It's nonetheless far too high. Gumment policy should be aiming at around 30 million, no more.
We are at a point where putting in new infrastructure is becoming hard, because of the population density. And any breakdown or interference anywhere causes chaos (see that thread about the cops doing numberplate recog stuff). And the house price nonsense is another manifestation of it.
On 05/10/2014 12:47, Dave Liquorice wrote: ...
...
A packhorse, carrying 300-400lbs, could cover 15-25 miles a day on level ground. A barge travelling from Lyon to Avignon, a distance of 125 miles downstream, would take 2-5 days, depending upon the state of the river. Upriver would probably be about the same as a packhorse. For coastal vessels, with good but not ideal sailing conditions, around 50-70 miles a day seems to be average.
...
I didn't dispute that. I was simply pointing out that the medieval world was a lot more mobile than generally thought.
AIUI, the main problem with the current outbreak is that it doesn't kill as many or as quickly as some outbreaks.
All the more reason to not fret about ebola too much
Don't worry. The immigrants and non-contributory members of our society are trying to remedy that. :/
On the basis of fatalities as a percentage of population, the 1557-1558 flu pandemic was probably worse. However it is not sufficiently well documented to be sure.
To achieve that, you'd have to knock immigration on the head, making it subject to a test like Australia - it's running at around 1/5 million per annum inbound.
On top of that, some incentive to lower birth rate.
And yet, here we are - built from the DNA of the fittest...
The last time UK population was
It's an interesting thought.
How would the city cope with every company looking at shrinking 50%? Instead of growth, everybody would be looking at shrinking a small amount each year. Does current economics cope with that at all?
(I reckon it should be possible to make an economic system which can manage that. But I'm very doubtful that we've got one at the moment.)
Isn't it just...?
Tim's post doesn't seem to have reached me (yet?), hence replying via Clive.
I just wonder how Tim thinks such a strict population reduction should happen. Perhaps over half of the population should be marked for some kind of cull? Perhaps some sort of eugenic enforced sterilisation should be embraced? Or just a strict Chinese-style one-child policy? No, that'd be too slow, taking around a century to fully filter through. Perhaps everybody over about 40 should be refused any kind of medical care except for palliative (let's not be heartless about it...)?
And let's not forget that this should apply to Tim's own immediate family and friends, as well as total strangers.
Four out of every seven people to go...
One other question... This 1850s population target. Is that global? Or just the UK? How do you plan on getting international agreement on that?
Sorry, forgot to say... If the 1850s is the global target, then Tim's plan involves getting shot of SIX out of every seven people worldwide...
And decimating is only one in ten.
Ways and means? Consequences? Haven't a clue. In effect, all I'm saying is that the UK population density is too high, and that has effects. What we see instead is people saying how good this growth is for GDP and isn't that wonderful. Rather, we should be measuring by GDP per capita and quality of life.
Note that I'm not advocating war, eugenics, shooting every sixth person, disease, or other unpleasant method (i.e., that I'd consider unpleasant if it were applied to *me*).
Not entirely sure that's a brilliant metric.
Unless, of course, you aspire to live in Macau (one of the most densely populated regions in the world, btw). From Europe, I'm really not sure I much fancy Liechtenstein, either, with the world's highest purchasing power GDP per capita.
And, if we're using that measure, then the UK is about a 30% better place to be than New Zealand - despite NZ having a population density about a fifteenth of that of the UK, and generally being reckoned to be one of the nicest places to be.
Blimey, if ever there was an intangible! My quality of life is FAR better than it used to be when I lived in the town reckoned, at the time, to be the "happiest place in the UK". Strange, that, given my income is far lower, and I live in a place with a MUCH lower GDP per capita...
So how DO you suggest the UK population is reduced to the ~40% of the current level which you suggested would be about right?
In article , Richard scribeth thus
Yes but the world population at that time, and they way they didn't travel around;?...
That thing wasn't that far short of evil, there are documented cases of someone feeling fine that morning .. next day they were dead choked by fluid on their lungs.
In fact it was the fittest who did suffer, read up on immune system responses especially a "Cytokine storm".;!..
Not quite so easy to enforce some Chinese couples are known to go abroad for a while and come back plus a child;!..
Are you suggesting, then, that 5 million would be a better target than
30 million?
Sure it's intangible. And what constitutes QoL will vary from person to person.
I told you - haven't a clue. I'm expressing a concern.
No, I'm suggesting GDP per capita isn't a terribly good metric for how nice somewhere is to be.
But you do think it a good target, right?
Over what sort of timescale?
A good ballpark figure that feels about right. But feel free to argue for some other level.
Can't you read? I told you, over something like a century or more. Or perhaps thats too short.
No but the point about a boat is you can move tonnes at a walking pace, not cwt.
The physics of road transport with a horse means the horses will have eaten all the corn in the wagon by the time they have gone 100 miles if there isn't enough grass ;-)
Walking was how you got around if you hadnt got access to a boat and waterway.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.