PowerSwitch

Okay, difficult question time - that of population and immigration. Population density in the UK is one of the highest in the world. It can manage this comfortably to some extent due to its wealth and the ability to import food (thanks to cheap oil). If we are assuming that the wealth of the UK, and the ability to feed itself is set to decline, should we then be aiming to control population levels through policy such as immigration and birth control (birth is just another form of immigration after all). What policies would be acceptable to you? Would the implementation of such policies backfire when citizens of the UK need to start emmigrating? Can we suggest that people's liberty to give birth to however many children they want be curtailed? Should state support for children be withdrawn to discourage potential parents? Should men be given 'the snip' by law after parenting one or two children? Do we perhaps encourage an increasing population to provide the taxpayers that will support an ageing population? Do we end free healthcare for the Over-75s except for pain-killers? Do we legalise euthanasia? Do we bring back the death penalty? Are ID cards a price worth paying for controlling population growth?

I've picked a lot of controversial ideas that I've seen touted around the place...but what do you think? This seems to be the one issue that people want to talk about but are afraid to discuss.

My view is that
a) I'm not authoritarian, so any attempt to 'control' population except by unbiased education is Right Out as far as I'm concerned.
b) Any reduction in working population relative to nonworking/retired puts our pension and welfare system under serious threat. Yes, peak oil puts it under threat regardless, but shrinking working population exacerbates the problem.

Now if you persuade all retired people to disappear quietly a la "Logan's Run" then you might be on to something, but I figure that after 40-50 years of work, people might feel they're owed a little downtime before popping their clogs.

I don't have any answers, and I don't believe there are any except austerity and disciplined dedication to renewable and sustainable energy production and use. Either technology saves us (to continue to grow - ugh), or we need to have a damn firm bedrock of sustainable energy before the SHtF - at least enough to sustain global food production distribution and public transport.

Some observations:

UK birth rate = 1.7 ( below replacement level of 2.1)

Unfortunately the population remains constant , due to people living longer (ie death rate = birth rate, roughly)

Therefore , any NET immigration is an addition to the population ( ).

Therefore , at present the population is growing , albeit slowly.

I think it fair to assume , that net immigration could/should fall when the economy starts to falter.

I saw a graph the other day which showed a corelation between economic opportunity (jobs) and immgration. If there is little work , then immigration falls.

I also think , that once unemployment starts to rise quickly, immigration policy will become more draconian. Particularly in those countries that people have to pass through to get to the UK.

The Spanish, Italians et al , do not give a stuff for protocol, if they find illegals , and they dont want them,they just deort them no questions asked!

I think the UK population will fall post peak by default, regardless of population control policy. The reasons I outlined below:

1) Less immigration (as dicussed above)

2) 20% + of population is/will be 65+ by 2015. When winter heating is rationed (gas - electricity), the elderly will be in serious problems.

3) Even lower birth rate. Its a matter of opinion , but I think people in the UK are less likely to have children if this means an impoverished existance. Benefits will be under so much strain , I think the incentive NOT to have kids will be immense.

4) NHS bankruptcy. The ability for our health service to sustain life into ripe old age has now probably peaked. With less cash available for equipment an drugs, this will have serious implications for the death rate when 20% of population is 65+

None of this is particlularly pleasant , but then we are heading for interesting times!

Incidently, I was sad enougth to calculate what would happen to the uK population if the birth rate dropped to around 1.5 per woman and to death rate rose to the same as Eastern Europe (20 per 1000 pop, compared to UK 10 per pop 1000 per year). The popualtion would drop by a third by 2040 and HALVE by 2060!

Imagine the empty cities , offices, retail parks and housing estates!!!!


As for food, I dont think this has to be a problem. The EU is has immense spare capacity in agriculture, and actually the UK can feed itself as long as it has access to 1bcm of natural gas and circa 10 million barrels of oil per year. I suspect that it will be a while before it gets this depserate. Besides you can make fertilizer from coal (40% of chinese fert comes from coal) and we still have a load of that left

Totally_Baffled wrote:If there is little work , then immigration falls.

ah, but it's relative: if there's little work here, but even less elsewhere (developing nations are already feeling more economic pain from rising oil prices than we are) then surely immigration would rise?

I agree with the points from Totally_Baffled. With a natural birth rate of 1.7 (likely to fall naturally in times of hardship) there isn't any need to take action in that area. The 2040 and 2060 figures are amazing, just a modest fall in birth rate and a perfectly plausible increased death rate cuts population by half in 55 years... That's some rate of die-off but doesn't sound that bad, hardly bodies in the street mad max but 50% population decline in by 2060 is amazing.

Can we assume that the low birth rate will continue? Isn't our low birth rate due in large part to increased contraception and education and equality? I can see contraception and education declining...maybe this will put birth rates up? Or will the expected economic decline create the kind of depression that lowers the birth rates?

I dont think that there is ANY way to "control population" by force in any form of ethical way. I just dont buy it. I prefer mass starvation over "population control" anytime. And I belive nativity will plummet from the already low levels when we move over to "crisis mode". Look at Russia for guidance.

Joe wrote:

Totally_Baffled wrote:If there is little work , then immigration falls.

ah, but it's relative: if there's little work here, but even less elsewhere (developing nations are already feeling more economic pain from rising oil prices than we are) then surely immigration would rise?

You could be right.

But then , what would be the point from an immigrants point of view, of still being homeless and poor except you are now in a foreign country with no job, no benefits , and no family.

Its no coincidence that more immigrants head for the US and UK, because there are more vacancies than workers. Once the balance is way the other way, there is very little incentive to pay all your life savings to a people traffiker just to be poor and unemployed in a foreign country!

Look at Russia for guidance.

This is a very good point.

In fact you can look at almost all Eastern European countries. The populations in these countries are falling and the rate is accelerating.

Totally_Baffled wrote: But then , what would be the point from an immigrants point of view, of still being homeless and poor except you are now in a foreign country with no job, no benefits , and no family.

I guess that as long as the "land of milk and honey" perception exists, people will continue to be drawn; a significant portion of economic migrants come from information-poor environments so word of mouth and misinformation (propagated by traffickers etc) will be a factor in shaping this perception.

Totally_Baffled wrote: Its no coincidence that more immigrants head for the US and UK, because there are more vacancies than workers. Once the balance is way the other way, there is very little incentive to pay all your life savings to a people traffiker just to be poor and unemployed in a foreign country!

Aye, I guess so. Perhaps more significant will be that as developing economies unravel, the opportunities for immigrants to gather the requisite funds to pay a trafficker will diminish.

Totally_Baffled wrote:

Look at Russia for guidance.

This is a very good point.

In fact you can look at almost all Eastern European countries. The populations in these countries are falling and the rate is accelerating.

Yeah, many people have said the first few decades post peak will share similarities with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Presumably declining levels of healthcare would increase infant mortality rates as well. However, in developing nations this has simply led to families having more children to compensate so this may or may not be significant in terms of overall population levels.

Joe wrote:Presumably declining levels of healthcare would increase infant mortality rates as well. However, in developing nations this has simply led to families having more children to compensate so this may or may not be significant in terms of overall population levels.

That doesn't seem to be the response in developed countries down on their luck, Russia is 1.3 per woman.

Another thing: Sweden has a hell of a lot of space, and I would personally wellcome a couple of million British immigrants. If you just can stand the cold (you seem to be able to in Canada at least) you would provide a cultural renewal of epic proportions. There are a number of British cultural streaks which would enrich just about any society. Many of you are socially very "smart" in many ways with a certain distance, fine tuned irony and diplomacy. Please dont send the prisoners though, as you did with Australia.

Isn't our low birth rate due in large part to increased contraception and education and equality? I can see contraception and education declining...maybe this will put birth rates up?

Good point James . . . we would have to resort to contraceptive techniques/substances which don't depend on fossil fuels for their manufacture. So what are the options? Sterilisation (not a very pleasant procedure for a woman), the snip (pretty easy for men, but difficult to reverse, and not usually performed during those hormone-drenched teenage years!) - both requiring a good medical service . . . what else?

I read somewhere that 'neem oil' is a good natural contraceptive substance. Anyone know of any more?