[acsinuk (OP)]

Well done Chris Packham for a super Horizon program on BBC2 last night. The World Health Organisation monitors show world population now 7.9 billion already up by 200 million    https://www.worldometers.info/population/   .
We need to plan ahead and reduce this increasing population to save the planet.  Here are some ideas
1.  Reduce childbirth by contraceptive pills and educating young girls to feel free, safe and secure if un-married.
2. Reduce elderly population by encouraging euthanasia for those who cannot look after themselves at home
3. Allow God to choose who lives or dies when He sends a pandemic to protect us from overpopulation.
4.  Have a world war noting that Chris sees this as negative as it causes a baby boom due to insecurity.
CliveS

[Bored chemist]

Here are some ideas

Yes, those are some ideas.
Did you consider posting good ideas?

[alancalverd]

1.  Reduce childbirth by contraceptive pills and educating young girls to feel free, safe and secure if un-married.

Marriage is irrelevant, and most abuse occurs within marriage, but free contraception is a good idea.

2. Reduce elderly population by encouraging euthanasia for those who cannot look after themselves at home

Allow, don't encourage.

3. Allow God to choose who lives or dies when He sends a pandemic to protect us from overpopulation.

Is that the god that created cholera and blessed both the Spanish Inquisition and ISIS. Or were you thinking about the benign and omnipotent being that allowed the Romans to crucify his son? Anyway, the past pandemic killed those of working age and the present one preferentially kills those too old to reproduce, so unless you want a biblical plague that kills the firstborn, it won't have the desired effect.

4.  Have a world war noting that Chris sees this as negative as it causes a baby boom due to insecurity.

and doesn't kill many people. COVID has now killed more Americans in one year than died in WWII. The Russians lost at least 20,000,000 people over 6 years in that conflict but again mostly people of working age.

If we do nothing, people will eventually starve or kill each other anyway.

[CliffordK]

Increased life expectancy in the elderly will cause a bit of a bulge in population.  But, if they aren't having kids, I don't worry about them. They'll eventually pass on.  I'd hate to imagine a society that used forced euthanasia of the elderly to keep up with a over population problem of the young.

And, some of the matriarchs and patriarchs are the glue that hold society together.

As you mentioned education helps.  I'd like to see the government talk about family size as a major issue.  I'd be happy enough if over the next couple of centuries the human population slowly declined to half or less, but governments seem to think a decrease in population is a major problem.  Reducing population growth would help with global warming, transitioning to renewable energy, and resource depletion.

It may well also increase society wealth (no building bigger and bigger roads to keep up with population growth, and new construction limited to rebuilding old houses, not always needing new housing).

There are a lot of society benefits for young children from free schools to tax incentives. 

I would like to see domestic tax incentives change to normal deductions for up to 1 kid per person, 2 per couple.  But, after that increase taxes so 3, 4, 5 kids would incur a significant tax burden.  Encourage that 1 each/2 couple, and birth rate would naturally decline.

Of course "grandfather" in those that are already born or past conception for the old system.

The issue then becomes international communities, some who have large families, then emigrate to more affluent places. 

Internationally it is a complex issue from requiring government supported retirement (don't depend on kids and family), and back to strongly encouraging small families. 

Immigration/emigration would likely become a non-issue if the standard of living was increased globally, and countries could maintain the zero population growth.  In fact, make it much easier to move between nations that have the population under control.

[alancalverd]

Abolish all child support grants and statutory maternity leave. Pay every woman £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant, with one "bye" for the first child. Prosecute anyone who preaches that contraception is against the will of the Almighty, unless he can prove it by having his god testify in court. Pretty soon the reproduction rate will reduce to around 1 per woman - no additional education necessary - and within 100 years the population will have reached a sustainable level.

En route to that desideratum, the working fraction of the population, i.e. those aged between 20 and 60, will increase, and the cost of state education, health and social services and policing will decrease significantly, so there will be more money to pay pensions and more working age folk who might previously have been involved in child services will be available to look after the elderly.

Ban all immigration except for genuine refugees. The UK will be the demonstration laboratory for a social experiment that anyone else can copy, so we can't tolerate arbitrary increases in the population.

Will it be popular? A government that gives you money for doing nothing and pays bigger pensions, will have no problem selling the policy to the electorate.

[Bored chemist]

Pay every woman £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant, with one "bye" for the first child.

You could probably do that in the UK- where the birth rate is already les than the death rate, so there's not much point.
But if you tried doing it  everywhere then you would discover that you have just made the women (even more of) a target to be attacked. Not just for the "traditional reasons"- but also because they would have money.

The first thing you need to do is ensure that women are granted freedom of choice and action.
Once you do that, you probably won't need to offer the cash.

En route to that desideratum, the working fraction of the population, i.e. those aged between 20 and 60, will increase,

Really? Are you proposing a pensioner cull?

Under your policy the birth rate would drop to roughly half what it currently is. The death rate would remain largely unchanged.
So, consider what happens 20 years down the line.
There are only half as many 20 year olds, but the number of pensioners is the same.
The following year we only have half as many 20 and half as many 21 year olds, and the number of pensioners is the same.
And after,  60 years there will only be half as many* people in the 20 to 60 age group, but they will be supporting the same number of pensioners.
Is your view that the pensioners will starve, or that the taxpayers will be happy to spend twice as much (per capita) supporting them?
* the fall in numbers will be a bit steeper really, because, with a smaller adult population from about year 20, there will be fewer adults so there will be even fewer parents and the birth rate will drop even more.

[alancalverd]

Those under 20 do not make a net contribution to the economy and currently form about 25% of the population.  If their numbers decrease, the "working fraction" of those aged 20 - 60 increases smoothly from 0.5 to about 0.65 in the short term.

My £1000 grant per annum is less than half of what the  taxpayer currently contributes  to the welfare etc of other people's children. 

Attacking a woman doesn't give you access to her bank account. Being kind, might.

As I pointed out, I have no interest in what happens in the rest of the world. If the experiment works, others would be well advised to try it. If not, we will at least have reduced the pressure on UK housing and thus improved the productive economy by reducing the national mortgage debt.

[Bored chemist]

Attacking a woman doesn't give you access to her bank account.

Oh boy!
Alan thinks women all have their own bank accounts.

[Bored chemist]

Those under 20 do not make a net contribution to the economy and currently form about 25% of the population. 

Which means "the rest" are about 75% of the population.
And in that - much bigger- group, the fraction of over 60s grows.

The average age at death in the UK is about 82.
So a person typically spends 20 years being under 20 and 22 years being over 60.
Your proposal would  shrink the small group, and not affect the big one.
But it would also halve the number of people paying in.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Yes,  "The average age at death in the UK is about 82.
So a person typically spends 20 years being under 20 and 22 years being over 60" 

But what about the quality of life of our pensioners?   Everyone wants to be at home looking after themselves and inviting friends and family for visits.  But what happens when they cannot look after themselves and wet the bed at night??
Most people want to die at home so will have to pay helpers to care for them.   But if the pensioner cannot afford that home care then they will have to go into a state funded care home and thus loose their freedom,
Many care home are run on prison lines where the inmates are closely monitored and isolated from all risks. 
Euthanasia may not be such a bad idea and it will certainly help the state and their children by releasing assets early.  Better still would be for the pensioner to live with one of their children who would become their carer! 
.

[alancalverd]

The crude model I used assumed a linear decline in population from age 60 to 100, that every female gave birth to one child at age 20, and instant recruitment from parasite to full taxpayer at age 20.

By the time the first "new cohort" joins the working fraction, the birth rate will have declined again, so although the number in the working fraction decreases, so does the number of children they support. 

By all means feel free to tweak the numbers and soften the curve a bit. The general retirement age of 65 already makes my model look better!

[Petrochemicals]

It's a tough one, population will increace and resource use will increace exponentially as the world develops. War is a very real possibility, look at the Falklands, the south China Sea, race for the Arctic. 15 million by 2100 is within the bounds of possibility, the peace of the latter 20th century was mostly due to resources and consumerism. When populations feel aggrieved there is a drift to the extremes as seen recently.

Problem with reducing a population is that to just push it over a cliff as in China and its one child policy is you end up with an aged population. If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.

The best we can hope for is a gradual decline at a rate of 2 children per couple. Population will still increace but will start to rationalise. Mass migration of people to countries that implement this idea would also have to ceace as countries  like the USA and Brazil where population is at a reasonable level bearing the burden for countries like Britain where population densities are astranomical.

[alancalverd]

If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.

A very common mistake - at least if applied to the UK, where you spend the first quarter of your life consuming, not producing. The elderly are supported by the taxpayers, not the students. And the taxpayers also support the students.

If you reduce the population, you have more resources available per capita. In the UK, this means that house prices will decline and most working people will have more disposable income, which they can invest for their old age.

[Petrochemicals]

If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.

A very common mistake - at least if applied to the UK, where you spend the first quarter of your life consuming, not producing. The elderly are supported by the taxpayers, not the students. And the taxpayers also support the students.

nope I am on about the teenager as they grow.

If you reduce the population, you have more resources available per capita. In the UK, this means that house prices will decline and most working people will have more disposable income, which they can invest for their old age.

As the population of working age decreases, cash devalues, the housing crash will bring down the banks, the government will follow, leaving the couple with 14 people to support guarding their food supply with a pointy stick whilst the heathens sacrifice people unto the gods.

[alancalverd]

It costs about £300,000 to support a UK baby to age 20. The published figures generally ignore State support, so you have to approximate from the US figure where the taxpayer contributes less  to the upbringing and health of your child, then add a bit for policing. 50% of UK kids receive a student loan, of which about 50% are never repaid in full.

£300,000 is over 30 years of state pension.

The housing "crash" (more like a slow reversion to 1930's valuations over the next 50 years)  will not bring down the banks - they will continue to lend money but for more useful ventures than buying and selling second-hand houses. Banks survive in North America where the price per square foot is less than half  the going UK rate.

The most prosperous countries have a very low population density. Think USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden....Why not the UK?

[Petrochemicals]

The most prosperous countries have a very low population density. Think USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden....Why not the UK?

You are stretching it there Alan, they are also mostly new countries. No mention of Japan there nor Germany, I'm sure they may fall into the bracket of ''most'

[alancalverd]

I wouldn't call Sweden a new country. They were trading with the British Isles 4000 years ago and had a significant empire until 1720.

North America has been colonised by Europeans for around 500 years.

Home ownership is unusual in Germany: farmers and some traders and craftsmen "live over the shop" but the majority of the population live in rented accommodation in a very competitive market, so their disposable income is greater than in the UK and it shows in the ease with which industry is able to borrow money and raise capital at all levels. 

If anything, Japan and Korea should be counted as "new" countries, having been radically overhauled and reconsitututed in the last 100 years, but I don't know too much about mortgage rates in either!.

[Petrochemicals]

I wouldn't call Sweden a new country.

I wouldn't call them mostly either

The rest of it has nothing to do with countries with population overburden offloading them to countries with a sensible population who take measures to keep population within sensible levels.

On an economic note, the increaced in population is regarded as great for the economy, by default a drop must be seen as bad.

[alancalverd]

"Good for the economy" includes starting a war (though not losing it) and failing to institute timely and proper quarantine in a time of pandemic. Likewise increasing house prices to the extent that villages become depleted and Londoners cannot afford to live in London - the Press always get excited when "the housing market is picking up" because it makes easy headlines at the expense of investment into productive industry and social services.

An increasing population demands increasing production and more trade, and results in increasing consumption, which is "good for the economy" until the primary resource runs out. The Common Fisheries Policy was good for the economy and turned the North Sea into a desert. The Aral Sea has dried up, for the benefit of the economy.

Political economics is all about short-termism. What interests me is what is good for my grandchildren in the next 50 years, not what benefits bankers and politicians tomorrow, and that demands sustainability.

I am unaware of any "country" (by which I assume you mean government) that takes "measures to keep population within sensible levels". The Chinese attempted it rather badly as you pointed out in reply #11 above.

[Petrochemicals]

An increasing population demands increasing production and more trade, and results in increasing consumption, which is "good for the economy" until the primary resource runs out.

Thank you for agreeing.

The trouble is that places such as the USA with a moderate population should not be over populated by places like Europe emmegrating to them. You will end up with one country implementing procedures and suffering loss for it.