Dave's response here is extremely useful. 

As regards population projections and ethnicity it is worth bearing in mind that categories of ethnicity change regularly to meet the concerns of the day. So a forecast to 2051 will not have relevant implications. The suggestion that "the 'foreign' population rises to a massive 36.1 per cent" by 2051 is ludicrous. If 'Foreign' is defined to include all Black, Asian and White people with non-British ancestors, this figure is certainly more than 36% and just depends on whether one goes back 3 generations or more. I have two foreign-born parents. For whom does that make me a threat or a concern?! (should I withhold my name and address?)

Population projections with an ethnic group dimension  are useful to stop silly exagerrations, but are mainly useful to help plan services for the next 10-25 years. I do plenty of them myself - see http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/research/egpf.htm. Britain is changing, as it always has done. 

Ludi

-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave Gordon
Sent: 15 May 2007 22:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OPT.

It sometimes amazes me how even the stupidest ideas refuse to die no matter how many times they are falsified and disproven. The concept of carrying capacity is taken from Ecology and describes the maximum size of a population of organisms given their environment. The dynamics of populations which exceed their carrying capacity are often modelled using the Lottka-Volterra equation which can be used to predict how the size of such a population will oscillate up and down. Since the size of the UK population has not catastrophically crashed nor oscillated up and down it clearly has not reached its current carrying capacity. To claim otherwise is just pseudo-scientific nonsense.

The Optimum Population Trust campaigns to reduce the population of the UK by half and wants "To encourage UK governments to act on the strong recommendations of the Government Population Panel in 1973, so as to fully integrate population policy into all decision-making" its leading patron is none other than Professor Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University. The Government Population Panel in 1973 was strongly influenced by a meeting of the Institute of Biology in September 1969 on "The Optimum Population For Britain" (Taylor, 1970) at which 90 percent of participants agreed that "The optimum population for Britain had already been exceeded". The e-mail below made me climb up to the attic and dust off my old copy of this symposia volume (priced
1.75p!!) - this is how Paul Ehrlich concluded the final chapter entitled "Population Control or Hobson's Choice" -

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000, and give 10 to 1 that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today"

The leading patrons behind the Optimum Population Trust were wrong in
1969 and they are just as wrong today - but here are some equally unimpressive predictions just to reinforce this point;

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate .. Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail." - Paul Ehrlich, 1968 The Population Bomb

"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics." - Paul Ehrlich, 1969 in Ramparts


Thomas Malthus died a long time ago and given the state of knowledge available to him in the late 18th century it is understandably why he made such errors in his "Essay on the Principal of Population" which predicted poverty and mass starvation for the UK population - but this is the 21st century and you would have to be a very foolish and ignorant person to believe a Malthusian story like 'the UK has exceeded its carrying capacity' today.

John Barker wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> In March we were informed by Ray Thomas of a meeting at the Royal 
> Statisitical Society to be held 19th April with speakers from an 
> organisation called "The Optimum Population Trust" (OPT).
>
> What I did not know, but found out later through correspondence with 
> Ray Thomas is that he is a new member of OPT and clearly from what he 
> wrote, a devotee of same.
>
> Well what is OPT ?
> OPT is the Optimum Population Trust, a UK registered charity and 
> company limited by guarantee. Most of its officials are probably 
> little know to the general public in the UK, although the present 
> co-chairperson Professor John Guillebaud may be, through his work on 
> family planning. But some of its patrons such as Jane Goodall, 
> Professor Aubrey Manning, Professor Norman Myers and Sir Crispin 
> Tickell, may be well known.
>
> If one reads the articles on their web site we see that the OPT 
> believes that the world and the UK populations are above carrying 
> capacity (which OPT has studied itself using the techniques of 
> ecologiccal footprints); OPT further believes population growth should 
> be slowed, then population reduction encouraged. Further, with the UK, 
> immigration is a major driver of population growth so needs 
> controlling more effectively.
>
> I agree.
> But the devil is in the detail. In the summary box at the beginning of 
> their paper "UK: Environmentally unsustainable migration" we read:
>
> "OPT believes the UK is overpopulated and that its population should 
> be allowed to stabilise and reduce to a sustainable level. The 
> ecological issue is one of population numbers, and of resource demand 
> and environmental impacts created by different sizes of population at 
> given rates of affluence and technology. Issues of race, ethnicity or 
> religion, therefore, are not relevant".
>
> It's the last sentence that is the problem, because it is untrue, in 
> fact it is nonsense.
>
> Bearing in mind that the majority of UK people live in England, note 
> the following six points:
>
> 1) The 2004- based Population projections have the UK population 
> growing from 59.8 million in 2004, to 67.0 million by 2031, and 70.5 
> million by 2071. A massive increase.
> In terms of Optimum Population Trust (OPT) thinking, this increase 
> carries the population yet further above carrying capacity.
>
> 2) Consistently for the last two decades, dividing the UK population 
> into British and
> non- British, there has been a massive net emigration of British, a 
> massive net immigration of non-British. And most British are White.
>
> 3) In terms of Census ethnic classification, the White groups have a 
> fertility rate well below replacement level. Several ethnic minority 
> groups have a fertility rate well above replacement level.
>
> 4) In terms of Census ethnic classification, the White: British group, 
> in contrast to all other groups (possible exception, the White: Irish 
> group), is greatly contributing to the OPT goal of slowing population 
> growth and eventually reducing the population, by being the only group 
> having both below replacement level fertility AND net emigration!
>
> 5) Consider now return migration - for some immigrants eventually 
> return to their home countries "Return migration is commonest with 
> people who originated in countries where White ethnic groups 
> predominate, groups all of which have their cultural roots in Europe. 
> In contrast, migrants from the Indian sub-continent have a greater 
> tendency to stay in the UK, and they belong to non-White ethnic 
> groups. These results have clear implications for the changing 
> relative size in the UK of groups with a European heritage and groups 
> with a non-European heritage" (our web site).
>
> 6) David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford has made 
> preliminary projections of the ethnic minority populations of England and Wales.
> As we report about these projections on our web site:
> "With England and Wales the non-white ethnic minority populations 
> increase from 8.7 to 24.5 per cent in 2051, and the white 
> non-British-origin populations from 2.7 to 11.6 per cent. So the total 
> 'foreign' population rises to a massive 36.1 per cent. We note that 
> the conclusions for England and Wales receive support, for the period 
> 2001 to 2020, by the research of P. Rees (see Salt and Rees 2006, 
> "Globalisation, population mobility and impact of migration on 
> population", The Economic and Social Research Council)".
> Coleman, D. Immigration and ethnic change in low-fertility countries: 
> a third demographic transition". Population and Development Review 32, 3:
> 401-446.
>
> Just put these six bits of information together and it is absolutely 
> clear that the total increase in the UK population is not just a 
> matter of total numbers regardless of the ethnic components of the 
> population, because ethnic groups differ significantly in their 
> contribution to population increase.
>
> But the statement in this summary box also says later:
> "OPT supports immigration. We want to go on doing our share of 
> protecting persecuted refugees as well as welcoming additional skills 
> and cultures to our already rich mix of people. The problem is how 
> many? Since we believe that our population density is now too great 
> for our resources, we think that a just solution is to balance 
> immigration with emigration. As around 350,000 people leave our shores 
> each year, we suggest limiting immigration to the same numbers, to 
> produce a neutral effect on our population growth".
>
> But this is a superficial view. To suggest this proposal would produce 
> a neutral effect on our population growth is demographic illiteracy.
> The 'neutral effect' of the last sentence could only ever be the 
> outcome if the demographic characteristics of the immigrating and 
> emigrating populations were identical. In practice, this is virtually 
> impossible. In the real world, are the age compositions of the two 
> populations likely to be the same, and hence the propensity for 
> procreation? Are the fertility rates of the two populations likely to 
> be the same? Are the sex ratios the same?
>
> Lets return to the basic question of ethnicity, and add this time 
> religion.
> I take the following details from a recent document I gave out at the 
> Royal Statistical Society meeting.
>
> ETHNICITY
>
> OPT officials must have seen the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 
> Press
> Release: "Ethnicity. 4 in 5 Bangladeshi families have children" (July 
> 2005).
> This said that "among all families, those headed by a person of 
> non-White ethnic background are more likely than White families to 
> have children" and "Bangladeshi and Pakistani families were larger 
> than families of any other ethnic group; in Great Britain over 40 per 
> cent of these families had three or more dependent children in 2001. 
> This compared with 28 per cent for BlackAfrican families, 20 per cent 
> for Indian families, and 17 per cent for White families".
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> Fertility (Total Fertility Rate or TFR) varies between ethnic groups. Mr.
> Pete Large of ONS kindly provided us with 2004 estimated TFRs based on 
> methodology of August 2006. In terms of census ethnic classification,
> 'White: British' had a TFR of 1.73, which is way below replacement level.
> In contrast, 'Asian or Asian British: Pakistani' had a TFR of 2.53, 
> well above replacement level, and the Pakistani group has the second 
> largest total population of the non-White ethnic groups. The 'Asian or 
> Asian
> British: Bangladeshi', and the 'Black or Black British: Black African' 
> also
> had TFRs greatly exceeding replacement level - 2.45 and 2.26 
> respectively.
>
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> Population age structure varies between ethnic groups. Obviously 
> groups with a high proportion of young and working age persons have a 
> greater potential to produce children than populations with a lesser 
> proportion of these age groups.
> Another ONS Press Release (January 2004) gives details. The document 
> has the title: "Age/Sex distribution. Non-White groups are younger" . 
> This stated that "White groups have an older age structure than other 
> ethnic groups, reflecting past immigration and fertility patterns". 
> OPT officials must have seen this press release.
> Now we have more up to date information about ethnic age structure in 
> "Population estimates by ethnic group 2001-2004" Table "EE2: Estimated 
> resident population by ethnic group, age and sex, mid-2004 
> (experimental statistics)". ONS . Considering the young groups (0-15), 
> all the Asian groups have a higher proportion of their populations in 
> these age groups compared with the White groups. Withe working age 
> groups (16-64/59) all of the non-White ethnic groups have a higher 
> proportion than the White:
> British, usually a much higher proportion. Considering the older age 
> groups (65/60+), the White: British has the largest percentage of its 
> population in these groups than any other group apart from the White: 
> Irish group. We provide a histogram that gives full details of ethnic 
> groups age composition in sub-section h of the UK section of our web 
> site Population Trends page.
> Finally, we note that "migrants have a younger age profile than the 
> resident population, around a half of international migrants are aged 
> between 25 and 44" so they fall within the working and breeding age 
> groups (ONS, 2005. "The UK population at the start of the 21st 
> century)".
>
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> RELIGION
>
> OPT officials must have seen the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 
> Press
> Release:
> "Religion. Muslim families more likely to have children" (July 2005). 
> Here
> we read: "Families headed by a Muslim are more likely than other 
> families to have children living with them. Nearly three quarters (73 
> per cent) had at least one dependent child in the family in 2001, 
> compared with two fifths of Jewish (41 per cent) and Christian 40 per 
> cent) families.
> Muslim families also had the largest number of children. Over a 
> quarter (27
>
> per cent) of Muslim families had three or more dependent children, 
> compared with 14 per cent of Sikh, 8 per cent of Hindu, and 7 per cent 
> of Christian families".
>
> Now Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck College, University of London has been 
> studying secularisation in Europe (see our website, sub-section h, UK 
> section, Population Trends). He notes that religious people tend to 
> have a higher fertility than non-religious people. Also, he argues 
> that immigrants into Europe tend to be more religious than the host 
> population. Bear in mind here that the Bangladeshi and Pakistani 
> Muslim groups seem to take their religion much more seriously than the 
> White: British group. And Kaufman comments that next to age and 
> marital status, it was a woman's 'religiosity' (it would be better we 
> think to use the less judgemental term 'strength of religious
> affiliation') that was the strongest predictor of the number of 
> offspring she produced, and he states that many other studies have 
> reached the same conclusion.
>
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> GROWTH RATES OF ETHNIC GROUP POPULATIONS
>
> Revised (August 2006) population estimates for England made by P. 
> Large and
> K Ghosh conclude that the average annual growth rate for the whole
> 2001-2004 period, was, for the White British group -0.2% (minus 0.2%). 
> The
> figure for the non-'White British' was 4.2%. And 3.7% was the value 
> for the 'Asian or Asian British: Pakistani' group (ONS, 2006, 
> Experiment Statistics, Population estimates by ethnic group: 
> 2001-2004: Commentary).
>
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> We note that 73 per cent of the growth of the Great Britain population
> 1991-2001 was caused by the non-white (minority) populations (R. 
> Lupton and
> A. Power.Minority ethnic groups in Britain. Case-Brookings Census 
> Briefs No.2. London School of Economics). They concluded "The increase 
> in the numbers of people from different ethnic backgrounds and 
> countries is one of the most significant changes in Britain since the 
> 1991 Census".
> Is this not relevant to total population growth, OPT?
>
> That then is the evidence.
>
> Now,
>
> OPT HAS BEEN TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
>
> In 2001 and since, I have repeatedly drawn the attention of OPT to its 
> neglect of the ethnic dimension of population change, without 
> suggesting that this should become a major concern for the 
> organisation, and provided evidence of the relevance of the ethnic 
> dimension to OPT's main concerns.
>
> Most recently, in September last year and since, the relevance of 
> ethnic variation in demographic variables and religion to UK 
> population growth was explained in e-mails and letters sent by special 
> delivery post to various OPT officials, advisers and patrons. No 
> replies were received.
> Finally, on 19th April this year, in the Royal Statistical Society, I 
> gave out a paper that included the evidence I gave above.
>
> But the two OPT statements that I gave earlier remain unaltered to 
> this day!
>
>
> Well I have corresponded with Ray Thomas over this issue of the OPT 
> and ethnicity and religion.
> While I answered his questions and request for comments, he has 
> resolutely refused to answer my simple question that I have put to him 
> again and again, does he dispute the facts on ethnicity I gave?
> In his most recent e-mail to me he wrote:
> "Sorry John, but you are trying to take me into areas that I don't 
> want to go in".
>
> So much for the scholarly , scientifc approach where one pursues a 
> discussion irrrspective of whether or not it takes one into 
> uncomfortable grounds!
>
> OPT and Ray Thomas refuse to defend their position, refuse to provide 
> contrary evidence to the evidence I supply.
>
> This seems to me to be one characterisitc way that the politically 
> correct deal with any criticism . For the politically correct, their 
> ideology is paramount. If evidence does not fit in with their 
> ideology, one way they often use is to ignore it; another is to deny 
> its value without bothering to give any evidence.
>
> **But to come back to two small items, first, David Coleman's 
> projection for England and Wales.**
>
> What do Radstats members think of this, or indeed the other 
> projections for European countries he gives and his general 
> conclusions?
>
> Second, what do Radsts members think to the conclusions of Eric Kaufmann?
>
> The details about ethnicity and religion I have presented in this 
> e-mail come from subsection h) of the UK section of the Popualtion 
> Trends page of our Gaia Watch web site:
> www.population-growth-migration.info or www.gaiawatch.org.uk
>
>
> The OPT document I discuss can be accessed at its web site by the route:
> home page - too many people - in the UK (left side of the home page) - 
> the migration link nearly half way down the page on the right - in the 
> UK- the UK's population problem unsustainable population growth - some 
> way down the right side of the page click on 'migration' - UK: 
> Environmentally unsustainable immigration.
>
> The OPT web site is:
>
> http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
>
>
> John Barker
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go 
> only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to 
> [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender 
> and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held 
> by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about 
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and 
> past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site 
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************