This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Surely it is not human fertility that drops, but human reproduction?
Very interesting observations.
These things have a habit of suddenly hitting the conciousness when it is already too late to stop the and wagon.
Of course, to be really effective, there has to be a lot of money in it for a very few influential people.
This particular "NeoScam" has lots of the right things in it; plenty of scope for the "its for your own good" excuse to impose draconian measures on an unwilling and gullible population, but the amounts so far handed out in grants and aid seem rather paltry when compared to the virtual trillions to be made from the climate scam.
But that's because I don't have the inventive streak of larceny that enables me to see where the real money is and how just a select few will latch onto it.
This scam also has some unfortunate drawbacks already evident. I don't mean that the "strings attached" aid has unfortunate similaritie to US aid tied to anti-abortion policies (or was it the other way round?). I refer instead to the unfortunate term "eugenics".
You can't talk about population without you start to look at population limitation mechanisms.
There is an old saying "The rich get rich and the poor get children."
The point is that as the quality of life improves, those who benefit no longer feel driven to have lots of children.
A first step along this road would be to limit the welfare payments to single parent families. However, the effectiveness of such policies is not the question. The problem is that UK governments have already opted out of trying to regulate population growth by such simple inoffensive means.
And we are not getting any richer because of the economic meltdown and the commitment of all our funds to the current climate scam.
So wealth won't be a key to population reduction.
That means something such as the Chinese have done.
Such schemes have been suggested before in other cultures, it's just China so far that has gone down that route.
But what happens?
There is gender discrimination and wealth discrimination and pretty soon we'll be looking for DNA testing and positive eugenics....
a) boy or girl child?
b) screen for all sorts of genetic negative traits.... Downs syndrome, heart conditions, sickle cell anaemia? and so on.
There are lots of ways such a project can go to hell in a hurry. And there will be plenty of people ready to start us of on these side tracks.
Sooner or later there is a danger that some different criteria will be applied to licences to have children. Money, education, lack of criminal history .... and before you know it different ethnic groups will perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they are being discriminated against.
There is a very real concern that the population is growing too fast.
According to some the population doubling interval is such that if we are not there already we can't be far off that magic point at which there are more people alive than have ever lived before.
We also have had a recent article where some attention seeker has claimed the first person who will live to be 1000 years old may already have been born.
SOmething may well need to be done, but I dread the type of policy making we will see if it follows the pattern already set by AGW... where democracy has no place, where science has no place and where the NGOs deliver power to s small shady minority.
To poor people with nothing to look forward to, children are an asset. A few years of hard work, many more years of free labour on the family farm, or (in the west) many years as benefit magnets.
To the rich, children are an immense cost. Loss of one income for several years, about 5 years gross income of the remaining breadwinner per child in direct financial costs, now tuition fees, the prospect they will still be living with you at 35. That's a lot of fun long-haul trips, city breaks, evenings at the theatre (rather than paying even more to sit through Madabloodygascar 9 again), meals out, and lazy Saturday mornings frolicking in bed to give up for the brief pleasure of babaing and gagaing at a new infant. Not to mention the horrible phase, between about teething and 19 years. The weaning period in humans is just too ****ed long.
Wealth is the solution to the population problem but wealth to greenies is the problem numero uno. They totally fail to understand efficiency and that efficiency and being good to the environment go hand-in-hand (well, most of the time). The damage your car does is nothing compared to everyone going around in horses and carts. The sooner the rest of the world is at or close to western standards of living the better.
Greenies and their policies are killers.
More than 2,700 people are dying each year in England and Wales because they cannot afford to keep their homes warm, according to an official study.
Well congratulations are in order for this prescient post.
Since the post I have noted a wealth of programs (mainly on the BBC) all suddenly focussing on the population.
New predictions are in that the UK population is well on the way to 70million.
I thought I'd update this thread as there is now a bit more information on what the next Green scam is likely to be. Whatever the next scam is, it should be revealed at the Rio+20 Earth Summit to be held in June 2012 and the Guardian published some leaks about the summit's agenda last week.
"Countries will be asked this summer to sign up for 10 new sustainable development goals for the planet and promise to build green economies at the first earth summit in 20 years.
According to a leak of the draft agenda document seen by the Guardian, they will also be asked to negotiate a new agreement to protect oceans, approve an annual state of the planet report, set up a major world agency for the environment, and appoint a global "ombudsperson", or high commissioner, for future generations."
My tip that they might go for a re-branded version of population control isn't specifically mentioned, though it could be one of the 10 new sustainable development goals talked about above. From reading the above extract, I'd say that out of the five topics identified in the original post in this thread, 'the oceans' looks increasingly like it could be the focus of the next scam.
One encouraging sign with this new Rio summit is that there appears to be far less interest in it compared with the 1992 event. The 1992 summit was, and probably still is, the world's largest ever political gathering with 190 heads of state or government attending. By contrast, the 2012 summit had to have its original date moved so as not to clash with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee due to worries about Commonwealth leaders using the jubilee as an excuse not to turn up at the summit. Despite the date change, David Cameron is apparently still not going.
Eugenics was mentioned earlier in the thread.
I could be wrong, and am prepared to be castigated for this, but what the hell is wrong in screening for, say, Downs syndrome, Cerebral palsy and others?
Surely these ailments are nothing more than a drain on an already overstretched system.
I think the Royal Society has twigged the new message at last:
I noticed a piece of supporting evidence for "the oceans" having been intended to be the focus of the next Green scam today.
The head of Greenpeace has 'declared war' after proposals to 'protect' the world's oceans have been weakened by Rio+20 summit negotiators:
"The head of Greenpeace International said the NGO is moving to a "war footing" after negotiators at the Rio+20 sustainable development conference watered down proposals to protect the world's oceans.
Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International's executive director, said there were so many fudges in the draft agreement that Greenpeace now had no other option but to change its strategy and start planning waves of civil disobedience.
"We have to ask ourselves what history teaches us in terms of how change happens when humanity has faced a big challenge, such as civil rights, apartheid or slavery," he told the Guardian.
"It is only when decent men and women said enough is enough and no more and were prepared to put their lives on the line and go to prison if necessary, and that is where we are. We have to intensify civil disobedience."
In belated reply to JMW, the Royal Society's "People and the Planet" report certainly does show that population control is favoured as the next Green project by Green-leaning academics. So watching what Tickell says is probably a pretty good indicator for Green academic opinion in general. The RS seem to have broadened the issue into 'population and consumption', which presumably means the developing world cuts back on population growth in return for the developed world cutting back on consumption, or to put it another way, giving up on economic growth.
The People and Planet report has recently been endorsed by over a hundred national science academies, indicating how well represented Green-leaning scientists are in these sort of organisations, in a statement on Population and Consumption given on this link:
OK, the Beeb is in board.....
Michael Buerk has sounded of with a piece which includes the phrase "Population Deniers"..... seems we are to skip a few stages in this debate such as the gradual denigration of skeptics by starting out with "deniers".
Plus "Demographic Disasters" seems like they are using the climate change playbook and just changing the word climate to population.
As usual, China - the biggest polluter (sorry, should now say population) is exempt; it appears there are moves afoot in China to repeal the one baby law; partly because of an ageing population and, believe it or not, a growing shortage of workers. The alternative is to maintain the one child law and start terminating the population as they reach pensionable age. Or they could, as in the UK simply move the retirement age goal posts.
Not sure how it plays with this but an allegedly global warming supporting author has suggested barcoding (chipping) everyone at birth. I'm pretty sure the intent is sinister but it's not a new idea and my cat is already chipped. This might tie in with the idea we should either (a) have our medical records on the net for any doctor to access.... we all know what happens to our data on the network so this is a non-starter.. or (b) carry it round with us... perhaps on a chip? but then we have the move in Wales to make organ doning an opt out rather than an opt in choice with all the consequences predicted in the SCi Fi series on Gil "the Arm" Hamilton... This means that one part of the population becomes ever more vulnerable as donors to the other half with the money and the need for organs. That should see a healthy level of predation begin to drag down population levels.....
All markets are free markets. The market will move no matter what you do to prevent it from moving.
My wife went to buy disposable cameras for my sons heading to camp. 4 stores didn't carry them at all. Target still had some. I am not sure how to get them developed (I suspect mail will be involved)..
Opt out for donors is scary. The trickier part is getting the "permission" of the relatives.. If that goes away, Gil stories will be way to prophetic.
I will have to get my speedometer fixed and get a location aware governor to ensure I don't speed.
This weeks Telegraph has reported on a letter sent by the athletes to Mr Cameron calling on the government to spend money on food aid.
I guess this is part of the money making aspect.
Plenty of scope for research, for money to be spent on ocean farming and al the other possible ways to part the tax payer from his money and cripple the economies of the western world. All to do no more than all previous efforts have done.
I can't help thinking that if I were a single minded athlete and the olympics not yet over, sponsorship deals not yet signed, time not yet taken with family and friends, that writing a letter to Cameron would not be high on my list of things to do unless I had an deep seated guilt complex about my sport taking all that money that could be feeding the starving. In reality I suspect that some gullible impressionable sports people who don't normally look outside the narrow focus of their sport have been exploited by the activists.
I guess we can expect a great deal more of this.
Well, OK, lets first of all cut sports funding and send the money saved to feed the starving somewhere. No, I know, that wasn't what they meant. They meant Government should find the money, but not from sports, they'll be claiming that the medal success justifies spending even more on sports, but won't justify the sports themselves, and that means taxpayer's money.
No doubt they can parley poverty and population into the sort of money they only dreamed of with AGW.