| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Less population growth
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Less population growth

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Less population growth
    Posted: 04 Nov 2009 at 20:41

Worldwide decline in birthrates and population growth is recently discussed in Media - mainly as a possitive development. Combined with increasing living span in large parts of the world it means older, non growing populations outside as well as inside "traditional industrialised" regions. Perhaps even smaller "migrant pool".

Could it mean a future in some ways less "Dynamic"? perhaps that would be beneficial too?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2009 at 20:55
For some places the low birth rates is good. For others it's bad.
"traditional industrialised" countries suffer already by the low birth rates. The aging of the population means that the whole pension system shakes, and may eventually collapse, unless drastic measures are taken, measures however that are often socially unacceptable.
Another issue as you noted, is that aging populations are obviously less "dynamic". However I see this as a rather negative thing. Progress comes through innovations -technological, ideological etc. Aging nations will start to fall behind younger more active nations.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2009 at 21:51
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

For some places the low birth rates is good. For others it's bad.
"traditional industrialised" countries suffer already by the low birth rates. The aging of the population means that the whole pension system shakes, and may eventually collapse, unless drastic measures are taken, measures however that are often socially unacceptable.
Another issue as you noted, is that aging populations are obviously less "dynamic". However I see this as a rather negative thing. Progress comes through innovations -technological, ideological etc. Aging nations will start to fall behind younger more active nations.
I doubt not believe in the continuation of "progress" at it is most commonly understood. We should even question if it is a goal. ("progress" here understood mainly as increased possibilities of consumption).
"dynamism" may also include "violent dynamics" as part - extreme armed conflicts internal and external.  So "dynamics" may not be unconditionally good.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2009 at 11:14
The chief economic danger facing the world is massive unemployment due to technical innovation (creating the familiar drop in demand/decrease in employment cycle).
 
An ageing population (including reducing the retirement age) as part of reducing the hours worked by everyone (continuing the overall trend from the mid-19th to the late 20th centuries) is actually something that helps combat that long-term problem.
 
Within environmental limitations, the size of the population doesn't matter to much. What matters is that there should be enough people around not working to create demand for the output of those that are working.


Edited by gcle2003 - 05 Nov 2009 at 11:16
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2009 at 16:28
I agree with gcle. I find it rather baffling that currently the Dutch government tries to combat growing unemployment rates while at the same time trying to make people work longer, amongst others by changing the retirement age. Residuals of calvinist work ethic are definately going to be a major obstacle here.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 15:45
I wonder how we could talk about less population growth when Africans keep having children like crazy.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 18:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I wonder how we could talk about less population growth when Africans keep having children like crazy.
Of course we can! In some decades both relative growth (in percent each year) and absolute (millions of people pr. year) there has been less growth in world population, though I have forgotten precise numbers. You can see late discussion in "The Economist" among others. In some countries in Africa increased mortality may perhaps be responsible. And I have not seen any evidense that biological or climatic/geographical factors should be responsible. So I think it is all about socio-economical and "cultural" development.
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 19:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The chief economic danger facing the world is massive unemployment due to technical innovation (creating the familiar drop in demand/decrease in employment cycle).
 
An ageing population (including reducing the retirement age) as part of reducing the hours worked by everyone (continuing the overall trend from the mid-19th to the late 20th centuries) is actually something that helps combat that long-term problem.
 
Within environmental limitations, the size of the population doesn't matter to much. What matters is that there should be enough people around not working to create demand for the output of those that are working.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

I agree with gcle. I find it rather baffling that currently the Dutch government tries to combat growing unemployment rates while at the same time trying to make people work longer, amongst others by changing the retirement age. Residuals of calvinist work ethic are definately going to be a major obstacle here.

First, I'm not sure the technical innovation creates lack of jobs. New jobs are constantly created -gcle2003, compare how many computer programmers there were when you were young and how many there are now. It's a matter of how fast and softly (without radical measures) an economy can adapt.
Second, gcle2003's observation (long term unemployment) applies mostly to underdevolped countries -not Holland. Holland, as most European countries is an importer of young population, sign that there applies no need for internal population reduction (those jobs could go to the unborn dutch people instead of foreign immigrants).
To sum up my position, I think that some countries should increase their population growth -which is almost negative, immigrants included- while some should decrease it. 
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2009 at 20:01
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

First, I'm not sure the technical innovation creates lack of jobs.
Technical innovation in production methods leads to less requirement for manpower, and has pretty well throughout history.
It's true that the invention of new products that create new demand leads to more jobs. That also has happened throughout history. (So of course does war.)
 
But the overwhelming trend has been for the first factor to overwhelm the second. That's why people in 1980 worked fewer hours on average than any population before them. Since 1980, in the west anyway, hours worked per capita have gone up but unemployment has increased, despite the continuing development of new products, most of them mass produced with minimum labour.
 
In that period new products in the information arena have spread the effect so that managerial and supervisory jobs also face weakening demand (which is new). Primarily though it is the loss of jobs through automation of manufacture that has been dominant. (Just as loss of jobs in the agricultural sector was in the 19th-early 20th century.)
Quote
 
New jobs are constantly created -gcle2003, compare how many computer programmers there were when you were young and how many there are now.
Granted there were no computers when I was young. But there were a whole stack of people employed in taking passenger ships out of Southampton where I lived. Anyway the number of people who program computers is considerably less than those that used to work in manufacturing - or even digging ditches.
 
As of this week the unemployment rate as calculated in the US is over 10% and increasing. Annualised it hasn't been that high since before ww2. At its highest ever peak in the mid-thirties it was over 20%. However, the population is now more than twice as high as it is now, so the actual number of people unemployed in the US is more than it has ever been.
 
And it's well known that the official US unemployment rate underestimates the situation compared to the way it is reported in European countries.
Quote
It's a matter of how fast and softly (without radical measures) an economy can adapt.
It's not showing any signs of adaptation at the moment. What we have is a long-term trend.
Quote
Second, gcle2003's observation (long term unemployment) applies mostly to underdevolped countries -not Holland. Holland, as most European countries is an importer of young population, sign that there applies no need for internal population reduction (those jobs could go to the unborn dutch people instead of foreign immigrants).
Granted the Netherlands is currently reporting better unemployment figures than pretty well any other country of any size. However, it is still increasing there and before the somewhat articial boom of the late '90s it too had been showing a marked risiing trend.
 
Unemployment in the underdeveloped countries is a different phenomenon. To some extent what one is seeing there is the result of massive increase in agricultural productivity and manufacturing produictivity at the same time - i.e. to an extent they are getting the mid-18th, early 20th and late 20th revolutions all at once.
Quote
To sum up my position, I think that some countries should increase their population growth -which is almost negative, immigrants included- while some should decrease it. 
As long as you provide the increased population with the wherewithal to buy the goods and services produced by those in work. Otherwise the number of those in work goes down because noone can buy their produce. 


Edited by gcle2003 - 06 Nov 2009 at 20:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 02:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I wonder how we could talk about less population growth when Africans keep having children like crazy.
why single out Africans? many regions of the world are having too many children.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 02:37
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I wonder how we could talk about less population growth when Africans keep having children like crazy.
why single out Africans? many regions of the world are having too many children.
 
That's false. If you see recent statistics you can single out Africans. They are the only group that is crowding the Earth to exaustion these days.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I wonder how we could talk about less population growth when Africans keep having children like crazy.
why single out Africans? many regions of the world are having too many children.
 
That's false. If you see recent statistics you can single out Africans. They are the only group that is crowding the Earth to exaustion these days.
You think? Look at south Asia recently?

 Even if the growth rates are slightly lower your talking about 1.3 billion in India, 150mill in Bangladesh (living on a flood zone) and 170 mill in pakistan.  Include a couple of SE Asian countries like Indonesia & Philippines add in Latin American counties like Brazil & Mexico; Africa is simply just one part of the issue.


My highlights

Country

Population 2007

Percentage of world population

 

Country

Population 2050

Percentage of world population

China

1,318 million

19.9%

 

India

1,747 million

26.4%

India

1,132 million

17.1%

 

China

1,437 million

21.7%

United States

302 million

4.6%

 

United States

420 million

6.3%

Indonesia

232 million

3.5%

 

Indonesia

297 million

4.5%

Brazil

189 million

2.9%

 

Pakistan

295 million

4.5%

Pakistan

169 million

2.6%

 

Nigeria

282 million

4.3%

Bangladesh

149 million

2.3%

 

Brazil

260 million

3.9%

Nigeria

144 million

2.2%

 

Bangladesh

231 million

3.5%

Russia

142 million

2.2%

 

Dern. Rep. of Congo

187 million

2.8%

Japan

128 million

1.9%

 

Philippines

150 million

2.3%

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Notes/Notes_Exam1/Population.html
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:48



http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-populationsince-1500.jpg

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/01/13/share-of-population-growth-china-india-africa-latin-america-western-europe-united-states/


Edited by Leonidas - 07 Nov 2009 at 03:50
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:49
Percentage? I was talking about RATE of growth. That's the important point. Subsaharan Africa has 800 million people already and can hardly feed 400. Just imagine in twenty years more when they have 1.600 millions, or in fourty when they become 3.200 millions, or in 60 with 6.400?...Confused  (With respect to Latin America, we have more space and ten of times more water and other resources than Africa, and we only have 600 million people, which is aging already)

Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 03:55
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Percentage? I was talking about RATE of growth. That's the important point.
hardly, if 1 million people double its makes no difference, if 1 billion people increasing by 20% it does, you need to put in context. Africans are starting from a low base and an insecure future.

 You can see in the table that only 2 African countries make a difference, 3 south Asian countries, 2 SE Asian countries , etc.  If the PRC lifts its one child policy it would have more of an impact than all of that continent


Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 03:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Percentage? I was talking about RATE of growth. That's the important point. Subsaharan Africa has 800 million people already and can hardly feed 400. Just imagine in twenty years more when they have 1.600 millions, or in fourty when they become 3.200 millions, or in 60 with 6.400?...Confused  (With respect to Latin America, we have more space and ten of times more water and other resources than Africa, and we only have 600 million people, which is aging already)
India can hardly feed its lot, that is a separate issue of infrastructure and family planning not unique to africa. what about egypt?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 04:08
The potential growing of 20% in China will be dwarf by the endless growth of Africa by far. China is not the threat anymore, it is India but above all Africa.
 
Figure 1. Index of total agricultural output per capita by region (index 1961-2005). Adapted from FAOSTAT 2006. Source: Hazel and Woods.
GD5485334webIn-the-Nigeria-9449.jpg image by Arthur_Vandelay99
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 04:10
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

...India can hardly feed its lot, that is a separate issue of infrastructure and family planning not unique to africa. what about egypt?
 
India is in a really dangerous situation, indeed. Africa is going to become an India ten times larger. Egypt is in Africa, isn't?


Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 04:10
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 13:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

...India can hardly feed its lot, that is a separate issue of infrastructure and family planning not unique to africa. what about egypt?
 
India is in a really dangerous situation, indeed. Africa is going to become an India ten times larger. Egypt is in Africa, isn't?
India tens times larger! Massive assumptions and exaggerations certianly, or simply emotive posting. Africa is not 10 X 1.5 billion in the near term and any future population growth rate is not given stable number.

Africa can feed itself and has resources do so. Any talk that it cant is wrong. Bad farming practices, poor genetics with their crops, lack of infrastructure and planning - general appalling governance -  are more reason than simply lacking of water. That continent can do much better with less.

I asked what about Egypt, because of an earlier post you were more specific. My apologies for not being clear

Quote
That's the important point. Subsaharan Africa has 800 million people already and can hardly feed 400.
Egypt would be my most concerning african country over anything in the sub saharan region.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:


Africa can feed itself and has resources do so. Any talk that it cant is wrong. Bad farming practices, poor genetics with their crops, lack of infrastructure and planning - general appalling governance -  are more reason than simply lacking of water. That continent can do much better with less.

 
Absolutely false. Tropical Africa is not adecuate for large scale agriculture at all. The land is miserable. It would need hundreds of billions just to make a little bit more productive.
 
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:


I asked what about Egypt, because of an earlier post you were more specific. My apologies for not being clear
Egypt would be my most concerning african country over anything in the sub saharan region.
 
Why you excuse Subsaharan Africans from controlling theirs irresponsable population growth? You pointed to Chinese and Latin Americans to distract the attention, and I showed you those regions have populations already aging. Then you pointed to Egypt, as a distractive tactics.
 
Nope. Talk about Subsaharans, who are the only people in the world that have 8 children per couple and are not aware about the future at all... Confused


Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 17:27
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 17:45
Pinguin you're very close to the edge of the C oC and you've been suspended before.
 
I personally know sub-Saharan couples that don't have eight children.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 18:16

Nobody complained when the Irish woman averaged 8 kids some decades back so why complain about Africa?

The regions where you have the largest growth are also the regions with the highest child mortality rate before 5 years old. Its an old mechanism of human growth seen after both WWs to compensate for loss.

As for Africa being overpopulated, Africa is about 30 million sq Km with only 5 million being unsuitable for habitation. That is almost 30 people/sq km. To reach Europe's level its population should be 2.2 billion and one should understand that europe that I calculated include the vast Russian part of it. Africa can easily support those numbers and even more.

As for Africa not being suitable for agriculture, are you kidding me? Where Egypt, Sudan, SA and the equatorial regions? all these are among the most underdeveloped agricultural regions in the world and the most fertile. Africa has enough water resources to both support the population growth and agriculture at the same time.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:00
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Pinguin you're very close to the edge of the C oC and you've been suspended before.
 
 
So, you menace me for telling a truth? See the statistics of the U.N., please. I wonder why nobody can't comment a fact. 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I personally know sub-Saharan couples that don't have eight children.
 
How many do they have? Seven? (Just kidding). Seriously. Eight is the average. The educated elite, that makes less than the 1% of Africans aren't really representative of that continent. You probably have met some of them.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:23
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Nobody complained when the Irish woman averaged 8 kids some decades back so why complain about Africa?
 
Because Ireland has only 4 million people Confused... If they decide to have 16 kids per women that won't change the demography of the world at all.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The regions where you have the largest growth are also the regions with the highest child mortality rate before 5 years old. Its an old mechanism of human growth seen after both WWs to compensate for loss.
?
 
Yes, but that isn't working for Africa.They have passed from 200 to 800 millions in 40 years. In the next fourty they will reach 3.200 millions, and before the end of the century they will reach 12,8 billions, if they continue as now.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for Africa being overpopulated, Africa is about 30 million sq Km with only 5 million being unsuitable for habitation. That is almost 30 people/sq km. To reach Europe's level its population should be 2.2 billion and one should understand that europe that I calculated include the vast Russian part of it. Africa can easily support those numbers and even more.
As for Africa not being suitable for agriculture, are you kidding me? Where Egypt, Sudan, SA and the equatorial regions? all these are among the most underdeveloped agricultural regions in the world and the most fertile. Africa has enough water resources to both support the population growth and agriculture at the same time.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Europe is overcrowded and overpopulated. It is not a good example as a pattern of comparison at all. Still, Subsaharan Africa will reach the levels of Europe pretty soon. The problem is that people who write about the topic usually includes the Sahara desert in theirs calculations, and the sahara desert is 1/3 of Africa and most of it is in North Africa Confused. If one calculates Subsharan Africa by itself, the picture is pretty bad. 
 
Look at this table:
 
  • North America - 32 people per square mile
  • South America - 73 people per square mile
  • Europe - 134 people per square mile
  • Asia - 203 people per square mile
  • Africa - 65 people per square mile but
  • Subsaharan Africa - 100 people per squeare mile!
  • Australia - 6.4 people per square mile
  • And countries like Rwanda have already a population density of 230 per sq. km; the same than Asia. 

    So, the argument that Africa is empty is absurd, and baseless.
     
     


    Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 21:26
    Back to Top
    gcle2003 View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar
    PM Honorary Member

    Joined: 06 Dec 2004
    Location: Luxembourg
    Status: Offline
    Points: 13262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:29
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    Pinguin you're very close to the edge of the C oC and you've been suspended before.
     
     
    So, you menace me for telling a truth? See the statistics of the U.N., please. I wonder why nobody can't comment a fact. 
    No, I threaten you for lying. Sub-saharan couples do not have eight children each. That is smearing by association of a racial group. Which is what the warning was for.
    Quote  
    Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

    I personally know sub-Saharan couples that don't have eight children.
     
    How many do they have? Seven? (Just kidding). Seriously. Eight is the average. The educated elite, that makes less than the 1% of Africans aren't really representative of that continent. You probably have met some of them.
    You didn't say 'eight is the average'. You didn't mention 'representative'. Moreover you are grouping together all sorts of racial groupings into one when there is no justification for doing so.
     
    Quote actual statistics if you like. Don't smear.
     


    Edited by gcle2003 - 07 Nov 2009 at 21:30
    Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 21:43
    The Subsaharan population is growing quite fast. Who lies?
     
     
    "A parallel factor at work is fecundity, equal to or higher than 5 children per woman" Actually, the figure is around SIX.  Not so far from the "eight" that I put there.
     
     
    For some reason, these figures are never talked in public.
     


    Edited by pinguin - 07 Nov 2009 at 21:45
    Back to Top
    Al Jassas View Drop Down
    King
    King


    Joined: 07 Aug 2007
    Status: Offline
    Points: 5000
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2009 at 23:11
    Here are numbers Pinguin
     
    Botswana: 0.5 million Km and 1.6 million people with a net growth of -0.05%.
     
    Angola: 1.25 million sq Km with a population of 12 million and a growth of 2%.
     
    Namibia: 0.850 million sq Km with a population of 2.5 million and a net growth of 0.48.
     
    Mozambique: 0.8 million sq km with a population of 21 million and a growth of 1.8%.
     
    Zimbabwe: 0.4 million sq km with a population of 12 million and a growth of 0.6%.
     
    (Source: MS Encarta)
     
    and so on. I can go through all the African countries and you will see that not only they are empty compared with their counterparts in South America or europe but also not that different in the level of population growth. Europe used to grow in the range of 1.5 to 2.5% in the middle of the 19th century and after the wars and nobody then (except Malthus and co.) complained and europe is much smaller than Africa. Why the sudden interest in Africa?
     
    Anyway, once economic conditions get better and infant mortality becomes lower the growth is going to be under control. In Saudi Arabia the woman averaged 7 kids according to the 92 census. Last time the census was taken the woman averagd 4. In Africa in some countries like Sudan actually seen a decrease in growth after peace and the current economic boom and the same can be seen in Egypt and NA countries.
     
    A careful look at the UN numbers shows that this is true. Also one should not forget that in those countries marriage happens at very young ages which makes a woman more prong to get pregnant.
     
    Al-Jassas
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 00:19

    Show Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and other countries of Africa, too, which has the largest populations. You picked very well your examples, but the worst situation aren't precisely in the Southern part of Africa but in the tropics.

    You can't compare the situation with anything else, either. And the "sudden interest" comes from the fact Africans won't stay in Africa but will crowded everybody else when theirs continent fall down.
     


    Edited by pinguin - 08 Nov 2009 at 00:24
    Back to Top
    drgonzaga View Drop Down
    King
    King
    Avatar
    Plus Ultra

    Joined: 01 Oct 2005
    Status: Offline
    Points: 6262
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 03:22
    I am wary of population statistics, worldwide, and not just for areas once called "underdeveloped". Then, there is the citation of a known agiprop link as authority! The so-called "defusing of the population bomb" has been a favored topic ever since Malthus, but then while wailing and gnashing teeth over numbers, there is constant hysteria over elimination of disease, war, poverty, and yes the best chimera of them all, global warming. Could it be that "talking points" are devouring their own children?  But I really got a chuckle reading about the Hispanic menace and their over-breeding in the United States!
     
     
    Viva la Reconquista! eh, Pinguin?
    Honi soit qui mal y pense
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2009 at 03:54
    The problem with defusing the population bomb is that Subsaharans want to make it explode, anyways.
     
    The figures I put there are for real, and something has to be done in Africa, and the sooner the better.
     
    Yes, it is quite easy to point somewhere else. The trick you are using is for children. The method is like this. Always that sometimes points to a problem of Holly Africa point somewhere else, to change the attention.
     
    It doesn't work. Africa is the single problem that remains with respect to the population boom.
     
     


    Edited by pinguin - 08 Nov 2009 at 03:57
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
      Share Topic   

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
    Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

    This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.