[alancalverd]

Climate change is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that has eradicated many cultures and civilisations, not to mention  entire clades such as dinosaurs.

The difference nowadays is that lots of humans live in marginal territories that cannot sustain them, and many others think that they have a duty to keep them alive.

Conventional contraceptives are cheap - indeed much cheaper than food. Compulsory medication is unethical. The problem is religion and politics, which interfere with common sense.

[Bored chemist]

Because there wouldn't be any point to interviewing someone who didn't understand your questions and could only reply in a language your viewers would not understand.

One day, someone will invent interpreters and subtitles. They already exist on my planet.

It's easier to just find someone who speaks the "right" language- especially if that language is English.

[Bored chemist]

the real problem is global warming caused by population expansion that has resulted in a  refugee explosion

In reality
52% of all refugees and other people in need of international protection come from just three countries: Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan.

"The Syrian refugee crisis began in March 2011 as a result of a violent government crackdown on public demonstrations in support of teenagers who were arrested for anti-government graffiti in the southern town of Daraa. "
From
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/

Ukrainian refugees are due to Russia being run by a lunatic


Afghan refugees are due to religious lunatics.

Why are  you seeking to blame global warming for the number of refugees?

 They are both big problems, but they are not directly related.

a user friendly contraceptive to treat free food aid with

Why are you still trying to poison children?

[acsinuk (OP)]

Alan
"Conventional contraceptives are cheap - indeed much cheaper than food" which substance chemically is this contraceptive powder and will it still be active if boiled in water for 20 minutes?

[alancalverd]

Why would you want to do that?

The combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill is often just called 'the pill'. It contains two hormones - an oestrogen and a progestogen. If taken correctly, it is a very effective form of contraception.

By all means boil your water, then make tea or coffee to wash the pill down. At least that's what my friends and family have been doing for years. This stuff isn't new - the chemistry, technology, packaging and distribution is about 65 years old. Standard presentation is in "one a day" blister packs so only the target population (women) get only the correct dose. 

If you start poisoning food with female hormones the male population will develop prominent breasts and luxuriant hair, and you will be wasting half of the product on them. Not sure what would happen to the children but I guess it's all in the physiological pathology textbooks.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Thanks Alan,  Progesterone | C21H30O2 | CID 5994 is a hydro carbon and I am not sure whether it can retain its contraceptive properties if added to rice or wheat which both require heating to boiling point before being edible .  Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!
The other possibility is to issue patches to all recipients of free food which would allow the charity workers to check that the lady collectors were at least trying to restrict the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
Just withdrawing free UN food to refugee camps altogether seems a little to drastic.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Re: The link between global warming and world population expansion. correction
? Reply #325 on: Today at 00:32:10 ?
Thanks Alan,  Progesterone | C21H30O2 | CID 5994 is a hydro carbohydrate and I am not sure whether it can retain its contraceptive properties if added to rice or wheat which both require heating to boiling point before being edible .  Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!
The other possibility is to issue patches to all recipients of free food which would allow the charity workers to check that the lady collectors were at least trying to restrict the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
Just withdrawing free UN food to refugee camps altogether seems a little to drastic.

[alancalverd]

Unless prescribed by a civil court for the protection of the patient or his victims, compulsory or coercive medication is unethical and probably prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Times change, apparently (see UNRWA) but AFAIK the majority of relief aid workers have no wish to be labelled as war criminals.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Absolutely, aid workers are not war criminals but are causing suffering by suppling free food and medicines which is upsetting the ability of farmers and bush dwellers to be self sufficient or even find work for their children who drift into violent gangs. then armed militia groups who claim allegiance  to some greater cause or political group   
Result is millions of displaced families with discontented parents with no future;  plus world refugee crisis population explosion and global warming.
Problem in Gaza is historical; Philistines/Palestinians never got on with Israel but this is an Arabic problem only.
Up to the Arab countries to solve by arranging an exodus of all refugees from Gaza to other Arabian Mid East or North African countries  or for some to Israel if they can live peacefully there.

[alancalverd]

As Stalin said, one death is  a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. And recent headlines bear this out.

[Bored chemist]

Possibly bored chemist can enlighten us!

I have tried repeatedly; but you still want to poison children.

[Bored chemist]

By the way; you all seem to be focussed on ACS's  wish to do the wrong thing and to do it unethically.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2423408-why-falling-birth-rates-will-be-a-bigger-problem-than-overpopulation/

[alancalverd]

New Scientist seems to have fallen into the conventional trap of ignoring the facts.

In the civilised west, at least, the "working population" is almost entirely aged 20 - 60 and currently accounts for about half of the total.

Decreasing birthrate immediately reduces the number of under-20's, who are mostly dependent on their elders but have not contributed to their own care. Thus the effect of a decreased birthrate is to increase the working fraction of the population whilst decreasing demand on natural resources and benefits and services paid from taxation and investment. Whilst the mean age of the population increases,  there are thus more resources and benefits available to the elderly who have been paying taxes and investing in pension funds and suchlike.

If the per capita birthrate remains below replacement level, and life expectancy does not increase faster than the birthrate decreases, so the working fraction continues to grow and the increase in available natural resource per capita eventually leads to a resilient and sustainable population with an increased standard of living. At that point you might consider returning to replacement-level reproduction. 

My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female  would lead to an indefinitely sustainable population in the UK within 100 years. Not a bad target, considering that  it doesn't require any sacrifice and life actually gets better for everyone from Day 1.
 

[Petrochemicals]

My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female  would lead to an indefinitely sustainable population in the UK within 100 years.

Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people now we are living to the age we do, there is the implausable health care provision that would be needed. At present over a million people work for the nhs, another million in the care sector and another million in social services. That is a ratio of 20 to 1. In 2 generations the ratio would soon be 5 to 1 (ish).

Of course we could continue importing doctors and nurses as we do now, the only problem is that we wouldnt be exporting our own anywhere near as fast, so your population remains stable.

[alancalverd]

Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people

If the birthrate were limited to one per female, your one worker would only have to support 2.5 others at most, two of whom had actually been paying into their pension funds for 40 years and therefore do not require support anyway. 

[alancalverd]

At present over a million people work for the nhs,

No. About 500,000 people actually work for the NHS, the rest are managers, lawyers and accountants.

As for the "burden on the health service" it must be remembered that a substantial part of the demand is for perinatal and child health services, and if each woman only produced one child (a) the return of women to the fulltime workforce would increase and (b) there would be less demand for nursery workers, teachers, lecturers. college cooks.....

Plus of course you solve the problem of youth unemployment. Instead of running up an unpayable debt to the taxpayer, 50% of "students" (i.e. unemployed teenagers) would simply not exist.

[Bored chemist]

My estimate is that limiting reproduction to 1 child per female  ... it doesn't require any sacrifice and life actually gets better for everyone from Day 1.

That's not what China found.
So the question is what sacrifice are we prepared to make?

[alancalverd]

The problem with Communist China 50 years ago was
1. the lack of funded pensions
2. a cultural history of the young supporting their parents in old age
3. compulsion
4. a cultural preference for male children, leading to infanticide or abortion and a shortage of females
5. an absence of effective contraception

None of these is a serious problem in the UK. My plan is simply to pay every woman a sensible sum of money every 6 months if she is not pregnant, and to reduce the current two-child benefits cap to one. No compulsion, no stigma, no erosion of human rights, just a clear choice.

The alternative is for the human population to  outgrow  its food and water supply, particularly as these resources will dwindle over the next 100 - 500 years, and descend into tribal warfare - but this time for a valid reason.

[Petrochemicals]

Other than the catastrophic burden of 1 worker supporting up to 6 people

If the birthrate were limited to one per female, your one worker would only have to support 2.5 others at most, two of whom had actually been paying into their pension funds for 40 years and therefore do not require support anyway. 

Ok. I did say " (ish)

1 child in the next generation , by the time that child grows up there could be 2 generations retired (4 people) and 1 non productive offspring, granted the spouse may work and that people living to see their children retire is on the extreme end and the child is close to productivity, but contrary to that there are people who are long term sick and disabled.

The pension fund is negligible for most. The government takes takes today and pays them out today, they do not invest it. The cost to the government of anybody over 65 is massive, pensions health care social care and it is only increacing, people are living longer, and the associated health problems are also increacing.

Rather than a drastic step of a 1 child policy a far more rational policy is one detailed in the film "Logans Run".

[alancalverd]

the time that child grows up there could be 2 generations retired (4 people)

Consider the population in three cohorts: 0 - 20, 20 - 60, 60 - 100. Let there be N people in the first cohort, and assume for simplicity that all babies are born to women aged 20 - 21.

If we reproduce at replacement level there will be the same number born each year and 2N people in the 40 - 60 range  (the working population).

Almost nobody lives to 100 and life expectancy is around 80 so for simplicity assume that we die at a constant rate between 60 and 100. Then there must be N in the oldest cohort and the "working fraction " is 0.5.

So currently, each member of the working population is supporting an average of one other, half under 20 and half over 60.

Now reduce the birthrate to half the replacement level. The under-20 burden  decreases immediately but the working population is unchanged for the next 20 years, so the working fraction increases.

After 20 years, the total number of births decreases again so although there are now fewer folk in the working population, the working fraction is still > 0.5.

If life expectancy increases significantly, we can just tweak the retirement age (already done!) or return  to apprenticeships and on-the -job training to reduce the effective age at which folk start to contribute to the economy.