Re Population: that's my understanding - most places have reached the population they are going to have for the next hundred years. If the cost of living, especially food, energy and living space fell significantly would we all start having 3 children per couple rather than 1.9 ish? Maybes, but I wouldn't expect to see that come through for a while.
As for Britain, my comments are more about infrastructure than density. I think we have a slightly odd population geography. More people than our infrastructure can comfortably support in the South East and not much money to pay to improve that infrastructure. Not many people in lots of places but quite a lot of those places are, to use a Charles Stross phrase, crinkly.
We do also import a significant amount of our food.
So we could perhaps cram a bunch of people in but I think we'd rather not.
Totatally agree with you re backlash from globalisation. I think it will probably be decades rather than generations before the price adjusted productivity starts tipping back in our favour.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-04-08 04:37 pm (UTC)As for Britain, my comments are more about infrastructure than density. I think we have a slightly odd population geography. More people than our infrastructure can comfortably support in the South East and not much money to pay to improve that infrastructure. Not many people in lots of places but quite a lot of those places are, to use a Charles Stross phrase, crinkly.
We do also import a significant amount of our food.
So we could perhaps cram a bunch of people in but I think we'd rather not.
Totatally agree with you re backlash from globalisation. I think it will probably be decades rather than generations before the price adjusted productivity starts tipping back in our favour.