Bring Back Boris?

[Scott777]

plus demand reduction of water, power, heat, transport, new materials to be able to support 10bn.

Mass immigration creates more demand for these, and yet you seem to think we cannot 'realistically' reduce immigration.  You really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Scott777]

I don't think that.

I think that doing as you said would make very little difference to the migration figures.

Back-tracking again.  You began by saying there's a high chance of "major damage to the economy" if we reduce immigration.  Stopping ALL the boats and people with no qualifications or experience would reduce immigration.  Your opinion on it making "very little difference" is not relevant.  I disagree.  You are now shifting from "major damage to the economy", to "I don't think that" and your OPINION on what makes a difference.  As ever, Beelzebub being a slippery snake.

[BeElBeeBub]

Borchester makes a good point.

If we completely ran out of oil/gas/coal -nyrah there would be issues. There are some things that we just need fossil fuels for.

But a huge chunk of our current usage is burning it to make something hot or to move something.

We have a lot of potential for renewables world wide, solar, wind, hydro, wave etc.

Plus we have nuclear power which is proven and safe in it's latest generation.  We also have options (albeit not as developed) for reactors that can burn plutonium (which would be nice to get rid of) and a range of experimental reactor designs that don't use uranium.

I'd love to say fusion will one day happen, but I don't think we can bank on it.

Bottom line is, the planet's ability to sustain a population is very much dictated by energy supply and we have the tools available to continue that supply in the absence of fossil fuels. But there will be adjustments required e.g. driving around in a vehicle that uses 1kwh per mile to pick up a pint of milk will probabky have to stop. £100 flights across continents will have to stop. Our consumerist consumption levels will have to stop

[Borchester]

When the non renewables run out it really won't be possible to supports 10bn. Food production is the big problem. For instance where currently 10 tonnes of potatoes are produced that would reduced to 2 tonnes or less.

Could be.

Not many people know this because I so rarely mention it, but I am quite into gardening and crop yields could be (and have been) increased quite dramatically without recourse to extra land or big oil. The bit that counts is some quiet thought, not storming  through the West End demanding that SOMETHING BE DONE  or some such fashionable and fun filled nonsense.

[papasmurf]

The transition away from fossil fuels is one of those appropriate technologies.

As things currently stand, it won't be possible to support 10bn people on existing renewables only

We need other tech like nuclear, plus demand reduction of water, power, heat, transport, new materials to be able to support 10bn.

When the non renewables run out it really won't be possible to supports 10bn. Food production is the big problem. For instance where currently 10 tonnes of potatoes are produced that would reduced to 2 tonnes or less.

[BeElBeeBub]

Not when the non renewables run out.

The transition away from fossil fuels is one of those appropriate technologies.

As things currently stand, it won't be possible to support 10bn people on existing renewables only 

We need other tech like nuclear, plus demand reduction of water, power, heat, transport, new materials to be able to support 10bn.

[BeElBeeBub]

Having parked the discussion about what the population level of the UK should be.

I'd like to look at the logic chain below

"A nation's population should be the number it can support independently [however that is defined] -> the nation has more than that number already -> therefore we cannot allow any net migration"

The flaw as I see it, is that if the current pop is greater than target and you are using net migration as a tool to control that number, why stop at churning immigration? Shouldn't we be encouraging *emigration*?

Why should advocates stop at discouraging people coming to the country? Shouldn't they also be advocating encouraging emigration?

And where.do those people emigrate to?

[papasmurf]

I can imagine the planet could support 10bn or more, with the right technologies, politics and conditions.

Not when the non renewables run out.

[BeElBeeBub]

It is all down to long term sustainable food production. There will come a time when no food imports are possible, because every other country will in the same boat. Eventually only a world population of around one billion can be in the long term sustainably supported.
I have done this issue to death with referenced data many time. I frankly do not want to get into another 1000 post saga about it. You either understand it or you don't.

I get it, I'm just uncertain as to what the long term sustainable planetary population is. So much depends on what the conditions will be.
I can imagine the planet could support 10bn or more, with the right technologies, politics and conditions.
On the other hand 1bn might be a push without the above

Regardless, the path from current pop levels to the levels you propose would be catastrophic on anything other than a centuries long timeline.

I don't disagree that human pop needs to have an upper limit. I'd even go so far as to say the current levels may be around or even above that limit.

But the problem comes when people start discussing solutions. As I said, it can often go to unsavoury places fast

But let's park that discussion about the level for now as you say.

[papasmurf]

Except, the smaller you divide up a geographical area,.the lower the population density.

What if you arbitrarily decided to use Scotland, England and Wales?  The population of each would be lower than the population of the whole.


What about if you divided up by county? If every county was limited by the resources within it's borders the total.population of the UK would be even lower.

Why not draw a boundary around London? Or Birmingham?  Why is it ok for a city to "import" resources but not a country?  What about Hong Kong or Singapore?

So the output number is critically dependent on where you arbitrarily draw boundries.

Which makes it a bit of a pointless exercise

It is all down to long term sustainable food production. There will come a time when no food imports are possible, because every other country will in the same boat. Eventually only a world population of around one billion can be in the long term sustainably supported.
I have done this issue to death with referenced data many time. I frankly do not want to get into another 1000 post saga about it. You either understand it or you don't.

[BeElBeeBub]

Precisely, every other country will be in the same boat.

Except, the smaller you divide up a geographical area,.the lower the population density.

What if you arbitrarily decided to use Scotland, England and Wales?  The population of each would be lower than the population of the whole.


What about if you divided up by county? If every county was limited by the resources within it's borders the total.population of the UK would be even lower.

Why not draw a boundary around London? Or Birmingham?  Why is it ok for a city to "import" resources but not a country?  What about Hong Kong or Singapore? 

So the output number is critically dependent on where you arbitrarily draw boundries.

Which makes it a bit of a pointless exercise 

[Streetwalker]

The waters within and around the UK are proving to be extremely unsavoury. The government is not even attempting to pretend to act — they're just leaving it to the population to go through the motions..

[papasmurf]

Th The government is not even attempting to pretend to act — they're just leaving it to the population to go through the motions..

Literally:-

Eight Cornwall beaches hit with pollution warnings after heavy rain - Cornwall Live

[papasmurf]

That's based on what population sustainable "within a country's borders"

Precisely, every other country will be in the same boat.

[patman post]

That's based on what population sustainable "within a country's borders"

That calculation is subject to a vast number of assumptions.and arbitrary limits.

Do you include fossil fuels and external energy inputs in that equation? What about maritime resources? What about requirements for elements not found within the borders?

Why limit it to national borders? Why not country or parish borders?

The problem when talking about "population limits" is that *very* quickly you can find your self drifting into unsavoury waters.

The waters within and around the UK are proving to be extremely unsavoury. The government is not even attempting to pretend to act — they're just leaving it to the population to go through the motions..