To think, without upsetting anybody, we are massively overpopulated on this tiny Island??? What sensible non punitive solutions are there??

[PasstheBucket89]

Its pretty relevant with all the talk about migrant boats, priti patel saying she will make the passage unviable etc she has done some awful things, it makes my blood run cold tbh i doubt she cares about the safety of them in that boats. But, what di we do, and when suggestions are made its often motivated by hate not quality of life issues. And yes, the ageing massively adds to the overpopulation aswell, but what should we do? reasonably? this tiny Island is massively overpopulated, it doesn't benefit anyone to be crammed in like sardines like this, massively effects access to housing, healthcare, education etc, What should the gov do, not adding to the hostile environment??.

I think in most countries there will be a population decline. It would be great if that gave younger people more of a chance for a better life.

We should be encouraged to work for much longer. The retirement age was set when life expectancy was 65. Being useful for longer will mean we are mentally and physically active and this wards off many illnesses, meaning the population would be less dependent on nhs.

That's all very well, but people who have physically difficult jobs won't be able to continue as they age, older people who have lost their jobs are finding it hard to get something else because of their age, and if people don't retire until they are older there will be less jobs for young people to take.

Just because we haven't built on every part doesn't make us not overpopulated
Many of that land cannot be built on and also we need to grow food and animals need space etc you cant build on every scrap of land
We are overpopulated for a small island

To be fair, whilst obviously the UK isn't "full up" and could support many more people with better infrastructure, it has almost zero genuine wilderness, so from that perspectively it's more densely developed than many other countries.

Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia re Japan's population decline. Though this comes at a cost - Japanese work/life 'balance' leaves a lot to be desired:

"During the period 2003-2007 Japan had a higher growth per capita than the United States, even though the U.S. GDP growth was higher than Japan's.[1] In the United States, the relationship between population growth and growth per capita has been found to be empirically insignificant.[14] Even when GDP growth is zero or negative, the GDP growth per capita can still be positive (by definition) if the population is shrinking faster than the GDP.
Updating this analysis (the table below) to a more recent time period, 2009-2017, finds the same result. Even though Japan’s population declined 0.9% over this time period, because its per capita GDP, a rough proxy for the standard of living of the average Japanese citizen, rose by about 13.8%, a much greater increase than the 0.9% decrease in its population, its GDP still grew by 12.7%."

People doing physically intensive jobs over 65 isnt fair, i remember a man on twitter who is a paramedic saying do you really want me scrambling for the right medication at 3am when im nearly 70??,the answer is of course no. Even people who have "kept themselves healthy" naturally decline at a certain point. shouldnt be worked in to the coffin to fund greedy capatilism. The whole, "British people won't do these jobs" is something these greedy people hide behind, why won't British people do it? oh because its poorly paid, illegal hours, non existant health and safety and akin to modern slavery, Nobody should tolerate those conditions!!!, its a smoke screen.

Admittedly, I'm feeling somewhat negative at the moment, but the colossal stress already placed on the natural environment in the UK, species decline, soil erosion, low levels of food production and available land appropriate for cultivation, reliance on the rest of the world to continue to provide our food and other basic supplies, and, ironically, droughts and issues with water supply, indicate to me that whilst the situation could be improved with heroic levels of investment in infrastructure and massive interference with capitalism and free choice (both of which have abjectly failed to create sustainable living environments), so that the population could be more evenly dispersed throughout the UK, we are nevertheless still over populated with human beings and underpopulated by pretty much everything else that is necessary for long term, sustainable, bearable life on this planet. The same applies absolutely everywhere else in the world - and we are rapidly making more and more places uninhabitable through human activity. Yes, for a short while we can cram more people into the same already over-crowded bits of the country, or ferry them to already impoverished bits of the country that have space but nothing much else (which is why they have space), and agree that other countries are even less capable of coping with over-population, but we need humongous and rapid changes in our lifestyles and infrastructure (to the point of demolishing what we already have and starting again) here and around the world to make increasing our population size anything other than an extremely bad idea. And the rest of the world has proven itself about as incompetent as the UK at making any real changes to human behaviour. So yes, we should accept more refugees, but to argue we are not over-populated is plain daft, imvho.

It all really smacks to me of arguing that we are not over-populated, we just need to stop behaving like human beings.

There was a study published a few weeks ago that suggested populations in most western countries would decline dramatically over next 100 years - populations in Italy and Japan were predicted to halve.

The UK is the 3rd most populous country by land size in Europe after Belgium and Holland, which are both much smaller in size than the UK (not counting Vatican/Monaco etc). Compared with the populations of countries like Sweden and Norway, we are very overpopulated.

This is the last UN survey. Makes for interesting and slightly worrying reading:
population.un.org/wpp/

We live in an area of the UK with really low population density - about 60 per square mile. Always quite shocked when we visit a big urban area at how tightly everyone is packed in.

It would probably help everyone if we were spread out a bit more, but it would take genuine leadership to put such policies into action, including incentivising businesses to move away from the main urban centres, building proper affordable homes in smaller towns and villages.

The government's latest plans on housebuilding will lead to huge estates of substandard crammed in houses that will make the building companies richer and cause their residents misery because they won't have sufficient space between the homes, will be poorly insulated against noise and will not have proper boundaries between properties. They will be built in areas which already have issues with traffic, lack of school places and access to health services.

Spreading out would be catastrophic for wildlife and natural spaces, though I appreciate it would give ppl in populous areas room to breathe. I find it astonishing that here in the UK we overlook the importance of our natural space. We lecture other countries for ravishing their rainforests and urbanising areas of outstanding beauty but go ahead and build on every bit of spare space we can whilst still adding more and more people to the population. Adding to our population in recent years due to uncontrolled immigration has been an utter travesty, then branding anyone who speaks out about it as a racist a further insult. The labour govt got it wrong and failed to prepare for a population that was levelling out back in 2008 and has since swelled the headcount by around 12 million or so. That was our quality of life thrown under a bus, just there. Too many, too fast, no policies in place to cope.

It's farming methods that puts the squeeze on wildlife. And the fact that all land must be productive - so empty hills are covered with pine forests to feed a future wood chip power station, these support little wildlife. Fields are weedkilled then planted with grass which is made into silage to feed the dairy cattle that are mostly kept indoors. Or weedkilled (all the thistles buttercups etc are not wanted) and planted with some single green energy producing crop.
It seems its the only way to be profitable but can't be a happy life for a cow, standing or lying in a concrete based stall all day.

@MistressMounthaven - it’s over-population that requires intensive farming. It is also untrue that farming methods are the only thing putting a squeeze on wildlife. Housing humans puts a squeeze on wildlife, too.

People doing physically intensive jobs over 65 isnt fair
So we put a blanket ban on anyone over 65 doing anything physical - most of my fellow retirees run/ cycle huge distances/ swim daily/ garden etc etc - I'm pretty sure many could do a couple of mornings heavyish work.
However they do childmind for DGCs, do charity work, support local public gardens/ theatres etc.
But the bottom line is no one wants to be a carer which is where staff are most needed.

@DBML

Is anyone saying the native U.K. population can’t have children? That really is not an option.

I don’t think many people are complaining about legal and controlled immigration either to be honest.

When ‘white’ people having babies was mentioned in a pp, I almost choked on my drink. @DameFanny my understanding of ‘Brits’ is literally anyone born here. That would include people of many colours and backgrounds.

I don’t know why this has to be made into something to do with colour? It’s not. The quality of life remaining good for ALL Brits is what I want to see remain. We have a duty to help others arriving legally, but not at the detriment of the people who already live here.

I’m proud to be part of a very ethnically diverse family. Some of my family live abroad and I imagine and accept that if hey wanted to come to the U.K. they’d have to go through the appropriate channels.

The only thing I personally am against is uncontrolled, illegal immigration.

Yes exactly but not people here arriving illegally.

@MistressMounthaven - sounds like you live in a wealthy area! How many of your fellow retirees did minimum wage work all their working lives? Because those are the people who will be needing to keep working in order to be able to afford to live, not the people who had well paid careers.

@MistressMounthaven

People doing physically intensive jobs over 65 isnt fair So we put a blanket ban on anyone over 65 doing anything physical - most of my fellow retirees run/ cycle huge distances/ swim daily/ garden etc etc - I'm pretty sure many could do a couple of mornings heavyish work. However they do childmind for DGCs, do charity work, support local public gardens/ theatres etc. But the bottom line is no one wants to be a carer which is where staff are most needed.

If a person does a physically demanding job from age 16 onwards, by 65 they will have developed crippling arthritis, compressed spine, shoulder/knee/hip/elbow problems. The people you are talking about who are very active post 65 did not have physically demanding jobs from age 16 on. By physically demanding I mean things like factory work, construction, carpentry, road works, etc. Not “being on your feet all day”

Not read all the post but just seen it's AOK to get over 65 to do physically intensive jobs?!

Most people who do physical work in the building trade that I know are clapped out well before 65.

A plan to have over 65 up ladders roofing, carrying bricks etc sounds like a terrible plan.

I'll read back a bit but would be interested in why anyone would think what looks on the face of it to be a really shit older age for many people is a good idea?!

SonEtLumiere, not at all, I would just like to see our population stabilise and perhaps be spread out a little bit more.

I don't mean building on open countryside, but instead of huge urban housing estates where people are living on top of each other, which leads to stress, why not build small numbers of new houses in each village/town. The small town (population about 14,000) we live in has plenty of space where houses/bungalows/flats could be built, without squeezing them in to tiny spaces, building on green space or only having sprawling estates.

I think the birth rate in most western countries has been slowing for years. The issue with migration appears to be that most people who come to live in the UK end up in the big sprawling urban areas - obviously much of this is to do with support networks.

Physically Demanding work, *Ahem, that also includes Carers moving literally humans around daily, back breaking work, theres a reason Sciatica is known as carers disease.

They are already busy building everywhere. Bicester is one town that springs to mind where a farm was sold off and built on even though the owners really didn't want to sell and land that was for the population's leisure was built on.

"being on one's feet all day" does knacker your knees in the long run, particularly if you are carrying a few extra pounds. It's still physically demanding. Likewise occupations such as hairdressing can result in chronic problems with feet and hands as a result of constant standing and the abrasive effect that repeated use of scissors has on one's joints.

Really we need people to keep working until they're 70 but they should lighten the load gradually by going part time and moving to a less demanding role. I've known plenty of older men (fewer women for some reason) who've ended up in a part time job as hotel housekeeping or similar more as a paid hobby to supplement their pension.

The issue with an aging population is not so much that we will run out of people to do care work, as when shortages occur wages will be forced up and the gap filled by people displaced by automation in other industries. Instead the issue is one of cost. More old people who are no longer economically inactive and who have a greater need to use services against fewer young people who are economically active and make little use of services. More expenditure spread over fewer sources of revenue for the exchequer.

So, to refer back to @DameFanny 's posts last night, the replacement fertility rate in a developed country is 2.1. The fertility rate in the UK is 1.7 which means that with no net inward migration at all there would quickly be a decline in the population. So those already settled in the UK are effectively already doing their bit (and more) to depopulate the nation). However letting it decline too fast will lead to the very problems with an aging population I discuss. So if every woman in the UK bore two children, it would indeed be a bad thing if some had much larger families. However, given that many people never have children, the odd family with three kids doesn't really do any harm as we need there to be sufficient young people in the future to avoid an inverted population pyramid. China has learnt that drastically reducing the birth rate leads to a host of other problems, moderation is key. The only alternative is to make euthanasia free on the NHS.

To those who say that the UK isn't overcrowded, I say to you that we face an environmental disaster if we don't take steps to stop the current increase.

What is wrong with wanting the population to stabilise. The job market is not great at the moment and people are tending to stay home.

The idea of everyone working to age 70 esp in physically demanding roles is not exactly a great vision of the future is it.

It's where we're headed but I can't think of many people I know who would relish it. My parents both retired at 60. They are in their early 70s and active but definitely seem old iyswim. And look it. I can't imagine my mum in an operating theatre now. It's very stressful, and her eyesight isn't what it was. She's had one cataract done and the other will be done soon. Would it be a good idea to have her in theatre

Woodhill essentially because global capitalism model means you have to grow to stand still, essentially.

That's a wider prob than uk.

A rethink on the whole structure would be good but I can't see it happening!