Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What the left fail to realize is, the people imported here may be a couple but they breed like rabbits and basically bring 20 people with them, then their kids have kids and in no time they have flooded the area with kids

    These people either disregard birth control altogether or have not heard of it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    It's hardly massive. Our population was 55 million in 1945. 40% population growth over 80 years is hardly excessive
    Taken into context, that, we from the UK have a birth-rate below that of replacement, and that white Brits are leaving the UK, the population growth will present a massive burden.

    The numbers underplay the shift in the demographic proportions of the population, with the growing groups having lower contributions and higher demands on public services than the former. IE; lower economic activity, lower scientific output per head and higher crime rates and terrorism.

    The change will be massive, and is already being felt. Housing, police, hospitals, schools, prisons etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    It's hardly massive. Our population was 55 million in 1945. 40% population growth over 80 years is hardly excessive
    In 1945 the population was 49.2m. Search UK Population in Google, it pops up an interactive population graph. The UK population was 55m in 1967-8

    The UK can only sustain 40-50m people from its own agriculture and so is now in a period of dangerous food insecurity (yes, famines could happen here given war, high food prices, global warming etc). Water resources are maximally utilised at present.

    People in England have 0.6 acres each of land, including all motorways, mountains etc. The growth in population entails finding accommodation for a town the size of Birmingham (the second largest city in the UK) every 2.5 years.

    There is a prodigious annual loss of countryside and green spaces.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    In 1945 the population was 49.2m. Search UK Population in Google, it pops up an interactive population graph. The UK population was 55m in 1967-8


    The overall percentage increase is the same. Going from 50 million to 70 million over 80 years, a 40% increase, is not outrageous or excessive. In the same period the US has more than doubled its population.

    The UK can only sustain 40-50m people from its own agriculture and so is now in a period of dangerous food insecurity (yes, famines could happen here given war, high food prices, global warming etc).
    Actually, many studies have suggested we could absolutely be self-sufficient in food (there are many parts of the country where land that is agriculturally sound is not used for food production). The real question is do we want to be.

    Food production for the mass market is not a high skill, high value added proposition. Economically, and from the perspective of comparative advantage, it could be more sensible to employ someone in an industry like internet services, pharma, manufacturing or any one of a number of areas where the GDP productivity is higher, and thus you get better value to employ people in high-skill, high value added industries and use part of the surplus to buy food. The UK has been doing that for centuries now.

    But I suppose that doesn't appeal to the kind of 19th century economic mindset of many environmentalists who hold onto a very materialistic conception of economic activity (i.e. how many tonnes of wheat do you produce, how many tonnes of steel, and so on).

    Ultimately, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand produce more than enough food to cover us and if there was ever some kind of food crisis, there is no question they would supply us in preference to other countries. Furthermore, the Anglosphere has sufficient military power to ensure the safe deliveries of such supplies.

    Water resources are maximally utilised at present.
    If it ever becomes a serious issue, we can knock up a few desalination plants run with nuclear power using the enormous stockpile of 120 tonnes of plutonium the UK accumulated during the Cold War.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    It's hardly massive. Our population was 55 million in 1945. 40% population growth over 80 years is hardly excessive
    So the population went from 55 million in 1945 to 64 in 2015.

    Yet you think 64 million to 70 million, in around 10 tens is not excessive?!

    10 million increase over 70 years versus 6 million increase over 12. Hmmmmm

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    So the population went from 55 million in 1945 to 64 in 2015.

    Yet you think 64 million to 70 million, in around 10 tens is not excessive?!
    What is "10 tens"? You're babbling. Slow down, and try to express yourself clearly and cogently.

    And yes; a 40% increase in population over 80 years is not excessive. Other countries have increased by over 200% in the same period.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RodgertheRabbit)
    The change will be massive, and is already being felt. Housing, police, hospitals, schools, prisons etc.
    The real change would be if we had no immigration, and with low birthrates and an aging population we would experience the devastating stagnation seen in Italy and Japan.

    In any case, population will not increase indefinitely. The population will plateau around 2100, and then start falling. And the internet will increasingly cause reason and democratic values to penetrate into the inferior cultures, along with a desire for greater modernity and accountability.

    30 years ago people thought Asia's population would explode and keep climbing indefinitely. In fact, China's population is aging fast and they are going to hit a serious crisis because there will be far too young people to support the elderly population with their taxes, with their labour in the care industry, and so on. Japan's population decreased by a quarter million in 2013. The rate of decrease will accelerate. That trend will hit China later this century, and then India in the 2100s.

    Africa and the Middle East might need a bit more time, but they too will evolve. Malthus said a few centuries ago that by the 19th century food supplies would run out. In fact, humans always manage to surmount the next hurdle by dint of technological innovation, and an increasing population will spur technological advance so we can start to colonise the solar system which is vital for our long-term survival as a species.

    http://qz.com/162788/japan-is-rapidl...ut-to-join-it/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    What is "10 tens"? You're babbling. Slow down, and try to express yourself clearly and cogently.

    And yes; a 40% increase in population over 80 years is not excessive. Other countries have increased by over 200% in the same period.
    Ten years. Really poor response. Just appealing to other countries doesn't cut it. How big is their land mass and how densely populated is the country? One thing you absolutely cannot increase is land mass unless you're expecting a war to claim more.

    Our land is finite and the areas fit to build more accommodation are shrinking and fast, unless you want to build on green field sites. Good luck persuading people of that one.

    Let's look to the future, we have a 70 million large population by 2030. How long do you continue growing so quickly before the seriousness of the problem is addressed? 100 million?

    Once you get to 100 million in the UK you are stuck with the bizarre situation of having a population approximately a thirteenth the size of China's population yet having a land mass equivalent of a thirty ninth the size of China's.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    [/b]

    The overall percentage increase is the same. Going from 50 million to 70 million over 80 years, a 40% increase, is not outrageous or excessive. In the same period the US has more than doubled its population.



    Actually, many studies have suggested we could absolutely be self-sufficient in food (there are many parts of the country where land that is agriculturally sound is not used for food production). The real question is do we want to be.

    Food production for the mass market is not a high skill, high value added proposition. Economically, and from the perspective of comparative advantage, it could be more sensible to employ someone in an industry like internet services, pharma, manufacturing or any one of a number of areas where the GDP productivity is higher, and thus you get better value to employ people in high-skill, high value added industries and use part of the surplus to buy food. The UK has been doing that for centuries now.

    But I suppose that doesn't appeal to the kind of 19th century economic mindset of many environmentalists who hold onto a very materialistic conception of economic activity (i.e. how many tonnes of wheat do you produce, how many tonnes of steel, and so on).

    Ultimately, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand produce more than enough food to cover us and if there was ever some kind of food crisis, there is no question they would supply us in preference to other countries. Furthermore, the Anglosphere has sufficient military power to ensure the safe deliveries of such supplies.



    If it ever becomes a serious issue, we can knock up a few desalination plants run with nuclear power using the enormous stockpile of 120 tonnes of plutonium the UK accumulated during the Cold War.
    The US is the size of a continent ffs
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    10 years ago I lived in a fairly White area

    So immigration never bothered me..

    Plus I was just a kid, young and naive


    Now? It's about 30% non-White



    10 years time it'll probably be 50% non-White

    then as soon as you know it...




    Non-White people that if this was done to your race, you wouldn't oppose this? But I bet you wouldn't be called racists for it..



    It is interesting that a lot of the pro-immigration people are also anti-Israel

    Because look what immigration has done to Palestine...

    Difference is Palestinian genocide is not real, as in their population has not decreased

    Ours has
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    [/b]The overall percentage increase is the same.
    Going from 55m to 70m cannot be the same percentage increase as going from 49m to 70m.

    That you regard 5m people as of little account shows that you don't care if a city half the size of London is splatted onto the British countryside.

    Curiously, even though cultural archetypes regard this approach as evil, the "Sauron" view rather than the "Gandalf" view, those proposing the destruction of the countryside always paint themselves as "holy".


    Going from 50 million to 70 million over 80 years, a 40% increase, is not outrageous or excessive. In the same period the US has more than doubled its population.
    The USA still has vast areas of relatively unpopulated land, England does not:

    Name:  popusauk.jpeg
Views: 44
Size:  104.9 KB

    (Click on image to enlarge). They are not in any way comparable.

    In simple, cultural terms the UK has large numbers of servants of darkness who want to see the shadow of urbanisation spread over the entire land. They reinforce each other's evil by telling each other that for some reason destroying nature is "good".
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    So the population went from 55 million in 1945 to 64 in 2015.

    Yet you think 64 million to 70 million, in around 10 tens is not excessive?!

    10 million increase over 70 years versus 6 million increase over 12. Hmmmmm

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The UK population increase is around 7% per decade based on the 01-11 census. 0.7% growth per year is very manageable given that both tax revenues and food production grow in excess of that. A lot of issues are simply down to poor economic management.

    Looking at nominal figures may be scary but it doesn't take into account the dynamic rather than static real world economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The UK population increase is around 7% per decade based on the 01-11 census. 0.7% growth per year is very manageable given that both tax revenues and food production grow in excess of that. A lot of issues are simply down to poor economic management.

    Looking at nominal figures may be scary but it doesn't take into account the dynamic rather than static real world economy.
    I'm only talking specifically about available land and acceptable population density. At what point will this island's population be recognised as too big? Is 100 million too big? As I've pointed out you're then in the situation of having a thirteenth of China's population but with only a thirty ninth of the land mass.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The UK only has two cities with more than a million people. Cities with a million people don't become economic powers. Having more multi-million people would make the UK a lot stronger than it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The UK only has two cities with more than a million people. Cities with a million people don't become economic powers. Having more multi-million people would make the UK a lot stronger than it is.

    So many posts glorifying in the possibility of dark satanic mills and the destruction of this green and pleasant land. So much talk about "power" and wealth. Has the whole population turned rotten?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The UK only has two cities with more than a million people. Cities with a million people don't become economic powers. Having more multi-million people would make the UK a lot stronger than it is.
    That's because the UK is a tiny island.

    You cannot compare us to countries like the US and China. That's retarded.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    The real change would be if we had no immigration, and with low birthrates and an aging population we would experience the devastating stagnation seen in Italy and Japan.

    In any case, population will not increase indefinitely. The population will plateau around 2100, and then start falling. And the internet will increasingly cause reason and democratic values to penetrate into the inferior cultures, along with a desire for greater modernity and accountability.

    30 years ago people thought Asia's population would explode and keep climbing indefinitely. In fact, China's population is aging fast and they are going to hit a serious crisis because there will be far too young people to support the elderly population with their taxes, with their labour in the care industry, and so on. Japan's population decreased by a quarter million in 2013. The rate of decrease will accelerate. That trend will hit China later this century, and then India in the 2100s.

    Africa and the Middle East might need a bit more time, but they too will evolve. Malthus said a few centuries ago that by the 19th century food supplies would run out. In fact, humans always manage to surmount the next hurdle by dint of technological innovation, and an increasing population will spur technological advance so we can start to colonise the solar system which is vital for our long-term survival as a species.

    http://qz.com/162788/japan-is-rapidl...ut-to-join-it/
    This is quite related:

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    That's because the UK is a tiny island.

    You cannot compare us to countries like the US and China. That's retarded.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Geographic size is not really important since we are not a city state and our island is actually quite large.

    In terms of population distribution then for a nation with a population our size it's actually Birmingham especially which is smaller than it should be although there are other notable anomalies such as West Yorkshire where Leeds (~800,000) has Bradford (~500,000) sat less than 10 miles away and run entirely as a separate city.

    Given Birmingham's inferior location relative to Manchester (Manchester has Liverpool and Leeds next to it, the 4th and 6th richest cities by GDP i believe) i often wonder if Manchester would have been the UK's second city and a normal size for our population if the market had been left to it. Perhaps it was policies from the state which advantaged Birmingham or disadvantaged Manchester. Or perhaps it's Birmingham that has grown as it should but Manchester being in proximity to Leeds and Liverpool has suffered.

    Wierd.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    lol you call an increase from 64 million to 70 million a massive increase. Shows how ridiculous you are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    That's because the UK is a tiny island.

    You cannot compare us to countries like the US and China. That's retarded.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You know who's retarded? You.

    I compared cities, not countries.

    To add on that, do you know the size of Chinese cities? It's 10-20 million, or even more. I'm talking about 1 million plus cities for the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.