kernow

Saw an interesting comment on Teltext tonight which I totally agree with! Someone said we could do with a smaller population, about 20 million less than present, then there would be no need for more houses especially situated on flood plains, with a smaller population everything would be easier to handle. I wonder what the population of the Indigenous people of England is at present?

Phil Sheldon

The population of England is just over 50 Million.

The population of GB.is almost 60 Million.

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/tr...gland_plan.pdf

Rather crowded in our bit methinks.

John Carter

I put the UK at 70m, not 60m (it was 60m 15 years ago before the rest of the EU moved here).

And we need to get it down to 40, which is the number of people our internal food production infrastructure can cope with if for any reason we're cut off from outside supply (say, Germany getting shirty again).

John Doe

There is no reason why the population size should be linked to food production since we are able to trade, but even in your extreme example - a war where we are completely cut off - a much smaller population would be a bad idea since a country's military capacity is linked in many ways to its overall productive capacity. A smaller population would make us a smaller power - simple as that.

Then you have to ask how you would achieve this smaller population in any reasonable amount of time. I can only see it being achieved by highly authoritarian measures.

When you have achieved the smaller population you will presumably find that the population structure is heavily skewed towards older people, meaning that there will be labour shortages and a bankrupt pension system. (Ironically it would probably mean more demands for immigration, thus making the effort at reducing the population futile.)

Add to that the fact that you will at some point want to stabilise the population at the new (lower) level, so you will have to have some means of putting your system of incentives/penalties into reverse. Any demographer will tell you that it is not that easy to plan large scale changes in population like that.

Calling for a massively reduced population is effectively a prescription for the death of the country.

It is also true that many of the problems of overcrowding are caused by poor planning, overly restrictive controls and inadequate investment in roads, railways and vital infrastructure. Saying that a lower population would mean more housing to go round is a peculiar notion, since the houses were only built in the first place in response to population demands.

As long as the population does not change too rapidly (up or down) it is manageable. We do need to think about issues such as energy security (e.g., access to new energy sources and more efficient use of energy) but there is no reason to advocate a large population decrease even if it could be achieved.

John Carter

Wrong.

Israel: Population just over 7 million.

According to Jane's if Israel went to war with the EU (yes, the whole of it) right now, Israel would win.

Yes. Bit of a problem that.

Currently, the way it's worked means that we constantly need population growth to support the system. That tells me that the system is wrong.

Well hey, it's not like the UK isn't already being given its last rites.

Better quality of housing. Currently, if you're spending under £600k then you're going to have to suffer neighbour noise. Half the population = more space between houses = less neighbour noise = a happier nation because relaxation time isn't interrupted by the next-door-but-one's teenage son sitting on the front lawn with his ghetto blaster.

Ain't no getting around it - no amount of quality planning will get five people comfortably in a Ford Ka. Sure, it can be done, but not comfortably.

Quality of life is the main reason.

If anyone doesn't think we need a massive population reduction, they're probably a leftie.

eublues

Population growth in the UK is entirely due to immigration. We already have 12 times the population density of the USA and 8 times that of Sweden.

John Doe

Everyone knows that Israel is supported financially and militarily by the United States, which makes a big difference. Besides, I am talking about the capacity to sustain a large scale well equipped military over a long time. The fact that most of Europe has taken a holiday from history and neglected to invest in their military says nothing about their potential capacity.

John Doe

Is that your standard answer to anyone who disagrees with you?

John Carter

No. It's my standard answer to anyone who puts state before individual.

John Doe

... says the person who wants to reduce the population by over a third.

Basically you have changed your argument because you intially said it was about the capacity for food production, which implied reducing the population to match a predetermined goal (state-determined, presumably).

Now you say it is about quality of life, and I am not going to deny that many of us would appreciate a bit more space and that would improve the quality of life for some. But my argument is that the state should not be trying to control the population.

BTW, how much of the UK is actually urbanised?