The Big Question : Population and Immigration

[PS_RalphW]

Some observations:
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+

I was reading in Jared Diamond's "guns, germs and steel" that until
the 20th century large cities did not have self-sustaining populations
because the death rate from infectious diseases was so high. It
was only modern medicine, and more importantly sanitation and safe
water supply that overcame this.

Given the perenial threat of resurgent epidemics (avian flu,
aids, sars, TB , take your pick) it seems reasonable to expect
our large city populations to decline "naturally" as deep recession sets in.

As said elsewhere, not pleasant but not bodies in the streets
(unless melting ice overwhelms the Thames Barrier)

[MacG]

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?

Ehh.. This could easily become to explicit and embarassing for polite Britons, but let's give it a try! Lets jump to "sexual practices" and maybe encourage other practices than the.. ahem.. kind of "standard" one? Stories are told about rich variations found among indigenous people, thus avoiding infanticide, while maintaining intimacy and population levels.

[Bandidoz]

Yes let's make masturbation and oral sex "cool"

Dr Kellogg has a lot to answer for (and I can't imagine how people eating cornflakes would stop them from masturbating).

[Joe]

Don't know about you, but I already think oral sex is pretty cool.

If you're looking purely at the amount-of-fossil-fuel to amount-of-sex ratio, the coil is pretty good. Not ideal for all women, but they only use a tiny bit of plastic (possibly could be re-engineered to use just copper?) and can remain in place for several years. Obviously not very effective against STI's though.

I didn't think I'd ever be discussing the merits of various methods of contraceptives on this forum, but there you go...

[Totally_Baffled]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4342196.stm

Oooops maybe I am talking out of my butt.

Looks like anyone arriving in the UK , as long as they are from a country with a "less than favourable" regime, can stay in the UK whether they follow the rules or not.

Totally ridiculous!!

[Joe]

The vast majority of the media does a great job of muddying the waters between asylum and immigration to the point where the terms are used almost interchangeably. Before we go any further can we all agree that they are very, very different issues please?

[Totally_Baffled]

The vast majority of the media does a great job of muddying the waters between asylum and immigration to the point where the terms are used almost interchangeably. Before we go any further can we all agree that they are very, very different issues please?

Oh absolutely.

I dont think most people have a problem with genuine asylum seekers.

The problem is that the VAST majority that arrive in Europe are economic refugees.

Even though I suspect that many of the Zimbabwe refugees are genuine, I bet a good proportion are not.

Looks like anyone arriving in the UK , as long as they are from a country with a "less than favourable" regime, can stay in the UK whether they follow the rules or not.

The above still holds true given todays judgement. If the country you are arriving from has a poor human rights record, you CANNOT be deported regardless of the weakness of your case.

Also, refugees are supposed to claim asylum in the FIRST country they enter (in the EU). It is also suspect that so many of these so called genuine "in fear of our lives" refugees end up in countries thousands of miles away despite the number of "safer" countries inbetween.

[PS_RalphW]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4342196.stm

Oooops maybe I am talking out of my butt.

Looks like anyone arriving in the UK , as long as they are from a country with a "less than favourable" regime, can stay in the UK whether they follow the rules or not.

Totally ridiculous!!

I have an aquaintance who is an immigration officer who interviews people when they first ask for asylum. I think it fair to say that he has
been trained to take the most small-minded, petty and arbitary approach
to applying the rules of his job of anybody I know. He is actively encouraged to reject out of hand all applications which do not follow to
the letter rules that it is not reasonable for an asylumn seeker to know
in advance.

Of course many people come to Britain who hope to advance themselves
economically. We let in hundreds of thousands each year, especially
if they are doctors who trained at the third world's expense and come here to subsidise our NHS. We generally only kick out the poor.

This is just two sides of the same coin. We pay lip service to the
asylum laws and then flout them. Tens of thousands of desparate
people in the third world do whatever it takes to make a better life
for themselves in our country. Ultimately it is a lottery who we
let in, but any pretense at any sort of ethics is pure hypocracy.

To someone in the third world it is of little importance if your life is
threatened by your country's political system or by starvation.

[Totally_Baffled]

Of course many people come to Britain who hope to advance themselves
economically. We let in hundreds of thousands each year, especially
if they are doctors who trained at the third world's expense and come here to subsidise our NHS. We generally only kick out the poor.

Oh I agree, the so called "brain drain" effect on poor countries is outrageous.

Rather than spending money on skills in this country we import on the cheap , effectively stealing money from poorer countries.

We shouldn't allow this, we should get off our arses and spend money on training our own workforce.

[newmac]

A massive generalisation I know but:

Campared to long term UK residents, the average asylum seeker or economic refugee I would suspect has more practical knowledge (e.g. how to do things for themselves, fix things, argricultural knowledge) and is used to a lower energy lifestyle. They may also on average be used to smaller communities.

These assumptions are based on the fact that we don't get many asylum seekers and refugees from Paris, Frankfurt and New York.

As I have no more affinity with longer term residents that I don't know compared to other people in the world I don't know, I must look at which would be better suited to a post PO Britian....I know which I think would be.

[mossy]

Why is this deemed to be a sensitive issue? Obviously the UK is overpopulated!!

UK population has grown sixfold since 1800 and 60 per cent since 1900.http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.toomany.uk.html

The only reason the population has been allowed to grow as it has, in my opinion, is due to 'times of plenty' (internal peace, north sea oil, medical and technological advances) and arrogant governments with a superiority complex and tunnel vision (not to mention personal greed), promoting economic growth above all things, therefore requiring a large and growing population of consumers.

'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!!!! 'Totally_Baffled

That is the best news I have heard for a long time

This country really needs to wake up. Fortunately, there is currently a cultural practice of having very small families, as long as this lasts all the government will need to do to reduce population when time become hard is to revoke ALL visas.

[kevincarter]

To someone in the third world it is of little importance if your life is threatened by your country's political system or by starvation.

There is a difference between not being able to buy or get food and not being able to buy or get a TV set, a stereo, a motorbike etc. The image of third world starvation has been given to us by the media, but is not like that, I mean there are some places that are like that, but not all of them. I am currently working 15.000 miles from home on a NGO that helps the ?poor? and everybody here wants to go abroad. Are they hungry? No. Do people starve here? No. I?m not saying that is or it isn?t fair that they come, but that story they are selling us IS NOT TRUE!!!! Also I know a guy from Pakistan who asked for ?political asylum? in Barcelona, they gave it to him (in the 90?s) on his file he said that the PPP (a Pakistani political party) was threatening his life, but he VOTED the PPP and was a FULL SUPPORTER of the PPP, and he is still now. Dudes, they?re just pulling our leg. Is it fair? I don?t know. Maybe we are just stupid.

[genoxy]

Dudes, they?re just pulling our leg. Is it fair? I don?t know. Maybe we are just stupid.

What you're describing is a phenomenon that repeats itself in any big system, best known as: Rotten Apples!

To what extent should that change policies? Good question. I suppose the line has to be drwan where the system's capabilities begin to over-strech.

I'll give you an example. I am a foreigner, and have been "lucky" enough to be involved with a few big systems, most notably my homeland's army, where I HAD to serve as a tank commander for three years. Being the good (and then naive) boy that I am, I did it to the best of my capabilities (unfortunately), but even then, I had already noticed how human nature is human nature, is human nature. People take the pi*s all over the place, even in those highly "patriotic" big systems, that try to shove their political/religious agenda down your throat as much as possible, and it is us, the genuine ones that end up paying the price. I suppose it's no wonder I'm a bit of an anarchist nowadays.

By the way, I'm deeply worried what would be my fate, being a foreigner, in a case of an economic collapse in the UK, which I suppose is one of the reasons why I'm here on this forum. If you're thinking: "why don't the hack you blo*dy foreigner go back to where you came from!" - well I'm afraid that's out of the question, firstly because I don't feel belong in my homeland, secondly, because I love the UK and what it generally stands for (excluding war in Iraq I suppose), and most importantly because there won't be much left of my homeland for much longer (i.e. Peak Oil). So I guess we were ment to work together, and I know I have a lot to contribute to the rebuilding of society here (hoping we would never have to), even though I am merely a waiter.

All The Best.

[AVERAGE AGE FOR NORTH SEA]

Difficult questions indeed. We had / have a saying in the North of England: 'when poverty knocks ont' door, love flies out t' window...'. Look at who in politics is looking at Peak Oil and the future. None of the main stream parties give any web-time to the issue. Neither do Greeen Peace.

One party gives it quite massive coverage. That Party is the BNP. Now I dont subscribe to the BNP or endorse its views. But they clearly see this is an issue that will help them gain votes and ultimately power. As resources fail, tribalism will kick in. Now what turns the average joe into an 'ashphalt warrior'? Overcrowding , poverty, unemployment, internal enemies, and then a charismatic leader promising bread and employment and protection from 'them'. Sounds familiar? It took Hitler less than ten years to go from a caged ranting nutter writing bad books to Chancellor of Germany.

Currently the general assumption is that our economic growth depends upon no 'upper limit on immigration' - (The Labour Party, Spring 2005). Since exponential growth is not really possible (with or without the coming energy crisis). At 60-70 million plus, these islands will get a tad crowded when the lights go out. So what do we do? We recognise these islands are essentially full up except for the most deserving cases seeking asylum from tyrannies. This will not be easy: as Peak starts to bite, the number of tyrannies are likely to increase world wide. Then, by education, and possibly humane coercion, match our population reduction with our shrinking energy budget and (possibly) food budget. These are great taboos at this time. But the Hobbesian alternative is worse and uncontrollable. It will require 1940's levels of sacrifice and a community spirit not really seen since those times - and this may be the hard part.

But, returning to the aforementioned party, Lack of control on the down slope of Peak will be vital for them to gain credibility as a party.

Maybe the 'great and good' know this already: The first steps toward rationing of food and fuel is a compulsory ID card system...

[Bandidoz]

The first steps toward rationing of food and fuel is a compulsory ID card system...

Hehe - I dared to pose this question at the End Of Oil conference - Ian Gibson gave me a very stern look indeed