Friedman, the geopolitical analyst and owner of Stratfor (intelligence website with close links with US intelligence) predicts in his book of a limited but global war around 2050, roughly in line with my own prediction.
i have not read such detailed predictions, but just going on the ballpark idea that by 2100 the worlds population would be back to 1billion, or drawing some sort of bell curve around peak in early c21st it seems perfectly reasonable.
i say to people there's only 3 ways the world can go. (i)state-oppresion (government kills own population) (Ii)state-v-state war (states kill eachothers population) and (iii)anarchy (neighbours kill each other). can't see option (iv) .. humans sudenly become pacifist and lie down and starve.
I have no idea which case, where, on what timescale, but on average the whole world looks like that in 2050, in the absence of a miracle -like a global 1 child policy decades in advance to avert it, or sucess in some conspiratorial plan to spray the world with chemicals that make everyone infertile, sterility inducing vaccines, etc..
"The stone age didn't end for a lack of stones"... correct, we'll be right back there.
Lord Beria3 wrote:
I also think that Europe will ignite a kind of pan-European civil war/cum state-on-state war by the 2040's - roughly a century after the ending of WW2.
You can't make precise predictions like that, 30 years ahead of the current chaotic mess. Well, you can, but you might just as well pull predictions randomly out of a hat.
You're well into Nostradamus territory there.
Disagree. Having read the standard Limits of Growth model - which predicts a massive population crunch starting 2040 then I do think that the conditions will be ready for an eruption of explosive violence and anarchy across Europe.
This goes with my reading of history and how it goes in cycles. You can disagree with me of course, but the rise of the far-right, the decline in living standards in Europe in the coming decades, the strains of the euro in its incompatibility with national demoracy will lead to an eventual explosion of the European order.
Yes, at some point and place there will be problems in Europe.
Human history does go in cycles, but we are currently at a unique crossroads in the history of life on earth.
You'll get your war, don't worry. But the Big One is going to involve Israel, America and their foes in the Middle East and beyond. By comparison, what goes down in Europe, or China-Japan, or Pakistan-India...that will be small potatoes.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
UndercoverElephant wrote:[You'll get your war, don't worry. But the Big One is going to involve Israel, America and their foes in the Middle East and beyond. By comparison, what goes down in Europe, or China-Japan, or Pakistan-India...that will be small potatoes.
On the contrary I believe that an Indo- Chinese war over resources such as the Mekong delta of south east Asia is inevitable and will be a mega war that kills billions.
UndercoverElephant wrote:[You'll get your war, don't worry. But the Big One is going to involve Israel, America and their foes in the Middle East and beyond. By comparison, what goes down in Europe, or China-Japan, or Pakistan-India...that will be small potatoes.
On the contrary I believe that an Indo- Chinese war over resources such as the Mekong delta of south east Asia is inevitable and will be a mega war that kills billions.
Maybe, but the US/Israel/Arab/Iran dispute is about more than just resources. It's a fight to the death, with religious faith at stake. It won't end until Israel is erased from the map.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Friedman, the geopolitical analyst and owner of Stratfor (intelligence website with close links with US intelligence) predicts in his book of a limited but global war around 2050, roughly in line with my own prediction.
i say to people there's only 3 ways the world can go. (i)state-oppresion (government kills own population) (Ii)state-v-state war (states kill eachothers population) and (iii)anarchy (neighbours kill each other). can't see option (iv) .. humans sudenly become pacifist and lie down and starve.
You don't need mass killings to reduce a population over 100 years. Relatively modest reductions in birth rates, increased infant mortality, reduced life expectancy etc. can be significant without any piles of bodies.
UndercoverElephant wrote:[You'll get your war, don't worry. But the Big One is going to involve Israel, America and their foes in the Middle East and beyond. By comparison, what goes down in Europe, or China-Japan, or Pakistan-India...that will be small potatoes.
On the contrary I believe that an Indo- Chinese war over resources such as the Mekong delta of south east Asia is inevitable and will be a mega war that kills billions.
Maybe, but the US/Israel/Arab/Iran dispute is about more than just resources. It's a fight to the death, with religious faith at stake. It won't end until Israel is erased from the map.
Odds are that Israel will be the last one standing in the region, lord of all the oil that remains and all the water in the Nile and every water well from Timbuktu to the former Islamabad.
Somebody, last night over a laden dinner table, pointed out that the forecasts for increased longevity might be wrong. For sure old people are living older - but these are the folk who were young in the 40s, and 50s when, as children, they had real food and did not become obese. Now we are becoming a nation of fatties, reared on MacFodder, and will die of heart attacks and all-sorts before we get old.
UK is in a baby boom. I think the birth rate has risen about 20% (That was the figure my better half quoted). I've noticed this before, when there is a recession middle class women decide to take a career break and have kids. How long before we enter a depression and collapse of the welfare state so that women realise that more kids == less food per mouth?
By UK standards the currently birth rate is very high - highest it's been in some 40 years. A lot of it due to the increase of non-UK born women:
24 per cent of births in 2011 were to non-UK born women, an increase of two percentage points since 2007. This increase is caused by a 24 per cent rise in the number of women of childbearing age who were born outside the UK and a fall of 5 per cent in the number of UK born women of childbearing age since 2007.
clv101 wrote:By UK standards the currently birth rate is very high - highest it's been in some 40 years. A lot of it due to the increase of non-UK born women:
24 per cent of births in 2011 were to non-UK born women, an increase of two percentage points since 2007. This increase is caused by a 24 per cent rise in the number of women of childbearing age who were born outside the UK and a fall of 5 per cent in the number of UK born women of childbearing age since 2007.
Yes, the vast majority of it is due to newly migrated women. Major money is going to be needed to anglicise these immigrants and their offspring. If that doesn't happen, there will be major civil unrest as the slow emergency unfolds. Hell there is likely to be major civil unrest irrespective of the above issue.
And the next line, after the one that clv101 quoted is
Fertility rates for non-UK born women are higher than for UK born women, with the non-UK born Total Fertility Rate (TFR) (2.28 children per woman) being 0.4 births per woman higher than the UK born TFR (1.89 children per woman) in 2011, but the differences are narrowing over time. The convergence is caused by an increase in the UK born TFR and a decrease in the non-UK born TFR since 2007.
But consider that
The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example),
vtsnowedin wrote: On the contrary I believe that an Indo- Chinese war over resources such as the Mekong delta of south east Asia is inevitable and will be a mega war that kills billions.
Maybe, but the US/Israel/Arab/Iran dispute is about more than just resources. It's a fight to the death, with religious faith at stake. It won't end until Israel is erased from the map.
Odds are that Israel will be the last one standing in the region, lord of all the oil that remains and all the water in the Nile and every water well from Timbuktu to the former Islamabad.
Spoken like a typical American, and one of the reasons why the US will be involved in that war. I think you are wrong, but the US will do its best to make sure you are right. That's why it will be a big war.
The only way Israel can come out of this as the long-term victor is if it continues to receive massive support from the US, forever. And that would require the US to maintain its "empire" forever. Maybe you believe this can happen, but from my perspective that's just a symptom of the US being an immature nation, in contrast to the many nations in the Old World who know that empires don't last forever.
In short: America is going down, and when it does, Israel will follow.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
biffvernon wrote:And the next line, after the one that clv101 quoted is
Fertility rates for non-UK born women are higher than for UK born women, with the non-UK born Total Fertility Rate (TFR) (2.28 children per woman) being 0.4 births per woman higher than the UK born TFR (1.89 children per woman) in 2011, but the differences are narrowing over time. The convergence is caused by an increase in the UK born TFR and a decrease in the non-UK born TFR since 2007.
But consider that
The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example),
I think the word "boom" is being deliberately bandied about in order to explain why there is so much pressure on housing, schools, and health care. All the better if it's those pesky Poles, coming over here, having our babies. Certainly agree that 0.18 over replacement rate is note a boom, however it's not evenly distributed around the country so it looks a bit more boom-ey in different places. Where I live it's being used to explain pressure on primary school places, although that was a cohort born five years ago.
