requirements......

Sorry RM. have had a good old google, and anything like a sensible and well researched estimate on what the world can comfortably feed(and clothe , house etc) is hard to come by. However I did hear a high up UN official , within the last year or so, in a BBC radio interviews, claim that the world can adequately feed 12 bn people.
Now, you know I am of fairly a sceptical outlook, and the UN has agendas like everybody else, so I wouldn't know what to make of this.

The population debate is one that is well worth having, but I am well aware that there are lobbys, agendas, and interest groups everywhere. Developed world consumption is one of a number of room based elephants here (US 5% of population, close to 25% of consumption).What we do know (almost) for certain is that population growth stalls as income rises, and my guess is that the real problems the world will have to deal with in the next 50 years will be around "unnecessary" consumer consumption(particularly in the Chinese and Indian middle classes) and not sheer numbers of people at the poorer end of income scales.

On demographics, I am again sceptical. stats are trotted out about ageing populations in the west that are primarily to do with reducing pension costs, and nothing (IMO) to do with demographic reality.

[Serial_Apologist]

The population debate is one that is well worth having

Indeed, procreation would be inhibited while discussing it!

my guess is that the real problems the world will have to deal with in the next 50 years will be around "unnecessary" consumer consumption

Very difficult to achieve, capitalism by its very nature being all about unnecessary consumption.

[ahinton]

Indeed, procreation would be inhibited while discussing it!

Let's leave the pro-creationists out of this, for simplicity's sake if nothing else!...

Very difficult to achieve, capitalism by its very nature being all about unnecessary consumption.

You mean like what finally did it for Chopin?