The K M Links Game - June 2024 Week 2
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
How Will This Impact On Us In The Future
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are two aspects to this: firstly that fertility rates in the “developed” world are declining and secondly (and most importantly) fertility rates in the so-called “developing” world are still alarmingly high. The report makes this comment:
“Without migration, countries will face ageing and shrinking populations”
Taken alone that remark tends to suggest that the ideal scenario is for the developing world to continue to churn out children that it cannot sustain so that those children - if they survive - can migrate to the developed world to tend to their “declining and ageing” populations. Right. I hadn't thought of that wheeze.
The world needs to develop economic models which do not depend on a continually increasing population. Ideally they need to work on steady or slowly declining numbers for at least a century or two. To say that populations must continue to rise to cope with those getting old is the logic of the madhouse. Countries such as the UK are already struggling to properly sustain the populations they have (and by sustain, I don’t mean just food and drink, but a decent quality of living). Much of Africa and Asia will never control their populations and all the rest of the world needs to do is to prevent vast numbers from those countries attempting to migrate “for a better life”. They should remain where they are and seek to improve the conditions for their descendants as people in the developed world did and continue to do.
“//Except for some countries who have high fertility rates, notably across Africa, Asia.//
These also have higher infant deaths”
Quite so. But excusing the unsustainable population growth in such places on that basis (where children have a high probability of failing to survive to adulthood mainly because of the conditions they are born into) is rather like encouraging cats to have more kittens because many of their offspring end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal.
“Every country runs an enormous debt against borrowing. If there are less working age people, the GDP falls meaning the debt is less serviceable. Pension pots become severely affected (depleted) and so the elderly are a greater burden on society through benefits. It's quite a viscous circle.”
But not quite as vicious a circle as suggesting that more young people are needed because there are more older people to look after. Incredible as it may seem, the young carers eventually get old themselves - and, guess what? They need even more young carers to look after them. And guess what happens to that latest batch of “young carers”? (I'm sure you get my drift).
“Without migration, countries will face ageing and shrinking populations”
Taken alone that remark tends to suggest that the ideal scenario is for the developing world to continue to churn out children that it cannot sustain so that those children - if they survive - can migrate to the developed world to tend to their “declining and ageing” populations. Right. I hadn't thought of that wheeze.
The world needs to develop economic models which do not depend on a continually increasing population. Ideally they need to work on steady or slowly declining numbers for at least a century or two. To say that populations must continue to rise to cope with those getting old is the logic of the madhouse. Countries such as the UK are already struggling to properly sustain the populations they have (and by sustain, I don’t mean just food and drink, but a decent quality of living). Much of Africa and Asia will never control their populations and all the rest of the world needs to do is to prevent vast numbers from those countries attempting to migrate “for a better life”. They should remain where they are and seek to improve the conditions for their descendants as people in the developed world did and continue to do.
“//Except for some countries who have high fertility rates, notably across Africa, Asia.//
These also have higher infant deaths”
Quite so. But excusing the unsustainable population growth in such places on that basis (where children have a high probability of failing to survive to adulthood mainly because of the conditions they are born into) is rather like encouraging cats to have more kittens because many of their offspring end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal.
“Every country runs an enormous debt against borrowing. If there are less working age people, the GDP falls meaning the debt is less serviceable. Pension pots become severely affected (depleted) and so the elderly are a greater burden on society through benefits. It's quite a viscous circle.”
But not quite as vicious a circle as suggesting that more young people are needed because there are more older people to look after. Incredible as it may seem, the young carers eventually get old themselves - and, guess what? They need even more young carers to look after them. And guess what happens to that latest batch of “young carers”? (I'm sure you get my drift).
'The world needs to develop economic models which do not depend on a continually increasing population. Ideally they need to work on steady or slowly declining numbers for at least a century or two'
Easier said than done, NJ. I'm not sure what 'model' would halt the downward spiral of depleted GDP /un-serviceable debt / depletion of pension funds leading to more dependence upon the state.
You state 'But not quite as vicious a circle as suggesting that more young people are needed because there are more older people to look after' How else would a country bear the burden of its elderly than to have more people working to create the wealth which is required?
You kind-of argue against your own point and thereby prove mine with your comment 'Incredible as it may seem, the young carers eventually get old themselves - and, guess what? They need even more young carers to look after them'
Easier said than done, NJ. I'm not sure what 'model' would halt the downward spiral of depleted GDP /un-serviceable debt / depletion of pension funds leading to more dependence upon the state.
You state 'But not quite as vicious a circle as suggesting that more young people are needed because there are more older people to look after' How else would a country bear the burden of its elderly than to have more people working to create the wealth which is required?
You kind-of argue against your own point and thereby prove mine with your comment 'Incredible as it may seem, the young carers eventually get old themselves - and, guess what? They need even more young carers to look after them'
“You kind-of argue against your own point and thereby prove mine…”
Not at all, Zacs. I’m trying to demonstrate (obviously not very successfully) that a continually rising global population, endorsed by the fact that more young people are needed to look after old people, is logically insane. It overlooks the fact that the young get old. It looks at the current problem (“There are more old people. We need more young people to look after them”) and provides a solution which exacerbates the problem (“There are more old people. We need more young people to look after them”). It’s a Ponzi scheme by any other name. Such schemes cope in the short term but eventually the brown stuff hits the fan.
Mankind recently is forever bleating on about threats to its wellbeing and even to its survival. (e.g. climate change, pollution, etc.). Well the biggest threat to mankind's survival is not being unable to maintain pension pots or service debt. It is over population and addressing one problem with a solution that simply exacerbates that problem is madness.
Not at all, Zacs. I’m trying to demonstrate (obviously not very successfully) that a continually rising global population, endorsed by the fact that more young people are needed to look after old people, is logically insane. It overlooks the fact that the young get old. It looks at the current problem (“There are more old people. We need more young people to look after them”) and provides a solution which exacerbates the problem (“There are more old people. We need more young people to look after them”). It’s a Ponzi scheme by any other name. Such schemes cope in the short term but eventually the brown stuff hits the fan.
Mankind recently is forever bleating on about threats to its wellbeing and even to its survival. (e.g. climate change, pollution, etc.). Well the biggest threat to mankind's survival is not being unable to maintain pension pots or service debt. It is over population and addressing one problem with a solution that simply exacerbates that problem is madness.
NJ, I agree it is an insane problem but the (developed) world's economy has been built around the assumption that there will always be a growing population to service national debt, increase GDP and therefore have enough cash to look after and pay the pensions of the elderly. To simply say we need a new model is a bit like asking to stop an oil tanker in a few hundred yards. The problem would seem to be more urgent than anyone thought and given the uncertain political times we live in, it would be a very brave government who introduced measures to combat it.
meanwhile the only logical conclusion is to use those countries who have a surplus to prop-up the countries in population decline.
meanwhile the only logical conclusion is to use those countries who have a surplus to prop-up the countries in population decline.
Managing to control one's nation's breeding rate is a good thing. Taking the excess population from another nation who fail to control theirs, allowing them to continue overproducing, merely spoils one's own nation's good effort. It's no logical solution, it's utter madness. We don't need more young folk to support a growing older section of a nation's population. We need, and only ever needed, sufficient young folk to carry the baton until they pass it on to the next generation.
This was from a post in 2017 by Samjenko
https:/
Pop; 1950-2015-2017
UK; 50m-64m-66.02m
Nig; 31m-181m-190m
Som; 2m-10m-14.74m
Sud; 6m-36m-40.53m
Yem; 4m-26m-28.25m
Taken from here. https:/
Don't look at future predictions, you'll have nightmares. 00:17 Thu 16th Mar 2017//
Look at the massive growth in African countries.
Its not that there isn't enough food or water, there's just too many people.
https:/
Pop; 1950-2015-2017
UK; 50m-64m-66.02m
Nig; 31m-181m-190m
Som; 2m-10m-14.74m
Sud; 6m-36m-40.53m
Yem; 4m-26m-28.25m
Taken from here. https:/
Don't look at future predictions, you'll have nightmares. 00:17 Thu 16th Mar 2017//
Look at the massive growth in African countries.
Its not that there isn't enough food or water, there's just too many people.
