[CliffordK]

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.

Time to give up on those trips to Starbucks, or your favorite coffee shop.
Cut out the restaurants.
No more retail sales.
Shoes and clothing manufacture?  I suppose they are unnecessary for society.

While a lot of older teens are still in school of one sort or another, it would be unwise to ignore the contributions to society of those say from 16 to 20.  Even seasonal employment of youth.

Gross wages are not necessarily the only measurement of the contribution to society.

[alancalverd]

Current UK policy is for 50% of the population to go to university so they end up at 21 with a debt which half never repay, thus negating whatever tax the rest of their cohort may have paid on their minimum wage and undeclared tips.

UK youth unemployment generally runs at 12 - 15%, showing that half of those who do not go to university do not do anything else that might be considered work

Anyone who pays £3 for 20p worth of coffee (or "Starbucks" - same color, but tastes of dishwater) is a fool.

High street retail has taken a bashing and is unlikely to recover.

Not sure when anyone last made significant quantities of clothes and shoes in the UK. Most seasonal employment is of professional migrant agricultural workers. 

Gross wages do not reflect the societal value of what we do, but taxes are what pays state pensions and those who look after the elderly.

[CliffordK]

Unfortunately, as a human species, we can't just skip being young.  We don't need families with 6 or 8 children, but we do need some children.

A large number of high school kids and college kids get "summer jobs", as well as "after school jobs".  I'm not sure the impact of those workers on the labor market.  There are certainly many jobs like mowing yards and yard cleanup which is seasonal by nature.  Part time employment of say 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM can be very helpful for companies wishing to keep the doors open for more than 8 hours a day.  They might also be involved in seasonal tourist work.

Your clothes may not be made in the UK...  but that doesn't mean kids don't have a hand in their production.

The impact of kids on agriculture shouldn't be underestimated, in part because the only way to get adult farmers is to have juvenile farmers.

[acsinuk (OP)]

As far as UK is concerned we feel secure but need to improve our environment and thus create opportunities for jobs for our school leavers probably through apprenticeship schemes and our population is stable or not rising much.
But look at worldometer figures       https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
Look at the central African countries where there is no security and little education, The stats show where the problem lies?
 Worrying about climate change is a waste of time as it is caused mostly by world population increase which results in us needing more of everything.  More food leads to deforestation, overfishing, more cattle methane, more cars, more fuel, more pollution and more carbon dioxide!!

[alancalverd]

As far as UK is concerned we need to ....... create opportunities for jobs for our school leavers probably through apprenticeship schemes

Simpler just to create fewer school leavers. The money saved could support apprenticeships and scholarships.

and our population is stable

but unsustainable. In fact it has grown by 33% in my lifetime and whilst currently at a lower rate than recently, there is no objective limit. 

Having a clear geographical and now political boundary, the UK or indeed the entire British Isles is an ideal place for a demonstrative experiment. We can calculate the population that could be indefinitely sustained at a desirable standard of living without net imports, then take steps to achieve it. 

[charles1948]

Why should an increase in human population be regarded as a  "problem".

Humans are the most advanced species that the Earth has produced, after 4 billion years of organic evolution.

We stand at the apex of evolution.  As the supreme product.  We are far better than inferior life forms, such as insects, worms and fish.  These lower organisms are quite disgusting in their cruel and mindless behaviour, and complete lack of artistic and scientific qualities.  They remain locked in a meaningless cycle of life and death.

Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things.  Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.

[Kryptid]

Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things.  Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.

Until sustainability becomes a problem, that is. Then you can expect an increase in conflict due to resource shortages.

[charles1948]

Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things.  Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.

Until sustainability becomes a problem, that is. Then you can expect an increase in conflict due to resource shortages.

Humans will find an answer to "resource shortages" .  Do you think we are mere koala bears, worried about running out of eucalyptus leaves?
 
We will use science to synthesise all our needs. 

[Kryptid]

How do you know that will happen before sustainability becomes an issue? There are plenty of people who are starving right now despite what science might allow us to do in the future. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum: we also have human nature to contend with. What science is theoretically capable of is going to be limited by our own choices on how to deal with it. Our inherent selfishness is a problem.

[charles1948]

How do you know that will happen before sustainability becomes an issue? There are plenty of people who are starving right now despite what science might allow us to do in the future. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum: we also have human nature to contend with. What science is theoretically capable of is going to be limited by our own choices on how to deal with it. Our inherent selfishness is a problem.

I think you're too pessimistic.  Nowadays we have Science.  That makes a fundamental difference.

If our inherent selfishness is a problem, couldn't we get rid of it, by injecting chemicals into our bodies, to make us more sociable.

Science can do anything we wish for



I

[Kryptid]

If science could do anything we wished for, we wouldn't have any problems. Yet we do. Science is good, but it ain't a silver bullet.

[charles1948]

If science could do anything we wished for, we wouldn't have any problems. Yet we do. Science is good, but it ain't a silver bullet.

I respectfully disagree  - Science is actually the long sought for "silver bullet"  that could solve all our problems

The trouble is most people don't care about Science  All they're interested in is money, fighting, and sex

[Kryptid]

How do you expect science to fix the problem of the Universe's heat death?

[alancalverd]

Viewing the inevitable as a problem isn't very scientific.

Wondering how an entity destined for total entropy and stasis ever came into being in the first instance, is.

[alancalverd]

We stand at the apex of evolution.  As the supreme product.  We are far better than inferior life forms, such as insects, worms and fish.  These lower organisms are quite disgusting in their cruel and mindless behaviour, and complete lack of artistic and scientific qualities.  They remain locked in a meaningless cycle of life and death.

Other species have evolved since homo sapiens. Most of them consider us as food and transport.

Humans who considered themselves superior to all others have a history of disgusting, cruel and mindless behavior, even regarding the depiction of crucifixion as art, and invoking "scientific research" as an excuse for more sophisticated forms of torture.   

The cycle of life and death has no meaning outside of the organism itself. It's just chemistry. 

[acsinuk (OP)]

If increases in the global population causes an increase in the CO2 emissions then that will cause global warming problems that scientists must correct somehow, by carbon capture and sequestration.

[alancalverd]

10% of anthropogenic CO2 comes from humans breathing. 25% comes from the animals we farm to feed ourselves. Reducing the human population is a zero-cost way to improve practically everything about our lives and the future of the planet, and incidentally to test the hypothesis that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

So why not?

[acsinuk (OP)]

So should the NHS in all countries be encouraged to set an upper age of say 80 beyond which they only render free emergency treatments not scheduled operations that may extend the pensioners life?? Euthanasia is an available option to those suffering chronic terminal illnesses in some more socially advanced countries.

[alancalverd]

I see from your profile that you are 79. Very generous of you.

But at the tender age of 76 I have paid a lot of tax in the hope that the NHS will provide a full cradle-to-grave service.

I distinguish between extending life and extending healthy life. The former is prohibited by the second half of the Hippocratic Oath "....nor strive officiously to sustain life...." but religious perverts keep objecting to any law that would allow a sane man to avoid pointless and endless pain and suffering if he can't actually top himself, so doctors have to resort to criminal neglect (known as the Liverpool Pathway) instead.

Having swapped defective products for a free hip and two good lenses, I intend to continue flying around the world doing  good for profit for as long as I am able, and hope to end up in a civilised State that permits euthanasia when it becomes unbearable to continue and no further maintenance or remedial work is possible. If I go on for another 25 years, it will be a Good Thing and no more than I have paid for.

I take this opportunity to wish a slow and painful death followed by an eternity in Hell on all those who oppose voluntary euthanasia. I understand that is the correct form for a class curse, and I bestow it with all my heart.

[charles1948]

I take this opportunity to wish a slow and painful death followed by an eternity in Hell on all those who oppose voluntary euthanasia. I understand that is the correct form for a class curse, and I bestow it with all my heart.

Crikey, that seems a bit extreme. No-one can stop you committing voluntary euthanasia, if you want to do it.

You can do it quickly, by stepping off a tall building.  Or in a slower way,  by just not eating any more food.

Both these methods are readily available to you.  It's entirely up to you.

Why "bestow a class curse", to use your memorable expression, on those people who might try to stop you.

They're only trying to help you. Life is short enough as it is. There's no justification for throwing in your towel prematurely.  Who knows what might happen if you carry on your life?  You might win the Lottery and become rich.

Or scientific advances could enable you to acquire a new body.  Made of stainless steel and plastic.

Just wait and see what happens.  Don't quit too soon.