Die-off

[vtsnowedin]

Some people are easily taken in by tabloid lies.

Way, way more money, far more money than you can possibly imagine, is given in subsidies to corporations, enough money to support millions upon millions of so-called 'deadbeats'.

People who deliberately scrounge are known as lobbyists, bankers, corporate tax avoiders, fossil fuel extractors, anyone who takes advantage of such structures as schools, roads, hospitals, social systems, without paying for them. And trash the environment on top of that.

Most of my tabloid reading comes as clips on this site. Over the years I have personally known several real deadbeats and did not need anybody or any paper to point them out to me. The fact that there are other sinners out there in no way excuses them.

[emordnilap]

Here's just some of the real world scroungers. Just one particular cabal.

JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Nomura Holding and Morgan Stanley all said their main UK arms paid no corporation tax [in 2014].

Individuals deliberately languishing at the bottom of society's heap are so few - they really are, look up the figures - and cost society so little in comparison that denigrating and pursuing them whilst blindly accepting the real criminals and deadbeats could be called a form of racism.

[UndercoverElephant]

Here's just some of the real world scroungers. Just one particular cabal.

JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Nomura Holding and Morgan Stanley all said their main UK arms paid no corporation tax [in 2014].

Individuals deliberately languishing at the bottom of society's heap are so few - they really are, look up the figures - and cost society so little in comparison that denigrating and pursuing them whilst blindly accepting the real criminals and deadbeats could be called a form of racism.

I think it would be unhelpful to call it "racism", because it has nothing to do with race. I'd personally call it a very extreme and immoral form of hypocrisy.

[emordnilap]

Here's just some of the real world scroungers. Just one particular cabal.

JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Nomura Holding and Morgan Stanley all said their main UK arms paid no corporation tax [in 2014].

Individuals deliberately languishing at the bottom of society's heap are so few - they really are, look up the figures - and cost society so little in comparison that denigrating and pursuing them whilst blindly accepting the real criminals and deadbeats could be called a form of racism.

I think it would be unhelpful to call it "racism", because it has nothing to do with race. I'd personally call it a very extreme and immoral form of hypocrisy.

Yeah, you're right. I was on the right moral plane but not thinking thoroughly enough. Thanks.

[johnhemming2]

Corporation tax is normally calculated on profits. Because companies sometimes make losses when they make losses they cannot claim back tax, but are allowed to recover their losses before having to pay tax.

Those companies which were bailed out by the government have often also negotiated arrangements where they forgo their brought forward tax losses. That did not, of course, apply to these.

This is quite a different situation to Starbucks and DODGY TAX AVOIDERS who are essentially abusing tax legislation although the government changed the law to deal with that in the current tax year. We will not see the effects of that, however, until they report after the end of the tax year.

[vtsnowedin]

Individuals deliberately languishing at the bottom of society's heap are so few - they really are, look up the figures - and cost society so little in comparison that denigrating and pursuing them whilst blindly accepting the real criminals and deadbeats could be called a form of racism.

Almost all the deadbeats I have personal knowledge of are white so racism is not part of the issue for me at least.
What figures do you have in mind?

[biffvernon]

I'm not sure why anyone should want to go to Disneyland but, hey, who am I to judge.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... id-cameron

[Lurkalot]

Leaving aside the discussions surrounding benefits and returning to the original theme of a die off I'm not wholly convinced that a die off is a certainty. As I see it there are three main factors that could reduce the population. They are ,
1, war
2,disease
3 , natural disaster.
I base my assumptions upon what has happened in the past , granted it's still guesswork but then aren't all predictions glorified guessing?
We've seen our fair share of warfare in the last century with two of the most destructive wars in history , add those casualties to the dead of smaller wars and some estimates give a total of 160m dead , http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html and still the world population has grown. Of course a full blown nuclear war would most likely result in a die off but conventional war won't as I see it.
Again disease and pandemics can cause huge loss of life , the 1918-19 influenza epidemic killed between 21-50m depending on which source one uses while the Black Death in the fourteenth century left something like a third of Europe dead and still the world population bounced back and has grown.
Natural disasters in the form of earthquakes and volcanos killed tens of thousands which is hardly a dent in the population. I'll include climate change in this category as its effects are closely related be they natural or man made. There will be more deaths because of extreme weather of course and some famines as crops fail and as sea levels rise countries such as Bangladesh will all but disappear. But it's not Hollywood , it won't happen overnight people won't sit there waiting to drown they'll move. Granted that migration will have an impact in other places but I still don't see a real cause for a die off.
If anything I see world population rising with that growth outstripping those deaths by the causes mentioned. I've seen estimates of world population "stabilising" at anything between 10-12 B . We may very well be able to feed that many I'm not an expert but I do think it would take quite a dramatic shift in living conditions for at least us in the developed world perhaps coupled with a smaller rise in living standards for the many.

[johnhemming2]

Much that I agree it remains, however, that we should be concerned about global population planning even if we are not as harsh as the Chinese.

[UndercoverElephant]

Leaving aside the discussions surrounding benefits and returning to the original theme of a die off I'm not wholly convinced that a die off is a certainty. As I see it there are three main factors that could reduce the population. They are ,
1, war
2,disease
3 , natural disaster.
I base my assumptions upon what has happened in the past , granted it's still guesswork but then aren't all predictions glorified guessing?
We've seen our fair share of warfare in the last century with two of the most destructive wars in history , add those casualties to the dead of smaller wars and some estimates give a total of 160m dead , http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html and still the world population has grown. Of course a full blown nuclear war would most likely result in a die off but conventional war won't as I see it.
Again disease and pandemics can cause huge loss of life , the 1918-19 influenza epidemic killed between 21-50m depending on which source one uses while the Black Death in the fourteenth century left something like a third of Europe dead and still the world population bounced back and has grown.
Natural disasters in the form of earthquakes and volcanos killed tens of thousands which is hardly a dent in the population. I'll include climate change in this category as its effects are closely related be they natural or man made. There will be more deaths because of extreme weather of course and some famines as crops fail and as sea levels rise countries such as Bangladesh will all but disappear. But it's not Hollywood , it won't happen overnight people won't sit there waiting to drown they'll move. Granted that migration will have an impact in other places but I still don't see a real cause for a die off.
If anything I see world population rising with that growth outstripping those deaths by the causes mentioned. I've seen estimates of world population "stabilising" at anything between 10-12 B . We may very well be able to feed that many I'm not an expert but I do think it would take quite a dramatic shift in living conditions for at least us in the developed world perhaps coupled with a smaller rise in living standards for the many.

I don't believe the global population can stabilise around 10-12 billion. This assumes a widespread rise in living standards that can't be acheived, let alone sustained. The past is a useful guide - for example, it shows us how disease is much more effective at reducing population than war is (not least because disease kills as many women as men, but war kills a disproportionate number of males - males are dispensible, as Emily Pankhurst was quick to point out...)

Sometimes what happens in the future is not like what happened in the past, and I think this is one of those cases. I very much doubt the global population is going to stabilise at any level.

[kenneal - lagger]

Sea level rise will cause a massive drop in agricultural production as many of the staple food growing areas are in river deltas which are liable to salt pollution before they flood completely. The Mekong delta for instance grows a large proportion of the world's rice. That reduction in food would impact food costs worldwide causing first malnutrition and then deaths. Food aid wouldn't be an option as the small surplus that we now have would be lost. I know that we waste a lot of food but there would still be a large wastage in richer countries which might not work its way out of the system in time to prevent loss of life.

What worries me is the fragility of our way of life. So many of our comforts and even basics are reliant on very high technology in their production. Even food is reliant on high tech tractors in the west: a breakdown in the production of the high tech bits and repair becomes impossible followed by the food production!

All production is reliant on the worldwide distribution of oil. A breakdown in the economic system could result in the cessation of this trade and a rapid breakdown in our western societies. The economic and financial systems are as fragile, or even more so, as the production system as the economic and financial systems are based on nothing more substantial than confidence in the value of millions of bits of essentially worthless bits of paper called bonds and cdos and even money! All it takes would be a minor mistake in a sale or purchase on a stock exchange or money market to cause a rapid collapse and loss of confidence as automated trading took over.

Once the financial system breaks down all trading breaks down as we got a glimpse of only a few short years ago when banks stopped lending in the credit crunch. It is only one small step from that to the cessation of international money trading and transfer. With only seven days food in the distribution systems in the west and governments cutting back on all admin tasks and staff it wouldn't take much for food and fuel supply system breakdown. That would be followed by chaos in the west.

Ironically, developing countries with their more "primitive" food and fuel supplies systems would be much better off than us in the "advanced" west. Yes, there would be some die off in the developing world's cities but their much larger rural populations would carry on much as before with a boost from returning city dwellers.

[snow hope]

Sea level rise will cause a massive drop in agricultural production as many of the staple food growing areas are in river deltas which are liable to salt pollution before they flood completely. The Mekong delta for instance grows a large proportion of the world's rice. That reduction in food would impact food costs worldwide causing first malnutrition and then deaths. Food aid wouldn't be an option as the small surplus that we now have would be lost. I know that we waste a lot of food but there would still be a large wastage in richer countries which might not work its way out of the system in time to prevent loss of life.

What worries me is the fragility of our way of life. So many of our comforts and even basics are reliant on very high technology in their production. Even food is reliant on high tech tractors in the west: a breakdown in the production of the high tech bits and repair becomes impossible followed by the food production!

All production is reliant on the worldwide distribution of oil. A breakdown in the economic system could result in the cessation of this trade and a rapid breakdown in our western societies. The economic and financial systems are as fragile, or even more so, as the production system as the economic and financial systems are based on nothing more substantial than confidence in the value of millions of bits of essentially worthless bits of paper called bonds and cdos and even money! All it takes would be a minor mistake in a sale or purchase on a stock exchange or money market to cause a rapid collapse and loss of confidence as automated trading took over.

Once the financial system breaks down all trading breaks down as we got a glimpse of only a few short years ago when banks stopped lending in the credit crunch. It is only one small step from that to the cessation of international money trading and transfer. With only seven days food in the distribution systems in the west and governments cutting back on all admin tasks and staff it wouldn't take much for food and fuel supply system breakdown. That would be followed by chaos in the west.

Ironically, developing countries with their more "primitive" food and fuel supplies systems would be much better off than us in the "advanced" west. Yes, there would be some die off in the developing world's cities but their much larger rural populations would carry on much as before with a boost from returning city dwellers.

Agree 100% Ken - the more sophisticated/complex the system, the more fragile and thus vunerable to breakdown it is. This is why we all ought to have a food store at home - pick the number of weeks/months you want this to last.....

[Lurkalot]

I don't believe the global population can stabilise around 10-12 billion. This assumes a widespread rise in living standards that can't be acheived, let alone sustained. The past is a useful guide - for example, it shows us how disease is much more effective at reducing population than war is (not least because disease kills as many women as men, but war kills a disproportionate number of males - males are dispensible, as Emily Pankhurst was quick to point out...)

Sometimes what happens in the future is not like what happened in the past, and I think this is one of those cases. I very much doubt the global population is going to stabilise at any level.

For what it's worth I have doubts myself , I was merely commenting on articles I've read. I quite frankly think the world is over populated at the moment and wouldn't really want to see 12 billion people each scrambling for their own space.
Agreed the future is not likely to be exactly as it was in the past , it's only a very rough but perhaps the best yardstick to make predictions with. With regards to disease the crisis in antibiotics could very well be crucial .
Stabilise is little more than another way of saying stopping the growth but again I have doubts. This was brought home recently when the Band Aid single of 1984 came up in a discussion with some friends. A comment was made with effect that though people were starving , suffering drought and ending up in camps but they were still having kids. Not sure how the birth rate was effected but the tv did show an awful lot of starving babies. People will always have children which is why I struggle to believe that once the population reaches a certain level they will suddenly start acting more responsibly ( hope that doesn't sound offensive , it wasn't meant to be) .
I agree with what Ken has written too. We do rely on technology and I think some have too much faith in it. As lands flood or become untenable due to salt pollution people will look to technology for help. I recently saw an article from Holland where salt resistant potatoes were being successfully grown , maybe even farming the sea itself may become an avenue to pursue . Certainly I can see wilder areas currently set aside coming under the plough and exasperating pressures on the natural world.
It's not morally right to say I think a die off would be a good thing but rather I would prefer to see a drop in the birth rate worldwide. Unfortunately this is seen as something terrible , less consumers , less workers , less income and an overall negative impact on the economy

[vtsnowedin]

Certainly I can see wilder areas currently set aside coming under the plough and exasperating pressures on the natural world.

Most of the land not now being tilled is not suitable for one reason or another (slope, arid, thin soil etc.) and would be a waste of effort if pressed into service.

It's not morally right to say I think a die off would be a good thing but rather I would prefer to see a drop in the birth rate worldwide. Unfortunately this is seen as something terrible , less consumers , less workers , less income and an overall negative impact on the economy

Terrible or not, dramatically reducing the birth rate in those countries that have reached their resource limits (Think Egypt or Yemen) is the one thing that might save them from major die off.

(edited -Ken, Happy Christmas All!)

[Lurkalot]

Certainly I can see wilder areas currently set aside coming under the plough and exasperating pressures on the natural world.

Most of the land not now being tilled is not suitable for one reason or another (slope, arid, thin soil etc.) and would be a waste of effort if pressed into service)

Agreed but I don't think that would stop it being tried. The soils in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS are generally very poor but that hasn't stopped the rainforest being cleared.
My point is more that people will expect a technological fix rather than face the obvious answer.