Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:53:25 GMT

[quote user="Claire Fisher"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

2.2 children per wpman means 10% increase per generation

Wynne

[/quote]

But even in developed countries not every baby born will survive to adulthood.

[/quote]

And about half the babies will be boys. It's 2.2 children per woman. So even if every baby survived to reproductive age, it could only be 5% per generation.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Claire Fisher — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:47:52 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

2.2 children per wpman means 10% increase per generation

Wynne

[/quote]

But even in developed countries not every baby born will survive to adulthood.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Bob Russell — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:56:11 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

2.2 children per wpman means 10% increase per generation

Wynne

[/quote]

So there will be someone to pay my pension after all!

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Bob Russell — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:55:26 GMT

In China they are relaxing the one child rule because it has just become evident that they will not have enough of the population generating income to pay for the elderly!

As public health improved worldwide the birth rate drops!

More than a bit worried that the problem in the UK is greater than a number of other EU countries. The UK seems to have a special attraction for immigrants compared to mainland Europe. No idea why!

(Comes from someone married to an immigrant!)

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:53:55 GMT

2.2 children per wpman means 10% increase per generation

Wynne

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Tony Knapp — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:54:20 GMT

The BBC did a good lecture/documentary on this a while back (Don't panic, the truth about population, not currently available on iPlayer, but there are clips on youtube), the population isn't actually expanding due to births, the average birthrate planet wide is around 2.2 children per woman, and the amount does not vary that much from nation to nation (birth rates plummet when infant mortality plummets), the idea that developing nations are popping babies out like they're going out of fashion is erroneous.

The increase in population is actually aging, more people are living longer, the world over. So if you want to stablise the population perhaps we'd be better off capping life spans! This lecture also estimates the plant is able to support 15billion healthy humans (and plateau pop is est at 11bil), it cannot support 11bil obese humans, which is where we're heading. Population control is not the taboo subject, our excessive consumption of natural resources (including calories) is.

(All my figures are "about" and "roughly" because I have difficulty remembering my pin yet alone the population statistics on a lecture I saw a few month back but the gist is correct)

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Anthony Todd — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:59:13 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Food aid is short term to appease public opinion,[/quote]

Better put than my effort but, as I thought I made very clear, it has the side-effect of making animals and people more fertile which just exacerbates the problem of a shortage of food.

What I am illuminating, although not to some, is the elephant in the room; the overproduction of humans, not the underproduction of food.

It is that which must be addressed because food production will never catch up; "food aid" increases fertility and the number of humans.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:44:55 GMT

[quote user="paul hawkswell"]Hi, I'm a newbie on here and not even a vet. But,[/quote]

Welcome, Paul.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

paul hawkswell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:44:09 GMT

Don't drink anymore DEATH JUICE!! only tap water ;0)

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

J G Wray — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:37:48 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Still, I do wonder whether the population problem is a self-righting one.[/quote]

In China it's a State-righting one, One being the only parental choice.

If the world's population problems are getting some exercised this week what will it be next week? WHat will the VT come up with?

Subjects that have run their course as "the most important thing I should know", in my time to date, have included nuclear Armageddon - the most important thing I should ever know, the threat of global terrorism - the most important thing I should ever know, pandemics like SARS - the most important thing I should ever know, Antimicrobial resistance - the most important thing I should know, Global warming - the most important thing I should know.

Is there anything I've missed out because it will be important to know?

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

paul hawkswell — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:21:15 GMT

Hi, I'm a newbie on here and not even a vet. But,

The subjet you have brought up is so interesting that I thought I would mention something I watched on youtube a while ago.

its called 'The most important video you'll ever see' it's by a professor call Albert Bartlett.

Quite scary if you get the chance to see it...

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:16:41 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]There's no easy answers to how are we going to reduce world population to a sustainable level, but being too polite to even discuss the true problem is ostrich-like.[/quote]

Absolutely agree.

And I don't understand why the subject seems almost taboo.

Still, I do wonder whether the population problem is a self-righting one. Birth rates in the developed world have plummeted, and are expected to do the same elsewhere (when 7 out of your 10 babies don't die in infancy due to disease, you start thinking: crikey 8 children is a bit of a handful. Better tell my children to have fewer).

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:47:58 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

We were taught that, to increase fertility, the trick was to put the animals on a rising plane of nutrition.

Unfortunately this is exactly what is achieved by "food-aid" in times of famine.

Not that I am suggesting starvation as a means of population control but "food-aid" is just another factor which, I suggest, is working indirectly against population control.

[/quote]It sounds as though that is exactly what you are suggesting Anthony.

It is true that the population of countries with highly developed economies is by and large stable. There appears to be some reluctance on behalf of the developed world to encourage lesser developed countries to progress for fear that if they have the same standard of living as ourselves the drain on global resources will be catastrophically unsustainable.

It is poverty, lack of education and economic wealth that encourages people in under-developed countries to have large families in the misguided belief that more family members mean more people earning and thus greater income but it is a self-defeating policy because the relatively greater wealth in these countries, while not enough to drag them out of poverty entirely, is enough to increase survival rates and thus population and greater drain on available resources so little or no progress is made.

Food aid is short term to appease public opinion, it does nothing to address the long term problem. Only supporting the developing world to improve the standard of living and education will stop this vicious cycle. Sadly political, religious, tribal and cultural difference and prejudices mean this will be no easy task.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:47:04 GMT

There are no easy answers, but the statistics are frightening. It's estimated that world population reached 1 billion around 1800. It took XK years to reach that first billion. It's estimated it reached 2 billion by 1920 - I think that was the optimum level, because there were problems of starvation, and pollution arising from over-population when I was a child. It then took 50 years for a further increase of 1.5 billion, and only 40 years for a doubling to 7 billion.

It's estimated that population will stabilise at 10.5 billion somewhere between 2030 and 2050. If it isn't until 2050 I'll probably be safely six feet under. If it's by 2030 (and the rate of increase is rising exponentially) I'll probably still be alive, and I really don't want to see that.

If we have the courage to discuss the problem - and make no mistake it's a massive problem - then there's at least a chance that attitudes will alter, and world population will gradually sink to a sustainable level in a civilised manner.

If we carry on being too politically correct to talk about this horrendous problem, then humans will simply exceed the capacity of the planet to support them,and nature will do the job for us. Starvation, disease, and the wars consequent on a lack of resources will increase the death rate until it balances the birth rate.

Wynne

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Anthony Todd — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:15:25 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] There's no easy answers to how are we going to reduce world population to a sustainable level, but being too polite to even discuss the true problem is ostrich-like.[/quote]

We were taught that, to increase fertility, the trick was to put the animals on a rising plane of nutrition.

Unfortunately this is exactly what is achieved by "food-aid" in times of famine.

Not that I am suggesting starvation as a means of population control but "food-aid" is just another factor which, I suggest, is working indirectly against population control.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:11:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Are you a eugenicist?[/quote]If she's any sort of 'ist, I'd say more pragmatist and realist. I sympathise with Wynne on this occasion. Daily Mail reader as she may be but I think that comment is an insult Jon.

Re: Depressing article in Veterinary Times

J G Wray — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:03:25 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] There's no easy answers to how are we going to reduce world population to a sustainable level, but being too polite to even discuss the true problem is ostrich-like.[/quote]

A question to stimulate discussion

Are you a eugenicist?

JGW