I couldn't understand what point the Grauniad was trying to make. There's just so much waffle there. And your post doesn't clarify it much. Is there a single sentence summary?

Ah thanks

Posted By: djhIs there a single sentence summary?

Unlimited appetite for consumption (and having babies) is a hyper-exageration, deliberately created post-WW2, of once pro-survival human behaviours, but which now endangers survival of human (or all) life on earth (climate crisis being just one symptom of same). Better then to tackle the root (the created appetite for over-consumption) rather than the symptom.

Edit for clarity: I'm all in favour of more education and wealth, even if that means lower birth rates.


There seems to be a strand in environmentalism that grew up in the 70s when 'too many other people' was seen as a big threat and that's still a dogma for lots of people. The population dynamics have completely changed since about 1990, but that hasn't filtered through. Lots of people still expect they are going to retire in their sixties and that there will be a new generation coming through to support them after that...!

Posted By: WillInAberdeenAll nations with even slight levels of consumption, are having a collapse in fertility, including communist and capitalist countries . Only in the poorest societies with the lowest levels of female education and wealth, are there still enough babies being born to replace the parents as they get older

There'a a flaw in that somewhere - which group then is still producing babies far in excess of 'replacement' which are projected https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/900 (median) to add another 25% to world pop before levelling about 2080?

Has anyone read the paper - or just reacting to the Guardian article and/or my thumbnail? Hrmphing about population decline in the developed world, the one bit of the 'problem' that's 'sorted', is not meaningful engagement.

Eg https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/PopPerc/0-24/900
Shows that young people under age 24 have already declined from 55% of the worlds population, to 40% now, and are heading for 30%. Check the similar graphs showing that wave passing through each age cohort until they reach retirement late this century.

Posted By: fostertomThere'a a flaw in that somewhere - which group then is still producing babies far in excess of 'replacement' which are projected

If you bothered to look at the page you linked to and checked the regional figures as well as the overall total, you would see!

Illegal entry has probably consistently ran at 100-200k a year, in the past those foundwandering along the m20,m26,m25 and around the euro tunnel, were often given a card telling them to attend an immigration centre and sent on their way. To be conveniently lost in the crowd. The current small boats situation ( in itself a reflection of the success in reducing other forms of illegal entry) is very visible and so the “please go here “ approach can’t be seen to be used.

That we’ve turned into a low wage low skill ( hand car washes are a prime example, employs huge numbers in a cash based,poor conditions, ripe for money laundering “industry”, where decent automated carwashes would offer the same service and employ a few well paid technicians and engineers) economy to a large extent and have chosen to allow huge numbers to be poorly educated and skilled and so be parked on benefits is particularly problematic, means we have a large cohort who are net recipients from the state and we then bring in low skilled labour who again are largely recipients of the states largesse but are needed to do the jobs they do.( social care has to be done )

The levels of illegal migration need to be looked at in terms of the cumulative numbers over the last few decades. These numbers alone will account for a good percentage of public service underfunding ( the unknown millions just aren’t funded , but do you use services). My partner used to be a Teaching Assistant in inner london , she keeps in touch with her ex colleagues. Every year 60% of the new primary intake will be children who speak no english, neither will the parents, no questions are asked regarding immigration status and the kids become part of the system along with the parents. Whilst it would be pointless investigating immigration status from a removals point of view ( having had a child in the uk, they’d never be asked to leave), it would help to understand how the nations population is changing and how we need to adapt to integrate, provide services and seek real growth going forward.

But as ever the two extremes ( anyone is welcome / chuck em all out) dominate the discussion and so nothing of any real worth is achieved and we just blunder on.