Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/world-population-hits-7-billion-after-boom-in-developing-world.html
Appropriately, some might say, the world population is to hit seven billion on Halloweeen. By 2050 it will be 9.3 billion.
Most of that growth will be housed at Whitfield.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
disagree entirely andrew, sholden will take just as many as whitfield.
sadly there will not be any affordable ones.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#3
Six thousand houses? No it won't.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
will need a lot more than 6000 houses to take those 7 billion.
whitfield and sholden will not be enough, there would need to be a few tower blocks spread around river and temple ewell.
some temporary refugee camps in st margarets would not go amiss.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#5
Irony, Howard...it was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Never mind.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
ditto andrew.
#7
No one seems to know what to do with this I think back to the two world wars were the population was thin ed out by several million and jobs were plentiful, God forbid we go down that road again but if the populous keeps growing were will we be in 50 or 100 years time no space to move around as we would like, no houses no jobs what of the young being born today what future will they have.Do we have wars because Governments know that Millions will die leaving more space to grow, I'm glad this one dose not rest on my shoulders.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#8
You know the world is a very big place. A very big place. You could probably put the entire population of the world on a small island like the Isle of Wight with room to spare although there might not be that much space for a man to shave.
But I find this hysteria surrounding the increasing world population somewhat unhealthy.
It implies that humankind is somehow intrinsically bad - inherently evil perhaps rather than a benign force (in the main) and should somehow be stopped from reproducing.
This is simply wrong. The look on a Mother's face having given birth to a new born baby is a sight to behold whatever the reason for the birth be it through love, poverty, chance or whatever the reason. Mankind in general is a good thing surely? We are all Mankind.
Are those who are worried about an increasing world population merely pulling up the drawbridge so that the world they live in remains comfortable 'till they depart from this world?
Go back a few centuries for my analogy whereby the local old man (from central casting of course with his unkempt hair and dour demeanour) tells the stranger passing through, "Maarrrk moi words, this village has never bin the same since it got bigger. We used to have tweny people livin' 'ere and now it's bin ruined. We got fortyfive".
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#9
??? Are you accusing me of hystreria Philip? I was merely posting a link.
Your argument is big on sentimentality but short on facts. You invoke gooey images but what you overlook is that it is not just a question of numbers of people, but the resources that the human population is consuming at an unsustainable rate. And what about animals and their babies? Are we the only species that matters? What about all the other species that we hunt to extinction and enslave, and whose habitats we relentlessly destroy? It is a fact that we are consuming resources at twice the rate that the planet can sustain.
As for your apocryphal remark about villages, it is not only ill-informed and patronising, it ignores the fact that what is proposed at Whitfield is a contrived four-fold increase in population with no inherent driver behind it other than a council decision.
It is more than a little naive to imagine that the health of the planet - and the well-being and happiness of humans, for that matter - is not being negatively impacted by relentless economic growth and population explosion.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#10
The rate at which the world population is increasing is going to be a serious problem in the future, on many aspects, food, the environment, habitats, resources, and the rubbish mankind leaves behind... there will be problems .. but perhaps mankind will learn to cope with it and solve the many situations created.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
i doubt it kath there is only so much arable land and areas for animals to graze.
the population has to be controlled somehow, the problem is that in the third world many people believe in having as many children as they can to feed them in their old age.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#12
This thread is proof that my view is correct: we in Kent should be working our Garden of England more, and selling fruit and veg to other countries
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#13
Part of the reason that the world's population is increasing is that people are living longer. That's a good thing right?
Poorer communities have always had large families for various reasons including the fact that child infant mortality and mortality in early years through disease is higher in poor countries.
The one single factor that is guaranteed to bring down world population is wealth.
Developing nations reach a point where they consider themselves at a point where they no longer need large families for the above reason and find themselves enjoying the fruits of their wealth. Having stable employment also ensures this.
This is why the richer western and other developed nations have very low birth rates which create a demographic time bomb whereby there are not the young to keep the old in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
People worry too much about this issue. Mankind has always managed to overcome problems concerning population increases. There have been worries about this for years and years.
I guess we all need something to worry about.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
Philip, I am worried! I'm worried that it's only me in Dover who seems to think that by producing more fruit and vegetables here in Kent we could be supplying people with food in return for an income!
Many communities - the poor among them - in the world have a basic diet, either rice or maiz or some other local crop.
Diversification of nutrition is important.
I'm beginning to think that for some people, the idea of working a plot of land is a no-go area! Out government just sits about and does nothing, when we could be increasing local farm produce and exporting it!
May-be it's just me
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#15
Alexander I absolutely agree with you. It's criminal how land is wasted, used and abused. All over the world populations are increasing and that is inevitability but where the problem lies is in the way leaders of countries squander the resources they have under their feet. Wars, greed, stupidity rank among the many reasons that problems abound for the needy when with good governance the good citizens, the ordinary folk, could live happy productive lives. But once again politics and big money and other factors leave millions in peril.
Take biofuels for example.
In order to "save the flippin' planet" countries such as ours alongside the US and Germany and other bed-wetting nations who believe the climate change scam reckon it's better to use good arable land to grow plants which end up filling petrol tanks rather than using that land to feed the poor. It's absolutely scandalous.
So for the Guardian reading fraternity who want to "do their bit for the environment" by putting biofuel into their car in effect what they are doing is participating in a vast racket which actually kills people.
It's disgusting really but hey, there's polar bears out there to save right?
Then consider the myth of fair trade. So those who choose to buy fair trade chocolate, for example, are doing nothing of the sort. The free trade movement actually makes things far worse. The only people who really profit from this free trade ideas are those who set it up in the first place and the supermarkets.
The scandal is the EU who impose tarrifs on food produced in, say, Africa which makes it more expensive for African farmers to import to Europe.
The only fair trade is free trade and that's a fact.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#17
Howard,
the article states that though they communication of the message may be being won by the 'sceptics' the central truth, that man made factors are causing global warming, is still accepted by the majority of the scientific world.
As Andrew says we cannot continue to plunder the Earth's resources without thought of the consequences for future generations; though profiteers would rather we did.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#18
Careful Howard. "Winning the argument..." well, the article says "climate sceptics winning the argument with the public" - which means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean they are right, or he is right, it just means that the public are willing to believe that climate change is not as big an issue as is believed. Of course they are. People always want to be told that they don't have to bother - less expense and effort for them.
Read the article and it is clear that he believes the earth is hotting up.
Just because the last few years have seen a return to "old-fashioned" weather it doesn't mean that the warming trend is not relentlessly upward. We are at a solar minimum when the sun's strength is reduced and moreover it seems that pollution from soaring Chinese coal consumption is having a temporary cooling effect by blocking out the sun's rays:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264
From the planet's point of view mankind is a destructive force, but the earth has the capacity to recover.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#19
With a warming globe we can expect more cold winters as cold from the poles has an effect on the warmth from the gulf stream.
Why bother with biofuels when we can burn good old fashioned petrol. Could it be that oil is a finite resource and once gone it will be gone forever. Of course you could find new reserves in the polar regions but then one good spill would do more to melt the ice then years of global warming.
Feed the world? The worlds largest rice producer, America surprisingly, would rather dump it in the Pacific than see prices drop.
Difficult to get people interested in growing food when among the most popular educational courses are 'media studies' and hairdressing. We may run out of food but we will certainly know how to look good on television as we moan about it.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#20
Warming world eh? Hmmn, it's a statistical fact that global temperatures have remained the same since 2001. Far from being the world's biggest rice grower America ranks only twelfth ourranked by China, India and others.
What people forget when they think growing food to convert into petrol is that in order to grow these magic solutions to a "warming world" they need oil based fertilizers in order for biofuels to grow well. Bonkers isn't it? No I mean it's really, really bonkers.
Regarding that Indy article one only has to know where the Indy stand on this issue to realise that they only print puff pieces and always in favour of their beloved cause. James Hanson lies at the extreme end of the carbon religion. He is forever being arrested for his part in illegal demonstrations and yet is paid handsomely by NASA whom he works for. What they fail to mention in that piece is that it is widely recognised that the hottest day in recorded history, that's recorded history, in the States was 1934.
Even last years Russian heatwave has been attributed to natural variations and not climate change - this from noted warmists too!
And even more laughable is their final smoking gun piece of evidence with 2003 and the death rate. Well that's a really simple one people and was due to a totally naturally occuring Azores high. The reason so many people died in France, for example, was that so many French medical workers were on holiday presumably off to somewhere warm and comfortable and well away from preachy politicians going on and on about the climate.
Today the IFS published it's latest projections for poverty in the UK. It's not pretty and not helped by the various egregious green taxes which we all have to suffer. Not helped also by rising energy bills due partly to subsidising the building of thousands of wind farms.
But hey, the planet is dying right?