Just quickly on the cancer death rates. The rate of 170,000 per year wouldn’t last long at all. We’d just start dying of something else but a little bit older. Maybe it would persist long enough to hit the 70m figure – you might be right there.

I expect the political response to population growth to be just as effective as their approach to energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs

Or drug use
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nqyrNzSgyk&feature=PlayList&p=36B9B0BC5633C7AF&index=6

Which politician is brave enough to take on an intractable problem that seems to have few if any meaningful solutions?

Excellent post. Also, to add to Doug’s point, curing cancer will likely only make a very tiny difference to birth rate – most cancers will affect people who are unlikely to reproduce in the future.

Excellent post.

1. I chose cancer as it’s very dramatic, in my opinion. The fact is that scientific progression on any number of separate medical issues, combined with separate policy on a different issue to abortion (also chosen for dramatic effect) such as alcohol and tobacco policy (as a minor but relevant example) *could* easily lead to the 150,000-200,000 extra people per year that would lead to 70mil population in 20-25 years, even if immigration was controlled to zero net effect.

Is it realistic? Not exactly, but to keep on these discussions that are fundamentally based on hoping that a certain percentage of people don’t simply die of “old age” is fairly immoral in my opinion.

As you say, at some point we’re going to hit 70 million, at the very latest that is likely to be in 50 years, and that is an extremely conservative estimate based on birth, death and immigration rates from over half a century ago. Pettily arguing about how to control it through immigration is just delaying the inevitable.

3. Cancer affects death rate only, of course, I didn’t wish to allude that curing it would cause more births, only that the number of births in the UK looks set to keep increasing while deaths are set to decrease, curing cancer or not.

Other than ‘investing in infrastructure’ you haven’t managed to actually describe how a left-wing government could prepare for population growth. I’ve got lots of ideas but none of them are left-wing. Therefore, whilst Labour are unable to cope with immigration I generally oppose it (which obviously makes me pro-cancer lol).

at some point we’re going to hit 70 million, at the very latest that is likely to be in 50 years, and that is an extremely conservative estimate based on birth, death and immigration rates from over half a century ago. Pettily arguing about how to control it through immigration is just delaying the inevitable.

Since we are not reproducing at the replacement rate, it is a near certainty that IF we were able to control (halt) immigration then we could hold the population at the current level.

So it may be a good or a bad thing (bad in my view) but it is not inevitable.

Given the choice between adding 5 million more people who have experienced British social norms for almost all of their lives versus adding 5 million more people who come from societies with radically different and reactionary norms about the roles of women, families and religion. If all else were neutral, would we really say the second situation would be better for our society than the first?

That is the assumption on which the post rests. Perhaps there are special benefits from immigration. If they are, they should have been articulated. You can’t merely say “70 million people who grew up in Britain would be fine” and then extrapolate that “replacing lots of old people from that 70 million with a large number of ethnic ghettos would be even better”. It’s misconstruing the anti-immigration argument to assume that all people are the same.

you haven’t managed to actually describe how a left-wing government could prepare for population growth

Investing more in public services. There you go, problem solved.

Are you also in favour of unrestricted GLOBAL population growth in the belief that ’something will turn up’?

Also, why worry about climate change? Some scientist might invent something.

As pointed out, the analogy with cancer is nonsence. Cancer usually strikes those above reproductive age. When the analogy is so obviously false there’s little to discuss.

You are also conflating two seperate issues (much like the anti-immigration lobby): population growth and immigration. As such you address neither sensibly.

There are strong economic and environmental reasons for slowing GLOBAL population growth through education. This will decrease pressure on the Third World to emmigrate.

If you think there’s a moral or economic case for unrestricted immigration then make it.

‘Investing more in public services. There you go, problem solved’

Wow, wish I’d taken Economics. Now if only you can supply details of where to get this money you will invest.

Is unrestricted population growth Green policy now?

6. I think you may be trying to pigeonhole me in to a Labour versus Tory argument, which is doomed to fail from the beginning. I am left wing, but not in a Labour sense. Investing in infrastructure, services and support IS the answer, how Labour have or would do it is beside the point. Meanwhile this thread isn’t about answering how to solve population growth, it’s about how we can move the discussion of our population growth away from immigration (which isn’t even sure to stay at a rate that will increase our population to 70mil in 20 years anyway) and on to the meat of the problem.

7. More people are being born than are dying, by some 200,000 people, so I don’t know where you’ve got the idea that we’re not reproducing at replacement rate, we’re exceeding it.

8. This isn’t a post about the social implications of immigration. This is about population growth, which is the MAIN REASON that the anti-immigration argument has a voice, as evidenced by the fact every immigration article seems to be prefaced with a statistic about population overload.

10. See above. Personally I think if people, even with education in the future being better, want to increase the population of this world then it is something we have to solve, not curb. The idea that there is not enough space for us is based on no evidence whatsoever. People emigrate from the third world precisely because there is a shortage of infrastructure, services and (in their specific case) security.

Also Cancer striking those above reproductive age makes no difference to what I’m saying, and the point was that science is going to move our death rate lower, not higher…and at any point some scientist could make the breakthrough that dramatically lowers it in a matter of years.

“If you think there’s a moral or economic case for unrestricted immigration then make it.”

That’s not what this thread is about. Cheers anyway.

6, 7, and 8. I’d be much more interested if you’d address the point made in my article than trying to deflect it on to much less relevant areas.

I think I get Shatterface’s view, but what would you be doing if we rested on our laurels and faced a population growth in excess of 300,000 a year further down the line without having made any moves to lay down the groundwork to cope with it because you would rather have stood making a political stand against “foreigners” coming in and taking up all the space?

[9] I am no expert in economics but several authorities, including the OECD, have already suggested that the current level of expenditure on public services is no longer tenable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5688530/OECD-tells-Government-to-cut-spending-or-face-hardship-for-years-to-come.html

From my experience it seems that teacher, nurses, police officers social workers, housing officers, etc are worried about the chronic stresses associated with these jobs – while those competing for services often face bureaucratic indifference (and incompetence), perhaps because a significant % of staff are so burnt out?

To get a feel for this issues visit;
Frank Chalk (teacher)
http://frankchalk.blogspot.com/
Militant Medical Nurse
http://militantmedicalnurse.blogspot.com/
NHSblogdoc
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/
Fighting monsters (social worker)
http://fightingmonsters.wordpress.com/
And, of course, Inspector Gadget (police)
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

One of the recurring theme’s time and time again is how very band aids are being used to paper over the perennial shortcomings in the service.
It’s not quite as simple as throwing more tax-cash at the problem although I do not dispute that certain areas are already underfunded.

I said *you haven’t managed to actually describe how a left-wing government could prepare for population growth*

Sunny replied @Investing more in public services. There you go, problem solved.@

Given that government spending exceeds revenues by about a third, that option is no longer available for the foreseeable future. Welcome to 2009 Sunny.

‘I think I get Shatterface’s view, but what would you be doing if we rested on our laurels and faced a population growth in excess of 300,000 a year further down the line without having made any moves to lay down the groundwork to cope with it because you would rather have stood making a political stand against “foreigners” coming in and taking up all the space?’

My concerns about population growth aren’t about immigration but population density. (For the record, my views on immigration aren’t much different from Sunny.) If, say, we did ban abortion and the population increased to the same extent then we’d still have the same problems with funding schools, hospitals, council services, etc. I’ve a great deal of faith in science but I don’t place my faith in a quick technological fix. I certainly don’t swallow argument that we can house people in flats because we tried that in the Sixties and it was a disaster.

And I still think that that this is a global issue. You don’t have mass immigration into developing countries from developed countries (bar conquests like Iraq). Decrease global inequality and you decrease the pressure to move. Arguements about immigration, pro or anti, are basically parochial.

You’ve rumbled me shatterface!

Wow, wish I’d taken Economics. Now if only you can supply details of where to get this money you will invest.

I suppose you expect all the new additions will be on welfare as opposed to paying taxes?

Is unrestricted population growth Green policy now?

I didn’t know there was a Green God laying down policy that I had to subscribe to. I’m in favour of sex ed and family planning to reduce birthrates but the global population is more likely to be reduced (given birthrates go down once people move to richer countries) if we had more immigration to the west.

PragueTory: I’m sure you’re aware of the economic concept of economic cycles. If you think that the tax deficit is going to remain the same for the next 20 years or so, its perhaps best to leave such discussions to the big boys and girls yeah?

“Given that government spending exceeds revenues by about a third, that option is no longer available for the foreseeable future. Welcome to 2009 Sunny.”

Of course, one way of increasing revenue is to import substantial amounts of working age immigrants…..

Lee – I’m trying to condense down your message to it’s bare bones: is this sentence of yours a good one-line summary?
“So, the next time that someone claims that it isn’t racist to be anti-immigration…”

And can your clarify this:
“As you say, at some point we’re going to hit 70 million, at the very latest that is likely to be in 50 years, and that is an extremely conservative estimate…”

When spending this year on infrastructure we don’t need for another 50 seems very poor use of tax-payers money…

Lee Griffin: The idea that there is not enough space for us is based on no evidence whatsoever.

So do subjective human reports of how much space they feel comfortable with have any value to you? There is indeed a need for space in humans as in all organisms, and it varies within populations and within species. Some people are happy with enough space to swing a cat. Some people not only tolerate living in London, but do so happily. Oregon, same size as the UK, has 4 million people. The UK has one sixth of the population of the USA (over 3 million square miles) crammed into a country of 93,000 square miles, slightly smaller than Oregon. And even if one does accept the implicit assumption of your post, that the well-being and happiness of the species homo sapiens is of pre-eminent importance in the world, to me it is axiomatic that a small population, beyond a certain minimum, means a higher quality of life for the members of this species. The more people there are impinging on one another, the greater is the need to regulate their activities. The fewer people there are, the less one’s behaviour impinges on others and consequently we have greater privacy and need to moderate our behaviours to suit others. More living space, more wilderness for your kids to grow up in, more habitat for the millions of other species with whom we share the earth, greater food security. It is no accident that, that people are willing to pay a premium for a spacious view from their windows, that tens of millions of us in this country head for the country in our spare time, that millions are trying to live in the country, that there is a plethora of country programmes on the TV, that there is a property programme called Start a New Life in the Country but not one called Start a New Life in the Inner City. Londoners who buy a second home buy it in the countryside, not in Leeds or Birmingham. Space is part of the good life. Finland has a population density of 16 per sq km. Singapore nearly 7000 per sq km. Almost every family in Finland has a summer cottage with a sauna by a lake. They don’t in Singapore or Hong Kong. It is no accident that 2 million plus Londoners have left London in the last ten years, and overwhelmingly have gone to places which they perceive as being more spacious. In 2004 155,000 migrants came to London from the rest of the UK and over 350,000 people moved out of London, including 260,000 to the rest of the UK.
There is also a distinct cultural divide here. The countryside is precious to most British people. It has hugely inspired much of our classical and folk music, poetry, literature art. Put “English landscape painting” into Google, substitute British, Scottish, Welsh, or various northern European nationalities, and you will get numerous finds. But if you put in “Indian landscape painting”, or Pakistan or any African country, the results are negligible. Sathnam Sanghera points out “in 2006 and 2007 ethnic minorities accounted for just 0.5 per cent of visitors to the North York Moors, despite the park being near several large cities with significant Asian populations”.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6503294.ece

He also says “And here, perhaps, is one reason why you don’t see many Punjabis trekking over England’s green and pleasant land: they have a fundamentally utilitarian view of the environment”. Same goes for other Africans and Asians. To them, our country is simply so much real estate.

@18.
And can your clarify this:
“As you say, at some point we’re going to hit 70 million, at the very latest that is likely to be in 50 years, and that is an extremely conservative estimate…”

When spending this year on infrastructure we don’t need for another 50 seems very poor use of tax-payers money…

Ah yes, of course, you’re quite right. The population will leap suddenly by 10 million in 50 years’ time. That’s how it works. No point investing right now.

@19.
But if you put in “Indian landscape painting”, or Pakistan or any African country, the results are negligible.

Whereas if you search for African art, you get “about 33,700,000 results”. Because “landscape painting” doesn’t really apply to the way African artwork has evolved.

And your point is? What exactly does this have to do with population growth? Are you trying to suggest that people with a different culture don’t belong here?

Phil

“Ah yes, of course, you’re quite right. The population will leap suddenly by 10 million in 50 years’ time. That’s how it works. No point investing right now.”

OK, OK; I was making the point that to _know_ when to start investing is the issue. Based on evidence.
And not to start throwing money at ‘because we should one day’.

One argument, is that if immigration brings new tax revenue (as some have argued in this thread), ….then new infrastructure will be self funding.

This track would therefore argue against premature infrastructure building.

Phil

Trofim’s bringing in art was a stretch, I thought so too.

But what did you think of his points before that – they seemed fairly sensible to me.

20

“And your point is? What exactly does this have to do with population growth? Are you trying to suggest that people with a different culture don’t belong here?”

No, I was pointing out that we, and north Europeans have a different attitude to our environment from non-Europeans. Certainly, asians and Africans are largely indifferent to something which we in Britain value highly, and which is under threat. Cultures differ in their attitude to various phenomena.

But isn’t that oh so lefty, to find a nanogram of racism or thisism or thatism in anything anyone says.

And my point is that investment should start now, and be planned properly. The infrastructure needs to stay a little ahead of the population growth – that’s where the simple tax revenue argument might fall slightly short. Also, you invest in something now, you need to design it with the knowledge that you are going to add to it later.

Long-term thinking is vital to good design.

And then we get to the fascinating part of the debate, rather than all the squabbling that we focus on today.

23. You don’t know many Africans, do you?

22.

It’s an interesting argument, certainly, rather spoiled at the end.

Human population has for a long time concentrated itself in small areas, where there is fertile land, good water supply and other resources. Gradually, economic and other factors such as persecution have played a greater part.

That much I’m sure we can all agree on.

We are however nowhere near breaking point. It’s more about managing what we’ve got, and predicting how those influences will change. For example, as more business is conducted over the web, does the pressure to live in the city decrease for many people? Will we start to see a hgher proportion of population growth happening outside of the cities?

In fact, should our main concern regarding free movement of people (something I’m largely in favour of) be population expansion? Surely the biggest impact would be skiled workers leaving developing countries, thus damaging national capacity and enticing yet more of their population to leave?

Should we not have a more global outlook, help developing countries to build capacity and thus reducing the pressures that drive migration?

Phil

>Should we not have a more global outlook, help developing countries to build capacity and thus reducing the pressures that drive migration?

Doesn’t the EU and UK do a fair bit of that already? The US sends $Bns to Pakistan every year etc etc.

> For example, as more business is conducted over the web, does the pressure to live in the city decrease for many people?

Well actually, many jobs have been exported from British cities to ones in lower-wage economies such as India, China: so it’s less of a shift from ‘city to land’ but from ‘expensive western city to low cost other city’.

Certainly, to my knowledge UK IT salaries have been pretty flat comparing 1999 with 2009: with the result that UK Plc is receiving that much less tax income than it was.

Multiply that across the other job types that have gone overseas, and consider it a trend that will continue for a long time (until there are no cheaper economies left); and one argument is that the result is:

i) a fast reduction of these job types in the UK, and therefore the need for new works (immigrant or otherwise)

ii) increase in unemployment for these types of workers (immigrant or otherwise)

iii) increasing budget deficit paying for the infrastructure used by the out of work types.

Take the analogy : girls (mostly) leaving school and sure of a job as a typist: this whole ‘typing pool’ job sector disappeared once PC wordprocessors became available.

It’s possible that Uk and Western employment could be on a permanent downward curve from here on – which started 5 or 10 years back but was masked by the spurious ‘boom years’.

Just anecdote I know, but just spoke to a Spanish graduate in Computer Science today -top notch Uni: no jobs in Spain, so came to London for one. How long before London too has too few IT jobs to make it worth coming?
(Spain had much bigger housing bubble than here – huge chunk of economic growth was construction sector which died overnight when the bubble burst)

Generally, people don’t just “visit the country”, they do so in a culturally specific way. They go to see Pemberly, or a Norman church, or a bird reserve, or a landscape with vistas made famous in poetry, not to tromp through some farmer’s beet fields.

People in Burma and India and Thailand visit their countryside in a similar way; they often make a particular temple the focus of their visit, for instance. It’ll take a few generations for immigrants to relate to British countryside icons in the same way, but eventually, they’ll get there.

@27
Good points, Just Visiting.

Yes we do a fair bit of development already. In fact, the best thing about Gordon Brown, by some distance, has been his understanding of development issues, and his leadership on this on the world stage. And to the Tories’ credit, they set up the Department for International Development, and have promised to honour our current commitments.

We’ve got a long way to go, however, before we get really effective in this. At the moment, there is a high risk that any money given bilaterally goes into fuelling corruption. It’s very difficult to weed this out and just stop giving aid to developing countries.

One of the problems is that when we give aid, that makes the recipient Government accountable to us, when they should be accountable to their own citizens. The most obvious way to make them more accountable to the people who elected them is effective taxation – which would be, to put it mildly, a pain in the arse to set up. You need to be able to tax some of the world’s very poorest people in a way that will ultimately benefit them. The easiest sort of tax would probably be VAT, but that’s a very regressive tax and would hit the poorest people hardest….

… and ow, my head hurts.

It’s going to be a very painful process.

Oh, I meant to reply to this from Shatterface before too:

“I certainly don’t swallow argument that we can house people in flats because we tried that in the Sixties and it was a disaster.”

This wasn’t a case of flats being a problem, but throwing up poorly designed tower blocks made of concrete that we didn’t really know how to use properly.

It is possible to build safe, good looking, well constructed flats. Even just four or five storey blocks would make a significant impact on our housing footprint, if built in the right areas, where they wouldn’t be too detrimental to the skyline.

It is grotesque to link immigration to cancer treatment and care. This is an absurd article.

Most countries in the world outside of the ‘liberal west’ have strict controls on immigration because they recognise that mass immigration is injurious to social cohesion not only because they are concerned about population totals. To suggest that the leaders of nations with such a position eg China, Japan and South Korea would also like to see medical advancement fail is an appalling distortion.

When I read such articles I am left in no doubt why the ‘left’ is being abandoned by their traditional support.

Hi TP, thanks for playing, and for missing the point as so many have. Alas, it seems that it’s all too easy to play the game of “too many people” but then try to change the argument when someone points out the huge fucking hole in your tabloid pushing scare stories.

As for Just Giving, no that’s not a good one-line summary. Here is a one line summary just for you (*kisses*)…

“Stop blaming the squeeze of our resources on one of many potential contributory factors, and build your way out of feeling the squeeze…and stop whining.”

19. There are communities in this country that are dying, and they’re dying because of the loss of industry more than the economy. As each generation passes there are villages with richer heritage than a hill that a famous artist has painted, or a river a famous writer has made a poem about, that are quite simply disappearing without much of a fight happening.

These communities could damn well do with immigration, and indeed are asking for more workers. Currently Cornwall is seeing a resurgence in migration figures to take up jobs that are ONLY being created because of funding being pumped in to the county. This is the first step in creating a sustainable population, trying to push our economy away from the rather two dimensional situation we have right now with London.

So by all means, sit there and whine about the space you have in the city, meanwhile places where they have acres more space and landscape to die for are falling in to ruin and non-existence through the bloody minded selfishness of those in the South East.