0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
At 1 child per woman we would reach the required level within 80 years without anyone doing anything. The interesting consequence is that everyone's quality of life would improve from the outset because the working fraction of the population would increase from the present 55% to well over 60% and we'd be spending less on child health and education, so pensions would increase or we could retire earlier.
... On this model the UK population falls from 65,000,000 to just over 12,000,000 in 110 years, with personal wealth and comfort increasing throughout the period. Far from drastic, the process requires nobody to do anything except enjoy the extra space and increased pension.
and wait for and an overpopulated neighbouring country to invade to utilize UK resources , analogous to "Lebensraum". (smaller population has smaller armed-forces ).
"Invadeability" is not related to population density
Our neighbouring countries ... are neither overpopulated nor starving
"Nobody in their right mind would have voted for Scottish independence ..."
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/09/2014 22:55:36"Invadeability" is not related to population density "Invadeability" is related to the total population in a territory. If population was continuously decreased there must come a cut-off point at which it cannot defend itself from invasion.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/09/2014 22:55:36 "Nobody in their right mind would have voted for Scottish independence ..."IMO Nobody in their right mind did.
My main point was history has shown invasions of under-defended lands are standard-practice, and that perspective was not included in your plan to reduce the UK population to 1/4 of its current value in a century. Supposedly Britain only had a population of about a million in 1000AD,if it ever went that low again Britain would become a colony of another European country to exploit its resources.