1) population growth:

Year 1 AD - 170 million
1804 - the first time the Earth had 1 billion people
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1974 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2016 - 7.5 billion

Because we are living longer lives, we know the World's population will reach:
2030 - 8.5 billion
2050 - 9.7 billion
2100 - 10.2 billion

2) Climate change.

Let's consider 2 options:

a) it's nonsense.... In which case our planet simply needs to grow food for an extra 3 billion people, or

b) it's real and we also lose 5% of the World's lowest crop growing land.

3) The rise of automation.

We've already seen factories full of robots. Tonight there was a report of automated farms....tractors that drive themselves. Robots will perform operations....and possibly better than humans.


My question is....(imagine a world of 10 billion people and only 1 billion employed)....What will 9 billion unemployed people do all day?

Where is their sense of self worth going to come from?

I don't care. I'll be dead.

let's face it, humans are the planet's biggest problem! we destroy the planet more than [probably] all the other species combined. perhaps this kind of scenario ie the rise and fall of humans has happened before. maybe it's a cyclical process lasting for, and repeating, every few million years. and i'm in no way suggesting you or i do anything to speed up the process.

I thought there was some evidence that it was down to cows farting?

fidelcastro wrote:I don't care. I'll be dead.

I will but my children and their children will be facing this future.

Seriously, what would 9 billion people do all day....watch Jeremy Kyle and other cr@p?

Is boredom going to create a breaking ground for terrorists with nothing to lose? (clearly not all 9 billion)

I doubt we'll have 9 billion unemployed people.

How many tills at your local Morrisons or ASDA are now automated? Or, how many machines in your bank? Delivery drivers will be replaced by Google's drones.

Companies don't want to pay for those doing the most basic of jobs. All that matters is the return to investors.

Do I sound like a communist? I'm not. I'm one of Thatcher's generation. But I'm increasingly worried about the future.

LoveCurryPies wrote:How many tills at your local Morrisons or ASDA are now automated? Or, how many machines in your bank? Delivery drivers will be replaced by Google's drones.

Companies don't want to pay for those doing the most basic of jobs. All that matters is the return to investors.

Do I sound like a communist? I'm not. I'm one of Thatcher's generation. But I'm increasingly worried about the future.

There's more people in employment now than ever before.

True, a lot of them are crap jobs, but they're still in employment.

I think you're being a bit alarmist.

Might be shorter hours. My parents worked 40 hours per week and 4 weeks off per year; my grandparents worked 60 hours a week with two weeks off per year; their parents, more hours than that and two days off per year; I work 36 and a quarter hours per week and 6 weeks off per year. Jobs may get easier, hours will get shorter, but jobs will still be there.

Fidelcastro, I'm not talking about now.

We've also seen numerous programmes about driverless cars. I've no doubt that is coming....but it means driverless trucks, vans, trains and even aircraft. Simply because it will be cheaper and possibly safer.

But those are real jobs. I'm not going to describe them as crap jobs.

I think we need jobs at every level.

LoveCurryPies wrote:Fidelcastro, I'm not talking about now.

We've also seen numerous programmes about driverless cars. I've no doubt that is coming....but it means driverless trucks, vans, trains and even aircraft. Simply because it will be cheaper and possibly safer.

But those are real jobs. I'm not going to describe them as crap jobs.

I think we need jobs at every level.

If you're right, then we'll probably need to go down the guaranteed income route.

Wasn't it piloted somewhere?

I'm sure IT or Rowls will know!

Yes, I agree. Let's say the 1 billion in employment and all the automation generate enough wealth and food to support 9 billion unemployed. They receive an amount of money and food from the state....

...but where does their sense of worth come from? We've all been bored after a couple of weeks off work....but imagine a lifetime with no work.

I'm sure someone is going to say that sounds great. But what would you do? Stay in bed watching tv? I'm presuming the amount from state only provides an existence. Not enough to go traveling the world or buying fancy cars etc.

Logans Run?

Methane is 10% farting and 90% burping. Same amount but when I found out it surprised me.
Actually read it in the wife's woman's weekly!

The unwashed around deadwood will still be blaming Venky's.

.

.

There is a theory that jobs are developed to fill the gaps.

We've had automation in many areas down the years (the cotton industry is obviously one close to home) but unemployment is still low. We've developed things like commodities traders, PR people, telemarketing, a whole variety of experts in complex law, etc which fill the gap.

aggi wrote:We've developed things like commodities traders, PR people, telemarketing, a whole variety of experts in complex law, etc which fill the gap.

Fine,but what about folk who want to do a honest days work for a living?

.

The word HONEST went way over your head...

If the working hours reducing theory is correct, the population growth predictions will be false. There'll be a baby boom with all the free time that everyone has. Fun times ahead.

There are baby booms ongoing in most of the poorer countries, where there isn't enough work to go around.

Same will happen in the west, because people will have not a lot else to do.

[quote=

Seriously, what would 9 billion people do all day....watch Jeremy Kyle and other cr@p?

[/quote]
From an early age children will need to be educated to embrace a leisure culture. We only feel that we have to work ourselves to death because we have been pre programmed to embrace the work ethic.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

Longsider wrote:[quote=

Seriously, what would 9 billion people do all day....watch Jeremy Kyle and other cr@p?

From an early age children will need to be educated to embrace a leisure culture. We only feel that we have to work ourselves to death because we have been pre programmed to embrace the work ethic.[/quote]


Interesting.
But i, and many others, would really miss work and the chance to actually create something useful.
I see leisure as a reward for having worked, I'm not sure about a culture of leisure, although you are probably right in as much as that's where we're heading.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

Same here. I hope they are already reading this. Exterminate the doubters first, Supreme Masters of the Earth, not me and Lancaster.

They are, BING BOT and SPIDER BOT are on here all the time

Sidney1st wrote:There are baby booms ongoing in most of the poorer countries, where there isn't enough work to go around.

Same will happen in the west, because people will have not a lot else to do.

People in poor countries have lots of children because there's no old age pension, and your children are your only means of support when (if) you get old, and children die so you need a few spares.

In rich countries, children tend not to die (obviously with exceptions) and the state will provide in old age, so most people have no more than two. And if you look at people with three, quite often it's because the first two were both girls or both boys.

Or they've migrated from a poor country and are still of the belief/habit that they need to have large families.
Thats's a culture the richer countries have predominatly moved away from.

It is a myth that poor are having big families. Increase is due to people living to 80, 90 and into 100.

There are several brilliant videos by Hans Rosling that explain why we know this will happen:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_ ... ion_growth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It isn't really a myth though is it?

My nan was one of 12 I think it was.
My dad one of 4
I'm one of 2 by my parents (although they both went on to have another kid each with other people)

Some of the reasons for this is due to lower infant mortality rates, costs of living etc plus the fact people are more often then not in work so popping out a large number of kids isn't usually financially viable or they just don't feel the need too.
Smaller families are more the norm then larger ones.

Now if you look at some of the poorer countries across the world they're still having a higher number of children due to mortality rates being high for various reasons.
Now when some of these people move to richer and more developed countries they're still of the mind set that a big family is necessary when it really isn't.
That mindset takes a generation or two to change, just like it has done for people who's families have been here for generations.

European people who move to the UK aren't popping out lots of kids because they're of the same mind set as UK people.

Yes we are living longer overall, which is why the pension/retirement ages are increasing much to peoples disgust, and this is also contributing to the increase in population size.

LoveCurryPies wrote:It is a myth that poor are having big families. Increase is due to people living to 80, 90 and into 100.

What was said was that people in poor countries have large families.

dsr wrote:What was said was that people in poor countries have large families.

18.74% of the world's population is in China.

China's wealth per adult: $22,864. UK for example is $288,808, USA $344,692.

It's one of the poorest countries in the world.

China's average family size: 3.1 persons.

Try again.

UpTheBeehole wrote:18.74% of the world's population is in China.

China's wealth per adult: $22,864. UK for example is $288,808, USA $344,692.

It's one of the poorest countries in the world.

China's average family size: 3.1 persons.

Try again.

China's law that says it's illegal to have big families is a large part of that, don't you think? I was talking generally about countries where it's the parents' choice.

Ok, so what about Brazil?

Wealth per adult $18,059.

Average family size: 3.3 persons.

India: wealth per adult $3,835.

Average family size: 4.9 persons per household.

Is just less than 3 kids a large household?

support Super Nashwan.

.

If it be your will wrote:On the subject of robots, the best short article I've read on it was in The Guardian just the other day:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ddle-class" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very briefly, robots are pretty useless at doing the things humans find quite easy (carrying bricks up ladders, or fetching things on uneven surfaces, say), and very good at doing the things we find difficult. So it's generally the middle-income jobs that will suffer most. Considering nearly all of us can do the easy stuff that robots can't do, wage bargaining using the old 'rules' of supply and demand will be very weak indeed when anyone is capable of the jobs that are available: As the forest of uplifted arms demanding work grows ever thicker, the arms themselves grow ever thinner.

Separately, I dislike the idea we are defined by our employment. I would also hope we don't all just watch Jeremy Kyle, but if so, so be it. I welcome humanity being freed from work, provided those freed are not then forced to live in poverty. We need a Basic Income. But by God, if the robot owners are to give us one, we're going to have to fight damned hard to get it.

I'm not an expert on robots, economics or resources but that is the sort of one track article that sounds good but I don't believe is or will be the reality.

Firstly it is obvious working class jobs are under attack from robots and technology (why separate the too, if indeed you can?) - the car industry is an obvious example. Recently on TV there have been some programmes called 'Inside the Factory' showing how biscuits, pasta and other stuff is made. Robots and other technology runs right through these places.

Secondly there isn't an unlimited supply of resources so 'growth' cannot go on indefinitely. It seems to me in fact that economic growth, at least in the UK, is at least partly driven by population increase.

World population growth is the key factor in all our major current problems - climate change and migration in particular. The issue is it cannot be easily dealt with and so is not usually talked about.

I was born in 1953 and since then the world's population has trebled.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Ok, so what about Brazil?

Wealth per adult $18,059.

Average family size: 3.3 persons.

Brazil, India and China are not the poorest countries in the world. Try the Gambia and Senegal, for example - two places I have been to - what's the average wealth there? I've had a look and can't find it, probably because the media wealth is pretty close to nil. That's what a poor country looks like.

LoveCurryPies wrote:

My question is....(imagine a world of 10 billion people and only 1 billion employed)....What will 9 billion unemployed people do all day?

Going to need some more tables outside the Broadway in Accy

If my maths are correct. 7 million to 10 million is 143% increase in world population. Therefore, UK would increase to 95 million (from 66 million).

LoveCurryPies wrote:If my maths are correct. 7 million to 10 million is 143% increase in world population. Therefore, UK would increase to 95 million (from 66 million).

43% increase. It becomes 143% of what it was before. But there's no rule that says population increase must be allocated in equal proportions across the world.

LoveCurryPies wrote:1) population growth:

Year 1 AD - 170 million
1804 - the first time the Earth had 1 billion people
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1974 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2016 - 7.5 billion

Because we are living longer lives, we know the World's population will reach:
2030 - 8.5 billion
2050 - 9.7 billion
2100 - 10.2 billion

So population growth is slowing down, no?
Nowt to worry about then.

dsr wrote:Brazil, India and China are not the poorest countries in the world. Try the Gambia and Senegal, for example - two places I have been to - what's the average wealth there? I've had a look and can't find it, probably because the media wealth is pretty close to nil. That's what a poor country looks like.

I'll take your word for them being very poor countries. The average household size in Banjul, the capital of Gambia, is 4.7 people per household.

UpTheBeehole wrote:I'll take your word for them being very poor countries. The average household size in Banjul, the capital of Gambia, is 4.7 people per household.

And in rural Gambia, which is even poorer?

Because Banjul is all gold-plated skyscrapers and flying cars?

What's the point? An average of 4.7 people per household is quite high.

UpTheBeehole wrote:Because Banjul is all gold-plated skyscrapers and flying cars?

Banjul is the capital, where the fat President lives (possibly the only fat man in Gambia), and his civil servants and his friends and his army HQ are based; it's where government money is spent. It's a poor city, with electricity on sometimes and off regularly, but it's richer than out in the sticks by far.

Senegal's worse. People in Gambia are thin for lack of food. People in Senegal are a lot thinner, because Gambia has the river and the fish; Senegal doesn't. I bet they have a lot of children per household there as well.