Individual,

Nice try: to conflate crude population growth, year on year, with natural population increase. I have such enormous respect for you that I assume you're not an idiot and that you understand the difference - that immigration in huge numbers will - wonders ! - kick up population far behind natural increase of net births minus deaths. A sort of artificial population increase factor.

The point is that 'net births minus deaths' in many developed countries is either close to zero or negative these days. That's the reality that you choose to ignore. Yes, war in the Middle East may have there effect (in two ways) of reducing the population - brutal war-deaths, and brutal forced emigration to Europe (strange, nobody seems to want to migrate to fellow-Muslim countries). Corrupt and incompetent governments in Africa may impel many people to seek better lives in other countries, mainly Europe (which, after all, is not that far away).

But these would not mean natural population increases in Europe and I'm sure you know that. If anything, they mask population decline. Are you suggesting that such population movements will change the nature of European society ? Is this what you're worried about ?

Joe

//I don't know why some posters here keep promoting punitive programs, negative programs//

I sort of understand the 'f*&k the poor' attitude when it's in people's interests to do so, even if I don't agree with it.

But I don't understand people who are so eager to f%^k the poor that they would happily shoot themselves in the foot in order to achieve that end. I dunno... seems a bit mental. Maybe it's just such an ingrained pattern of thinking that they struggle with the idea of not f$%king the poor even when doing so is against their interests.

//By 2100, as populations start to slowly decline (through too few kids being born), our descendants may have the problem of an imbalance between slightly too many old and very old people, and too few working people to provide services and pay the taxes which go towards supporting that ageing population.//

Nah, by 2100 robots will be so advanced that they'll be able to out-perform humans in almost every field, save perhaps the creative and performing arts. Lord knows how we're going to manage that change to the economy. I hope it will be more like the Jetsons and less like the grim dystopia I fear we may end up with.

//I think you'll have a hard time to convince the european countries of your figures.//

Population growth in Europe does not equal global population growth. The world's a bit bigger than Europe, my friend. For a start, there's us antipodeans. Then you've got your Muricans, which come in two flavours in the North and considerably more in the South, your Africans - sub-Saharan and the other lot, more Asians than you can poke a stick at especially if you include the sub-continent.... the list goes on.

And the thread, after all, is about GLOBAL population growth. Wherever people go, they still count the same in the overall population figures. Birthrates are quite low in most European countries, below replacement levels in many cases. Most of the population growth there is due to immigration. Interestingly, the country in Europe which boasts the highest birthrate - Ireland - is definitely not the poorest. Although I have my own theory about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lJbpVmyKgo

//I have stated so many times on OLO tha we should provide aid by way of commodities, not money.//

Very bad idea. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. If the fish hasn't gone off by the time he gets it; fish are notorious for doing that. Give a man a fishing rod, and you feed him until his rod breaks. But what effect are you having on the local economy? Instead of buying their fishing rods locally, they're getting them for free. The people who could be making money manufacturing/selling fishing rods are out of work. But that's OK, I guess... they can always get a free fishing rod and support themselves that way. Until they overfish the river.

Give a man some money, and he can buy the tools he needs to make fishing rods, thus supporting the local economy. He can sell those rods to the locals instead, and so on.

Giving people commodities is well-intentioned and may, prima facie, seem like a terrific idea. But if you look a little deeper, you see that it tends to have deleterious effects on economic growth and is therefore counter-productive (generally speaking, exceptions apply - in disaster relief, where economic structures have temporarily broken down, distributing essential commodities is the only viable option). But when we're talking about long-term aid, designed to lift desperately poor countries out of poverty, money is the best way to go.

Hi Toni,

Yes, probably you're right, that by 2100, robots or non-human artefacts will be doing so much of the work of looking after the elderly, who may be expected to live by 120 by then. Similar non-human mechanisms (we may not even have the word for it yet) may be utilised to produce food out in areas where the human needs of the actual producers don't have to be met, producing food and all other goods while our elderly descendents sit back. Brave new world.

Anyhow, yes, population growth is declining rapidly. If education was universal, if pensions could be paid for the elderly (say, by 2100 for those over 85), if women could get decent education, then yes, actual world population would probably be slowly declining as well.

One problem with gradually cutting population (perhaps at 1 % p.a.) is how to manage the balance between the elderly/non-working population and the working population: too many old people and enormous pressure is put on the working population, the tax-payers. Perhaps a constant problem after 2100 will be to maintain a reasonably comfortable life for the very elderly, such as Individual, without putting too much tax burden on the declining working population.

Cheers,

Joe