Refugees/migrants

[Ben@Forest]

There is an ecological concept of carrying capacity which can be defined as 'a species’ average population size in a particular habitat. The species population size is limited by environmental factors like adequate food, shelter, water, and mates. If these needs are not met, the population will decrease until the resource rebounds.'

Dependent upon who one reads and how one sees sustainable farming/maintaining other species the carrying capacity of the UK is 15 to 30 million humans. What we need is a disease which wipes out half of all humans, perhaps the next pandemic will do a better job

What implication do you take from this?

That UK policy should be to reduce population?

Or something else?

To reduce our population is no bad thing, and controlling immigration is part of that. But the real issue is our increasing longevity. Perhaps we shouldn't invest so much in sustaining people's lives for another 3 or 6 months or for a another year.

It's a long and personal account but my mother was kept alive for at least three years beyond having any quality of life. She'd have hated it and would've been the first to end her own life if she could have. If it happens to me l will certainly pull a trigger.

[Vorpal]

I started to reply, and then saw that part of what I was going to say, TC has already said. The concept of carrying capacity does not include our interaction with the environment. Thus far, food prouction has kept pace with population growth. We have, however, caused changes in some environmental systems that are signalling warnings of collapse, and if these are not managed effectively could cascade, encompassing food production systems, as well as ecologies. Tree ranges, for example, are already starting to changes, and some species may need help from humans because they simply cannot adapt quickly enough.

I do have confidence that scientists can find ways to deal with this. I am less confident that governments and politicians will do enough to avert some disastrous consequences. While I don't think that it is reasonable to look at the UK or Great Britain in isolation, the global population capacity is certainly something that we need to look at in terms of housing, food production, and long-term standard of living. This requires international cooperation on scale never before accomplished in human history.

Refugees and migrants are relatively, a very small piece of the puzzle. It would be much better to solve the problmes causing them to leave their homelands, but climate change is already putting pressure on some populations. How will we resolve that worsening problem in the future? Rather than saying that they shouldn't be allowed into the UK, what are the solutions?

I think recent events are evidence that if we close the legal routes for refugees to enter the UK, they will simply find other means to do it. And the more desparate people become, the more desparate that means.

[al_yrpal]

Again, thanks for that. What I'm trying to convey is that most people who go to the trouble to move house have a pretty good reason to do it and your daughter is no exception. My own younger son has worked in several European countries simply to get work, and back in the UK started in Yatton (other side of Bristol) and regularly moved further North over the last 10 or so years to different jobs in an era of short-term contracts. He's now back in Leeds, living and working in Hunslet only yards from some historic industrial premises. It's economic migration and it's what leads to economic development.

I understand that totally. I moved 4 times because of my job in my working life. I believe in trying to save refugees who have been suffering in their homelands as much as we are able and a certain number of economic migrants too, but what we have now is virtually unlimited immigration and like Norway this has been the cause of a housing crisis precipitated partially by immigrants who cannot afford to buy. Low interest rates have enabled moneyed credit worthy people to borrow and take over low cost accomodation to rent out. This has snowballed. Our own young people are consequently suffering. Two of my grandkids in their early 20s are in this position. Immigration needs to slow right down.

Al

[simonineaston]

What we need is a disease which wipes out half of all humans, perhaps the next pandemic will do a better job

We are all, quite understandably, ignoring the elephant in the room. There is simply no need to yearn for that disease, as there is an even better candidate fast approaching. While agreeing with anyone who points out that a lot of the science that focuses on weather and climate control is new and poorly understood, we are learning fast. And regretably, all the important indicators are showing signs of gathering momentum. These huge systems work to feedback and balance the planet's biosphere, which is exactly what's happening at the moment. Unfortunately, higher animals, such as mammals, are unlikey to fair well under the new arrangements. Modellers are desperate to produce a picture that's acceptable to most viewers - they reason that too gloomy a picture will simply be dismissed by most people, quite reasonably, because those folk will simply not be able to comprehend that everything's finished - all their family, all their hopes & dreams, all of 'mankind', will be gone within a generation or two.

[Ben@Forest]

Refugees and migrants are relatively, a very small piece of the puzzle. It would be much better to solve the problmes causing them to leave their homelands, but climate change is already putting pressure on some populations. How will we resolve that worsening problem in the future? Rather than saying that they shouldn't be allowed into the UK, what are the solutions?

I think recent events are evidence that if we close the legal routes for refugees to enter the UK, they will simply find other means to do it. And the more desparate people become, the more desparate that means.

The effect of climate change is a relatively recent problem, we've (as in the world) been sustaining unsustainable populations for a lot longer. Bangladesh is a classic example, the population is too big for a country with its geographical (or topographical) disadvantages. It has both floods and droughts.

The realistic answer is to reduce the population, but in the temporary camps where the dispossessed live (and sometimes for generations) the population keeps rising on food donated from the West. The concept of carrying capacity is not redundant when applied to humans - there will be a figure which would allow humans to live in a relatively sustainable fashion. But that is too much of a political hot potato for any politician to say, especially a western politician. And if any scientist said it now he or she would be no platformed.

[simonineaston]

The effect of climate change is a relatively recent problem, we've (as in the world) been sustaining unsustainable populations for a lot longer. Bangladesh is a classic example, the population is too big for a country with its geographical (or topographical) disadvantages. It has both floods and droughts.

Exactly - for hundreds of years, folks in agricultural economies, based in flood-plains, were well used to hard times and wide-spread up & downs, with disease & deaths at much higher levels than we'd find acceptable from the view-point of our modern industrial cultures with all our sophsticated medicine and social support. Fact remains, though that these folks were struggling "merely" with weather changes that conformed to the old, pre-Anthropocene rules. Now we've gone and tipped the balance enough for the planet to start trying to regain its equilibrium, all hell has been let loose!

[mumbojumbo]

Thomas Malthus,once revered in more deferential times was dismantled by the Indian economist,Amartya Sen professor at Harvard.However the shallow morality of Malthus appeals to many of a exnophobic tendency.|daresay Farage keeps a copy between his biography of Moseley and the German dictionary used to speak with Ma Farage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen

[Vorpal]

The realistic answer is to reduce the population, but in the temporary camps where the dispossessed live (and sometimes for generations) the population keeps rising on food donated from the West. The concept of carrying capacity is not redundant when applied to humans - there will be a figure which would allow humans to live in a relatively sustainable fashion. But that is too much of a political hot potato for any politician to say, especially a western politician. And if any scientist said it now he or she would be no platformed.

I didn't say that the concept of carrying capacity is redundant. I said it does not include our influence on the environment. The sort of modelling that does include it is in its infancy. Outcomes suggest that the capacity of the planet is anywhere from 6 billion to 30 billion people.

TBH, I'm not convinced that population reduction is necessary, and the reason people don't want to talk about it is because it is practically impossible to address directly.

What we do need to do is come up with practical means to understand the capacity of particular regions, develop policy to appropriately limit population growth, and develop international agreements to allow people to migrate from regions that are currently over capacity to regions that are under capacity.

Honestly, we should really have a global environmental strategy, and assess progress on an annual basis. But I'm afraid we are a *long* way from anything like that, and I don't know if it will ever be feasible. Because, well, politics.

[Ben@Forest]

I didn't say that the concept of carrying capacity is redundant. I said it does not include our influence on the environment. The sort of modelling that does include it is in its infancy. Outcomes suggest that the capacity of the planet is anywhere from 6 billion to 30 billion people.

TBH, I'm not convinced that population reduction is necessary, and the reason people don't want to talk about it is because it is practically impossible to address directly.

What we do need to do is come up with practical means to understand the capacity of particular regions, develop policy to appropriately limit population growth, and develop international agreements to allow people to migrate from regions that are currently over capacity to regions that are under capacity.

Honestly, we should really have a global environmental strategy, and assess progress on an annual basis. But I'm afraid we are a *long* way from anything like that, and I don't know if it will ever be feasible. Because, well, politics.

I dont know how the Earth could support 30 billion people but higher estimates tend not to to consider all the other species we share the planet with. More people means fewer elephants, or lions, or otters or lapwing.

Of course there can be highs and lows - l mention otter because they'd almost become extinct in England in the 1960s, but after indiscriminate use of pesticides was stopped there was a much greater presence by the 2010s. But human-induced climate change and building more houses could reduce that figure again. Do we want a viable population of otters or to accommodate 110 million people in the UK? That is the inevitable trade-off.

Estimates of agricultural production (which can ignore the fact that not all agricultural land can grow arable crops) patently ignore that wild species can share pastureland with domestic livestock in a way that can't happen on arable. Lapwing breed on upland shared with sheep or cattle, in fact grazing is part of the systen which provides a microhabitat for creating suitable nesting. Before you suggest naturalistic grazing regimes by wild animals look up the problems they've had at Oostvaarderplassen.

These are just very small examples - but humans really only see the future in terms of their own species. A simple strategy would be to say that a good indicator of a healthy natural environment in the UK would be if we could support wolves nationwide. Is that ever going to happen?

[Vorpal]

I dont know how the Earth could support 30 billion people but higher estimates tend not to to consider all the other species we share the planet with. More people means fewer elephants, or lions, or otters or lapwing.

Of course there can be highs and lows - l mention otter because they'd almost become extinct in England in the 1960s, but after indiscriminate use of pesticides was stopped there was a much greater presence by the 2010s. But human-induced climate change and building more houses could reduce that figure again. Do we want a viable population of otters or to accommodate 110 million people in the UK? That is the inevitable trade-off.

Estimates of agricultural production (which can ignore the fact that not all agricultural land can grow arable crops) patently ignore that wild species can share pastureland with domestic livestock in a way that can't happen on arable. Lapwing breed on upland shared with sheep or cattle, in fact grazing is part of the systen which provides a microhabitat for creating suitable nesting. Before you suggest naturalistic grazing regimes by wild animals look up the problems they've had at Oostvaarderplassen.

These are just very small examples - but humans really only see the future in terms of their own species. A simple strategy would be to say that a good indicator of a healthy natural environment in the UK would be if we could support wolves nationwide. Is that ever going to happen?

I broadly agree. And honestly, I'd like to keep the otters & lapwings & elephants & wolves, and many other things. There are lots of things that we can do to make things better for all of us, and reduce our impact on the environment.

But we currently live in a system that is designed to measure benefits in terms of resources consumed. Until that changes, we will go on consuming, and the best we can hope for is that enough people will feel strongly enough about it to get their governments to moderate the consumption.

[[XAP]Bob]

The real problem is the 750,000 other people who are added to our population each year.

That’s the driver of population growth, not a measly 200k...

[yakdiver]

It's a start, but at this rate could take a long time

The Home Office says 12 migrants were returned to mainland Europe on a flight from the UK today - six people were removed to France and six to Germany. This included nationals from Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait Bidoon, Sudan and Yemen.

[francovendee]

One way to slow the numbers wishing to come to the UK is to make the country less attractive.
Boris has this well in hand and we can expect more from our great leader

[yakdiver]

UPDATE

The Home Office says this month it has removed 27 migrants who reached the UK by boat. 1,442 people have succeeded in crossing the Channel in August

[al_yrpal]

One way to slow the numbers wishing to come to the UK is to make the country less attractive.
Boris has this well in hand and we can expect more from our great leader

I agree. But...the message from the migrants coming in from France is that they feel France doesnt want them and one only to see the pictures of hundreds living on the streets in France to see why.

Al