[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Rain doesn't always come where and when it's needed the most.

Which is why it is a good idea to farm where the rain falls, save some produce for times when the harvest is poor, and limit your population to what you can feed.

In some cases, the limit can at least temporarily get down to zero. Some of us simply don't accept it and try to find a way out.

[alancalverd]

Humans (particularly farmers) are fairly good at recording history and extrapolating it. 

Making babies, in a civilised society, is a voluntary act.

I can think of no other human activity where folk consider the likely outcome of their actions to be irrelevant, and complain that  nobody wants or has the capacity to fix the problem they have created.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Making babies, in a civilised society, is a voluntary act.

When no one in the society are willing to make babies, the society will collapse. Unless they can find an alternative way to go against death rate and degeneration rate of the population. Some people have been talking about longevity escape velocity.

[alancalverd]

1 ≠ 0

2.5 = disaster

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1 ≠ 0

2.5 = disaster

What do those numbers represent?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Making babies, in a civilised society, is a voluntary act.

When no one in the society are willing to make babies, the society will collapse. Unless they can find an alternative way to go against death rate and degeneration rate of the population. Some people have been talking about longevity escape velocity.

Let's assume that the collapse of the society is considered a bad thing. Thus letting it happen can be seen as an immoral action.

[alancalverd]

What do those numbers represent?

reproduction rate, obviously.

[alancalverd]

Let's assume that the collapse of the society is considered a bad thing. Thus letting it happen can be seen as an immoral action.

Which is why a zero-cost do-nothing intervention to save and improve civilisation is a Good Thing. Except for parasites, of course.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's assume that the collapse of the society is considered a bad thing. Thus letting it happen can be seen as an immoral action.

Which is why a zero-cost do-nothing intervention to save and improve civilisation is a Good Thing. Except for parasites, of course.

Morality is a combination of the consequences and expected consequences from the action as well as inaction. If an action is expected to prevent bad things without causing other significant bad things, but nothing is done anyway, resulting in bad things to happen, the inaction is said to be immoral.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do those numbers represent?

reproduction rate, obviously.

Death rate must be taken into account as well.

[alancalverd]

That is the whole point of the exercise.

If you reproduce below replacement rate, the population decreases because people eventually die. The difference is that we have absolute control over birthrate, with a phase lag of less than a year, and  we have no reason to suspect that death rates will vary significantly within say 10 years. So whilst there may be minor ripples and course corrections, the overall path to the objective can be achieved, modified, or abandoned, with adequate confidence. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

absolute control over birthrate

We can't control other people's mind, whether or not they want babies. Japan is currently struggling with this.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So whilst there may be minor ripples and course corrections, the overall path to the objective can be achieved, modified, or abandoned, with adequate confidence. 

What's the objective are you referring to?

[alancalverd]

A better life for our descendants.

Japan seems to be leading the way. And since it is a group of fertile, temperate islands, with a strong technological culture, it can provide a good model for the British Isles.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A better life for our descendants.

Is it limited to direct descendants, or it includes their descendants too? How many levels down the line should we care about?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Japan seems to be leading the way. And since it is a group of fertile, temperate islands, with a strong technological culture, it can provide a good model for the British Isles.

But it makes their government worries about their future.

[alancalverd]

Is it limited to direct descendants, or it includes their descendants too? How many levels down the line should we care about?

The benefits would be felt immediately by everyone except the parasites.
My calculations show that the UK would achieve full sustainability in about 100 years, so maybe 4 generations would be the optimum point to stabilise, but the choice can be made at any time.

[alancalverd]

But it makes their government worries about their future.

Who "their"?

Only bankers and speculators suffer if demand falls below supply. Sadly, most politicians align themselves with  these parasites, not the productive workers.

What is apparent from the current Japanese model is that the desire to make babies can be offset or delayed by the pleasure of a high standard of education and living. It is much the same in Scandinavia.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Who "their"?

Japanese's

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only bankers and speculators suffer if demand falls below supply.

Any product manufacturers and service providers suffer if demand falls.