overpopulation

[phuckphace]

there are too many of us on this planet. for most of human history, our total population stayed well below 1 billion people, as nature intended. but then, SCIENCE!

http://i.imgur.com/JuRB9nC.png

ridiculous. look at that "wall" up there. it shouldn't even be controversial that something must be done about curbing population growth, but unfortunately we're myopic fools who are quite content to trash the planet in exchange for access to penicillin and iPhones.

it seems many people view overpopulation very simplistically, and these folks tend to belong to the Life Is Precious crew. they imagine the worst possible scenario being one of everyone having to live in high-rise commieblocks and bumping elbows more frequently. it's much worse than that. for one thing, humans require resources to survive (duh). along with 7 billion precious human lives, there are also 50 billion chickens, 1.4 billion cattle, and 1 billion pigs. when you think of resource consumption, you must factor in not just the human mouths, but the animal mouths that come with them. that's a lot of mouths.

some of these mouths are the culprits, but it's not so much what goes into them as what comes out. the Life Is Precious crew can frequently be found on college campuses, in the media, and on the Internet telling you not to worry because, well, haven't you watched My Little Transistor: Technology Is Magic™? perhaps the iPhone 12 will dispense Soylent Green or something. whatever. the point is, if you're listening to these people you should stop.

the Crew is unwittingly more dangerous than you might realize. how many times have you heard the phrase "Aid for Africa" and immediately pictured Starvin' Marvin crawling pitifully over parched ground in a swarm of flies? lest you think I'm laying it all at the feet of evil Marxists, Evangelical Christians also belong to the Life crew and share a big part of the blame for African overpopulation in particular. donating a few bucks or bags of old clothes you don't want is for Westerners a hit of emotional heroin - you get that little tingly altruistic rush knowing Mbeke might get to swill a few gulps of water before he's picked apart by hyenas. alternatively, he might survive into late adolescence and start a career, in a machete-wielding rape gang that is. apparently, raping infants cures AIDS (the more you know!)

I had to sit through this tripe many a time when I was younger and still went to church. "just ONE DOLLAR can provide fresh water for an entire African village for 500 years" or something, with Starvin' Marvin mugging for the camera. if you were flat broke I highly doubt having five kids would seem like a good idea to you, but for millions in Africa, it's all the rage. by "saving" Starvin' Marvin from starving, you inadvertently create five more Marvins who are in turn also starvin'. you should avoid any and all "Aid for Africa" charities like an AIDS-filled condom.

here's another interesting pic, for your consideration:

http://i.imgur.com/udouHp8.png

this is notable because, in the West, when overpopulation is brought up, they want you to imagine white people like the Duggars soaking up precious resources with their triggeringly large white family. when it comes to resources, they think of the water that white people use to water their lawns. India's shitrivers and 10-figure population? China's anthill-cities that belch ton upon ton of pollution into the sky like volcanoes? not a peep. they certainly wouldn't like you to consider that moving our industry to a country that doesn't regulate what goes into the environment probably caused more problems than it solved.

none of our current political leaders want to address this issue in a way that isn't either batshit insane or just plain stupid and ineffective. pseudoconservatives are of course completely useless on this issue as all others. if lolbertarians had their way, the entire United States would be covered by a hellish ecumenopolis from sea to shining sea.

tl;dr - 500 million or bust. literally.

[sqishy]

Yes, there is a hugely serious population problem going on today. I don't see how allowing many people who are living to starve, suffer or die helps though. I thought one of the population explosion's factors was that parents had many children so that they could look after them when they are older, because of the bad living conditions they have. In my view, a plan worthy of consideration would be to educate people to have fewer children, so that there are smaller families. At the same time, those people in bad living conditions should indeed get aid. When families are better off, there is less of a motivation to have more children to help the elderly later on, because there is less of a need to do that.

How exactly is consigning the overpopulated/poor places to the flames going to help??

Are you assuming that those populations are going to keep have many children? You're assuming they will keep doing that when they are helped enough. I don't see any good reason to keep that assumption. Education, aid and contraception is my view. Allowing them to die off painfully will only exacerbate their intention to have more children.

Are you also saying that those who need help should be let die, because they are draining the resources of the better-off?
Why not let all the retired die off then? Those elderly, draining the economy of resources... leave them wither, they had their life!

Seems to be your view, part of it.

[mattsmith48]

Its the 2nd biggest problem we have today

[phuckphace]

sub-Saharan Africa is a lost cause for several reasons, which I will expand on shortly. Asia is more salvageable in theory but given their propensity for ant-colony arrangements I'm not sure how that would work.

a common meme that the Life crew bandies about is that the only difference between sub-Saharan Africans with their infant rape/burning-tire necklaces vs. everyone else is "education." "I dreamed of being an aid worker for an NGO because it's like super rewarding and stuff!" to those of us who aren't mainlining the emotional heroin, Africa is a literal, living hell on Earth and sending a container ship of books is the equivalent of trying to fix a compound fracture (or better yet, brain cancer) with a Band-Aid. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

as a fan of the world's second-most effective environmentalist after Josef Stalin, I'd like to draw your attention to the Thread of the Fates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) and how it must factor into the discussion before anything will begin to make sense. you'll note that some parts of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand resemble Europe because all are populated by Europeans. Detroit resembles sub-Saharan Africa for the same reason. South Africa was the only semi-livable place on that continent, until the Boers voted themselves out of existence and moved back to the Netherlands to avoid the burning-tire necklaces. it's not as though Africa once had flourishing, functional high civilization before the colonists showed up.

as for mass death, it's already far too late to be avoided. the population far exceeded reasonable carrying capacity long ago so it's not a matter of if, but when. would you rather wait until the population reaches 10 billion? maybe 15? I don't either. when the West collapses, it will take the rest of the world with it - I predict Africa and India will be hit the hardest and god knows what sort of virulent pandemics will ooze from all those corpses. it makes my head explode just thinking about it - it's very likely that much of the long-term damage wrought by globalism will be permanent, even after the population reverts to the mean. and it will.

[Vlerchan]

I plan on working in development. It's in economic development - so in a development bank as opposed to a bilateral NGO or whatever - but it's development all the same. I will source the following in the morning.

It doesn't seem to be well represented in the literature that education levels are a large determinant of development patterns.
It's the case that deworming has the biggest impact on education levels regardless.
It would seem that institutions have the most significant impact on development and national income. This holds when we account for racial make-up amongst a host other other conditions.
It would seem that SA has had a marketable improvement since the end of apartheid. Including crime scores.
It would seem that when colonists realised that the conditions in Africa were to harsh for comfortable settlement these colonists set up extractive institutions that focused on extracting as much wealth from the continent at the lowest possible cost. This is perhaps the most toxic contribution recorded in mankind's history.
Their awful agricultural policies also tended to retard growth to an even greater extent.
It's notable that when Elites rose in the new independent states that it benefited them to maintain these extractive institutions and that's what seemed to happen. So it's not all the Europeans fault before someone goes there.
Neo-malthusians aren't in a position to keep making predictions.
Now I'm somewhat happier with this thread.

[phuckphace]

let the record reflect that I don't consider myself a neo-Malthusian, except in the sense that it's used sneeringly by globalists (if you aren't "down" with the idea of living on Coruscant 2.0, you're a "neo-Malthusian" sez Marx and crew).

we're living in a period of unprecedented sociopolitical change at a scale and level of complexity that has never before been seen in our history. I'd like to underscore that fact before we start queuing up studies by globalists assuring us that globalism is just fine and dandy. the "unknown" factor and its attendant risks are, or should be, crucial and central to our decision-making on this issue, but instead we're blinded by self-assured faith in SCIENCE! and technology. Malthusians are kooks for predicting disaster, while globalists otoh are quite informed and reasonable for predicting a utopia with flying cars for everyone, in a future we haven't seen yet.

I don't doubt there exist a handful of kooky Malthusians who made predictions a couple of decades into the future that proved wrong. it is inarguable, however, that a) our natural resources are finite b) population trends have spiked to stratospheric levels in the blink of an eye and c) the planet is 9000x more polluted than it has ever been. the unknown factor kicks in again, which to me is more critical than any projection on a graph. perhaps it's just me being a paranoid far-right Luddite, but considering that this is the only planet we have, an unsustainable globalized social experiment that appears to be failing doesn't seem like the best idea.

[Sir Suomi]

Why does it not surprise me that you mentioned us again...

Anyways, I will agree, we're experiencing a huge issue. Honestly, I'm waiting for India, Pakistan, and China to duke it out and for the world to let it happen. We literally couldn't produce enough ammunition to fuel that fire.

Possible solutions:


I will agree, companies should have an obligation to practice environmentally-safe procedures
We need to simply stop giving foreign aid, at least that's funded by the government
Let people duke it out among themselves and kill themselves as much as they please
Invest less in killing each other, and more in our space program
Develop sustainable energy sources
Develop non-harmful agricultural practices that are also sustainable to our population


I think it is quite humorous though. If the rest of the world had the birth rate of most Western Europeans and white Americans do, we wouldn't be running into much of an issue. In fact, we'd seen declining in births among at some places. It's the African, South-Asian, and Middle-Eastern birth rates that are making our population skyrocket.

And if all else fails and we need to fix the world's population, we can always just nuke China and India and call it good.

[Babs]

The earth can only provide enough resources for roughly 10 billion people. I think measures to control the population should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Myself, I'll do my part by not reproducing.
My mom is/was in the quiverfull movement and had 9 kids, and she finds it ridiculous that none of her kids want to have 9 kids like she did. With the way she raised us, she fully expected to have 81 grandchildren and thinks the whole zero population growth thing is bullshit.
But yeah. There are too many damn children on this planet.

[phuckphace]

another point I'd like to add: overpopulation is a net negative even if magic technology will in fact solve the finite resources problem.

overdensity of population is an unnatural (there's that word) arrangement that has a profoundly negative impact on the human psyche. when people are removed from their natural environment of close-knit communities of familiar faces and placed into a 40,000 people/km² Calhoun-rat-pen city, we become atomized and isolated and that's when the real fun begins. you'll notice that cities in general have much higher levels of crime, dysfunction and mental illness than small communities where it's always the same guy behind the counter when you buy your groceries. picture a mass of lab rats huddled in the center of their cage gnawing on each others' ears. this holds true even if the whole society is ethnically homogenous, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. when I visited LA for the first time I actually recoiled at how dystopian it was - everybody's sullen, world-weary and just plain fucking weird, whites included. you can tell they've never encountered the same person twice.

when we interact with one another vicariously through the telescreen, we lose that crucial connection to one another that helps societies remain stable. I've drawn from this the conclusion that maintaining an optimum population size - not too small, not too big - is the ideal arrangement for mankind. if this makes me a Malthusian, so be it.

[tonymontana99]

Overpopulation can be solved in two ways:

Number 1, and my personal favourite, genocide. Either by a virus that only targets specific ethnic/racial groups, or another "accidental" catastrophe. Problem solved within two months.

Number 2, and my least favourite because it's the most expensive, long and boring, humanitarianism. We show up to their poor countries, educate everyone, teach them responsible behaviour and basic civilized ways of living, make them act like human beings and not feral subhumans. Quality of life goes up, birth rate goes down. Takes hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, takes decades to come to fruition, and let's face it -- old habits die hard.

I'd go with No. 1

EDIT: I don't think we'll ever reach the threshold (~10, 11 billion). An "accident" must happen before that at a given time in the future.

[tonymontana99]

The earth can only provide enough resources for roughly 10 billion people. I think measures to control the population should be taken, but I'm not sure what. Myself, I'll do my part by not reproducing.
My mom is/was in the quiverfull movement and had 9 kids, and she finds it ridiculous that none of her kids want to have 9 kids like she did. With the way she raised us, she fully expected to have 81 grandchildren and thinks the whole zero population growth thing is bullshit.
But yeah. There are too many damn children on this planet.

Shame on you, fam. The problem isn't the birth rate itself, it is the birth rate of the wrong kind. The ones who are multiplying like rats aren't civilized people like you and me, they're almost-literal subhumans who live in AIDS-infested shitholes and walk around barefoot. So most of their children grow up to be equally deficient, objectively worthless (don't contribute to the economy, consume resources) humans who just take up space.

[phuckphace]

speaking of world-ending catastrophes, let's invent a weaponized virus that, once released, will evolve further, jump to unintended populations and kill 99.4% of the population like in Stephen King's The Stand. well fam, that's one way to solve it I guess

for those wondering I'm not suggesting that the die-off should be anthropogenic (genocide) only that at this juncture a mass dying of some sort seems inevitable.

[Uniquemind]

I think the microbes of the world will take care of the overpopulation problem.


We're already seeing anti-biotic resistant STD's, that'll take out a lot of people, specifically young people.

Then you got hospital infections also anti-biotic resistant.


Ebola is making another comeback after mutating again. It stays in your eyeballs, even if "cured". (They found the virus in the eyeballs of the first few doctors without borders staff, and one of them relapsed recently in the last few weeks with a mutated strain after she was "cured".

It's like herpes, once you got it, battle for your life begins again.

[phuckphace]

*plane full of ebola-eyed Somalians lands in Stockholm* special delivery motherfuckers!

in all seriousness it's not a terrible stretch to imagine a particularly virulent pandemic taking off given the globalized nature of our world and the ease of travel to and from Ebolaland courtesy of Merkel & co. pandemics are certainly not without precedent.

[tonymontana99]

speaking of world-ending catastrophes, let's invent a weaponized virus that, once released, will evolve further, jump to unintended populations and kill 99.4% of the population like in Stephen King's The Stand. well fam, that's one way to solve it I guess

for those wondering I'm not suggesting that the die-off should be anthropogenic (genocide) only that at this juncture a mass dying of some sort seems inevitable.

I think the microbes of the world will take care of the overpopulation problem.


We're already seeing anti-biotic resistant STD's, that'll take out a lot of people, specifically young people.

Then you got hospital infections also anti-biotic resistant.


Ebola is making another comeback after mutating again. It stays in your eyeballs, even if "cured". (They found the virus in the eyeballs of the first few doctors without borders staff, and one of them relapsed recently in the last few weeks with a mutated strain after she was "cured".

It's like herpes, once you got it, battle for your life begins again.

*plane full of ebola-eyed Somalians lands in Stockholm* special delivery motherfuckers!

in all seriousness it's not a terrible stretch to imagine a particularly virulent pandemic taking off given the globalized nature of our world and the ease of travel to and from Ebolaland courtesy of Merkel & co. pandemics are certainly not without precedent.

I wouldn't worry, fam. Nature uh... Finds a way. No, it really does. And it's the most efficient, cheap and quick way of solving this overpopulation meme once and for all. Whether it's a weaponized version of Ebola-chan, SARS or super AIDS, we'll (or Nature will) find a way. We always do. Just gotta make sure the virus doesn't mutate and goes after all of us who are actually worth something. After all the decades and Africa still doesn't have its shit together, it's time to end it once and for all. I bet there are a lot of natural resources to use there.

[sqishy]

I plan on working in development. It's in economic development - so in a development bank as opposed to a bilateral NGO or whatever - but it's development all the same. I will source the following in the morning.

It doesn't seem to be well represented in the literature that education levels are a large determinant of development patterns.
It's the case that deworming has the biggest impact on education levels regardless.
It would seem that institutions have the most significant impact on development and national income. This holds when we account for racial make-up amongst a host other other conditions.
It would seem that SA has had a marketable improvement since the end of apartheid. Including crime scores.
It would seem that when colonists realised that the conditions in Africa were to harsh for comfortable settlement these colonists set up extractive institutions that focused on extracting as much wealth from the continent at the lowest possible cost. This is perhaps the most toxic contribution recorded in mankind's history.
Their awful agricultural policies also tended to retard growth to an even greater extent.
It's notable that when Elites rose in the new independent states that it benefited them to maintain these extractive institutions and that's what seemed to happen. So it's not all the Europeans fault before someone goes there.
Neo-malthusians aren't in a position to keep making predictions.
Now I'm somewhat happier with this thread.

I'll fully trust you with this here [no sarcasm meant at all]. Development is the key.

I also find many view in this thread to be (worryingly..) in a resigned stance with the idea of having most of the world's population die off in a harsh manner. Though genocide was said not to be what this is, I'm not sure if that can really be said. Sounds a bit like the psychopathic view held by some characters in Channel 4's Utopia [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28UK_TV_series%29 ].

[tonymontana99]

I'll fully trust you with this here [no sarcasm meant at all]. Development is the key.

I also find many view in this thread to be (worryingly..) in a resigned stance with the idea of having most of the world's population die off in a harsh manner. Though genocide was said not to be what this is, I'm not sure if that can really be said. Sounds a bit like the psychopathic view held by some characters in Channel 4's Utopia [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28UK_TV_series%29 ].

There are times when we simply must leave our humane side at the doorstep and do what's right to preserve the future of our species. If things got so bad that a huge chunk of the population had to be removed, I'd be all for it.

[phuckphace]

I also find many view in this thread to be (worryingly..) in a resigned stance with the idea of having most of the world's population die off in a harsh manner. Though genocide was said not to be what this is, I'm not sure if that can really be said. Sounds a bit like the psychopathic view held by some characters in Channel 4's Utopia [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28UK_TV_series%29 ].

it's really not psychopathic apathy but rather the simple acceptance of certain harsh realities. some things simply cannot be achieved.

genocide is bad and unlike our fam tony I'm not salivating at the idea of billions dying, even if it would mean a better future for those left. this is the reason I mentioned earlier that it makes my head explode, thinking about how drastically the world has been turned upside-down in the span of less than 100 years and how much of the misery and suffering was all for some bullshit capitalism that it is way too late to backtrack on. I totally sound like an OWS hippie here, but it's true.

--- post is about to get gross, proceed with caution ---

I feel like a particular glaringly heinous tidbit, i n f a n t r a p e isn't being given enough consideration here. there actually exists a place on the Blue Marble where half of the women have been raped starting at age 1 - 2, by machete-wielding rape gangs who make burning tire-necklaces - is it sinking in yet? this is a "country" that I would immediately jetpack out of fast enough to break the sound barrier, and maybe the speed of light too. for good measure we build an enormous wall of ice around the West, 700 meters high and guard it with a magic sword. all that fun hyperbole aside, I.R. to me is a loud indicator that it would be best not to bother.

I don't see NGOs as being of any use, the small benefits they bring simply don't outweigh the literal hell that's got you surrounded. at worst they don't help at all and in fact make things worse.

the ideal scenario would be one where capitalism didn't happen (which, incidentally, also includes the Holocaust!) there would likely be no AIDS epidemic, people would be happier and we could maybe even get away with a little democracy here and there.

[tonymontana99]

it's really not psychopathic apathy but rather the simple acceptance of certain harsh realities. some things simply cannot be achieved.

genocide is bad and unlike our fam tony I'm not salivating at the idea of billions dying, even if it would mean a better future for those left. this is the reason I mentioned earlier that it makes my head explode, thinking about how drastically the world has been turned upside-down in the span of less than 100 years and how much of the misery and suffering was all for some bullshit capitalism that it is way too late to backtrack on. I totally sound like an OWS hippie here, but it's true.

--- post is about to get gross, proceed with caution ---

I feel like a particular glaringly heinous tidbit, i n f a n t r a p e isn't being given enough consideration here. there actually exists a place on the Blue Marble where half of the women have been raped starting at age 1 - 2, by machete-wielding rape gangs who make burning tire-necklaces - is it sinking in yet? this is a "country" that I would immediately jetpack out of fast enough to break the sound barrier, and maybe the speed of light too. for good measure we build an enormous wall of ice around the West, 700 meters high and guard it with a magic sword. all that fun hyperbole aside, I.R. to me is a loud indicator that it would be best not to bother.

I don't see NGOs as being of any use, the small benefits they bring simply don't outweigh the literal hell that's got you surrounded. at worst they don't help at all and in fact make things worse.

the ideal scenario would be one where capitalism didn't happen (which, incidentally, also includes the Holocaust!) there would likely be no AIDS epidemic, people would be happier and we could maybe even get away with a little democracy here and there.

I don't "salivate" on the ideia of billions of -- admittingly -- worthless humans dying off. It's just something that has to happen if all other attempts at lifting their countries fail. This whole "humanitarian" attitude and -- as you once said -- "pathological altruism" is just trying to undermine the true nature of human beings, which is animalistic, savage and with a sense of self-preservation. There comes a time where you have to say "fuck you" to all these left-wing human rights activists/environmental hippies and completely annihilate the scourge that threatens the life of productive human beings.

[Vlerchan]

Food production per capita has been on an increase (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/events/archive/2011/paa/lam_slide1.jpg) since the 1960s. In particular this has been quite pronounced in industrialising Asia (https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/image420.png) as technologies have been adopted to make production more efficient. It's also notable that the price of commodities (http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2011/jun/images/graph-0611-7-03.gif) in general has been on a downward trend. Before it's mentioned the upward trend at the tail-end can be explained with reference to investors swapping into these goods as the Great Recession took hold and financial instruments imploded. It would seem that if this trend continues as-is there won't be too much of a problem. When I use the term as-is here I mean presuming that inefficient producers don't adopt current technologies and the proposed technologies never get realised.

I'm also pretending the market mechanism doesn't exist. It does though.

I also don't think we'll have flying cars. I just think a world without food poverty is possible, reasonable, and desirable.

We need to simply stop giving foreign aid, at least that's funded by the government
Being honest the U.S. development budget is just a cover for their geopolitical agenda. Easterly and Pfutze (2008) report (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.22.2.29) the U.S. as being quite ineffective in their spending. Like literally 100% of the U.S. aid budget goes into channels that are commonly considered to be ineffective.

I wish I was joking.

I'll fully trust you with this here [no sarcasm meant at all]. Development is the key.
The problem is most to do with re-arranging the institutional frameworks. The cash is useless if it's being pumped somewhere that guarantees low marginal returns.

---

What I claimed in the last post can be all found within the following sources.

Jones, C. I., (2015), The Facts of Economic Growth, NBER Working Paper, v.0.4. (http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/jones-facts040.pdf)
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. A. (2000), The Colonial Origins of Comparative Growth: An Empirical Investigation, American Economic Review. (http://web.mit.edu/daron/www/colonial8comp.pdf)
Adebayo Adedeji (1987), General Background to Indiginization: The Economic Depedence of Africa in Adebayo Adedeji (Ed.) Indiginization of African Economies, Hutchinson: Chicago.

It would also seem that deworming has been challenged in the last couple of months as far as outcomes are concerned. So whether I'm correct above is questionable.

I'm going to cite SA statistics on request because it's just too laboursome to cite the numerous reports when I can't find a good compilation. I should also add that I still hold major issues with SA's government.

[phuckphace]

I don't "salivate" on the ideia of billions of -- admittingly -- worthless humans dying off. It's just something that has to happen if all other attempts at lifting their countries fail. This whole "humanitarian" attitude and -- as you once said -- "pathological altruism" is just trying to undermine the true nature of human beings, which is animalistic, savage and with a sense of self-preservation. There comes a time where you have to say "fuck you" to all these left-wing human rights activists/environmental hippies and completely annihilate the scourge that threatens the life of productive human beings.

well as long as you keep a solemn face as the Afrospecific turbo-ebola missile drops its payload over Johannesburg I guess it's okay

more like KKKapitalism amirite? http://i.imgur.com/lCUJ8hx.png

[sqishy]

it's really not psychopathic apathy but rather the simple acceptance of certain harsh realities. some things simply cannot be achieved.

genocide is bad and unlike our fam tony I'm not salivating at the idea of billions dying, even if it would mean a better future for those left. this is the reason I mentioned earlier that it makes my head explode, thinking about how drastically the world has been turned upside-down in the span of less than 100 years and how much of the misery and suffering was all for some bullshit capitalism that it is way too late to backtrack on. I totally sound like an OWS hippie here, but it's true.

--- post is about to get gross, proceed with caution ---

I feel like a particular glaringly heinous tidbit, i n f a n t r a p e isn't being given enough consideration here. there actually exists a place on the Blue Marble where half of the women have been raped starting at age 1 - 2, by machete-wielding rape gangs who make burning tire-necklaces - is it sinking in yet? this is a "country" that I would immediately jetpack out of fast enough to break the sound barrier, and maybe the speed of light too. for good measure we build an enormous wall of ice around the West, 700 meters high and guard it with a magic sword. all that fun hyperbole aside, I.R. to me is a loud indicator that it would be best not to bother.

I don't see NGOs as being of any use, the small benefits they bring simply don't outweigh the literal hell that's got you surrounded. at worst they don't help at all and in fact make things worse.

the ideal scenario would be one where capitalism didn't happen (which, incidentally, also includes the Holocaust!) there would likely be no AIDS epidemic, people would be happier and we could maybe even get away with a little democracy here and there.

I agree with the capitalism part.

[tonymontana99]

I agree with the capitalism part.

well as long as you keep a solemn face as the Afrospecific turbo-ebola missile drops its payload over Johannesburg I guess it's okay

more like KKKapitalism amirite? image (http://i.imgur.com/lCUJ8hx.png)

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1445160090499.jpg

Goddamn commies...

[sqishy]

image (http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1445160090499.jpg)

Goddamn commies...

So being critical/unfaithful of capitalism makes me a communist. Right.

Oh no, that evil conglomeration of communists from Vietnam!!!

[Judean Zealot]

There are times when we simply must leave our humane side at the doorstep and do what's right to preserve the future of our species. If things got so bad that a huge chunk of the population had to be removed, I'd be all for it.

And by what moral authority do you presume to decide who's blood is redder than who's?

[tonymontana99]

And by what moral authority do you presume to decide who's blood is redder than who's?

"Moral authority" lol.

By the ones in power.

[Judean Zealot]

"Moral authority" lol.

By the ones in power.

Are there any morals you deem important?

[sqishy]

"Moral authority" lol.

By the ones in power.

Sounding like the Lannisters in Game of Thrones almost, though they believed in their own moral authority.

[Judean Zealot]

Sounding like the Lannisters in Game of Thrones almost, though they believed in their own moral authority.

I just find this funny, considering all his bombastic rhetoric involving freedom, rights, and how the Muslims lack the morals to coexist with the west.

[sqishy]

I just find this funny, considering all his bombastic rhetoric involving freedom, rights, and how the Muslims lack the morals to coexist with the west.

Exactly.

[Bull]

Are there any morals you deem important?

I would start with the Ten Commandments. Then, I would add the Golden Rule. That 'bout sums it up for me. You can disagree: that is your right, but just know that for those of you who do, I am praying for you! :)

[Judean Zealot]

I would start with the Ten Commandments. Then, I would add the Golden Rule. That 'bout sums it up for me. You can disagree: that is your right, but just know that for those of you who do, I am praying for you! :)

Are you sure you've read the context to that question?

P.S. So you don't do any work on Saturdays, am I right?

[Sir Suomi]

Being honest the U.S. development budget is just a cover for their geopolitical agenda. Easterly and Pfutze (2008) report (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.22.2.29) the U.S. as being quite ineffective in their spending. Like literally 100% of the U.S. aid budget goes into channels that are commonly considered to be ineffective.



That's one of the reasons I'm against it. While at the same time not always 100% reliable, most charity foundations spend their money on what is actually needed and will also give it to those who actually need it.

Are there any morals you deem important?

To be fair here, is lack of morality always a bad thing? Some may argue that morality can get in the way of logical decision making that will lead to eventual failure.

I don't exactly agree with that entirely, but hey, /Devil'sAdvocate

[ValentinClarke]

there are too many of us on this planet. for most of human history, our total population stayed well below 1 billion people, as nature intended. but then, SCIENCE!

image (http://i.imgur.com/JuRB9nC.png)

ridiculous. look at that "wall" up there. it shouldn't even be controversial that something must be done about curbing population growth, but unfortunately we're myopic fools who are quite content to trash the planet in exchange for access to penicillin and iPhones.

it seems many people view overpopulation very simplistically, and these folks tend to belong to the Life Is Precious crew. they imagine the worst possible scenario being one of everyone having to live in high-rise commieblocks and bumping elbows more frequently. it's much worse than that. for one thing, humans require resources to survive (duh). along with 7 billion precious human lives, there are also 50 billion chickens, 1.4 billion cattle, and 1 billion pigs. when you think of resource consumption, you must factor in not just the human mouths, but the animal mouths that come with them. that's a lot of mouths.

some of these mouths are the culprits, but it's not so much what goes into them as what comes out. the Life Is Precious crew can frequently be found on college campuses, in the media, and on the Internet telling you not to worry because, well, haven't you watched My Little Transistor: Technology Is Magic™? perhaps the iPhone 12 will dispense Soylent Green or something. whatever. the point is, if you're listening to these people you should stop.

the Crew is unwittingly more dangerous than you might realize. how many times have you heard the phrase "Aid for Africa" and immediately pictured Starvin' Marvin crawling pitifully over parched ground in a swarm of flies? lest you think I'm laying it all at the feet of evil Marxists, Evangelical Christians also belong to the Life crew and share a big part of the blame for African overpopulation in particular. donating a few bucks or bags of old clothes you don't want is for Westerners a hit of emotional heroin - you get that little tingly altruistic rush knowing Mbeke might get to swill a few gulps of water before he's picked apart by hyenas. alternatively, he might survive into late adolescence and start a career, in a machete-wielding rape gang that is. apparently, raping infants cures AIDS (the more you know!)

I had to sit through this tripe many a time when I was younger and still went to church. "just ONE DOLLAR can provide fresh water for an entire African village for 500 years" or something, with Starvin' Marvin mugging for the camera. if you were flat broke I highly doubt having five kids would seem like a good idea to you, but for millions in Africa, it's all the rage. by "saving" Starvin' Marvin from starving, you inadvertently create five more Marvins who are in turn also starvin'. you should avoid any and all "Aid for Africa" charities like an AIDS-filled condom.

here's another interesting pic, for your consideration:

image (http://i.imgur.com/udouHp8.png)

this is notable because, in the West, when overpopulation is brought up, they want you to imagine white people like the Duggars soaking up precious resources with their triggeringly large white family. when it comes to resources, they think of the water that white people use to water their lawns. India's shitrivers and 10-figure population? China's anthill-cities that belch ton upon ton of pollution into the sky like volcanoes? not a peep. they certainly wouldn't like you to consider that moving our industry to a country that doesn't regulate what goes into the environment probably caused more problems than it solved.

none of our current political leaders want to address this issue in a way that isn't either batshit insane or just plain stupid and ineffective. pseudoconservatives are of course completely useless on this issue as all others. if lolbertarians had their way, the entire United States would be covered by a hellish ecumenopolis from sea to shining sea.

tl;dr - 500 million or bust. literally.

We need to stop with the population. I think that we should all emulate what China tried to do with the one-child policy, because then we get a reduction in the amount of babies that we have in the world. I think that we should make abortions more readily avaliable, so we do not have unwanted children, and I think we should make adoption easier also

[Porpoise101]

Hello I just want to say that Asia is not the biggest consumer of resources now, but it will be. I found this statistic while reading about waste management: the US (4% of world pop.) creates 30% of world trash. I think in the West, East Asia, and maybe the Middle East will be able to adopt a more sustainable way of livingAs a frequent traveler to India I know from experience the rapid change that is going on there. And with PM Modi, the country will develop faster because he has killed the bureaucratic monster for better or for worse. Honestly I feel that disease will be the death of humanity because of how connected we are and how much dirtier the world is getting. But hey, we can just move to Mars or something by then I hope.

[sqishy]

Hello I just want to say that Asia is not the biggest consumer of resources now, but it will be. I found this statistic while reading about waste management: the US (4% of world pop.) creates 30% of world trash. I think in the West, East Asia, and maybe the Middle East will be able to adopt a more sustainable way of livingAs a frequent traveler to India I know from experience the rapid change that is going on there. And with PM Modi, the country will develop faster because he has killed the bureaucratic monster for better or for worse. Honestly I feel that disease will be the death of humanity because of how connected we are and how much dirtier the world is getting. But hey, we can just move to Mars or something by then I hope.

If anything, atmospheric Venerean settlement (or subterranean Lunar) would be a better bet than Mars. Radiation is a huge issue. Aside from that, fair point.

[tonymontana99]

I just find this funny, considering all his bombastic rhetoric involving freedom, rights, and how the Muslims lack the morals to coexist with the west.

What can you not understand? You fight extremism with extremism, and whoever wins wins. We were talking about African subhumans and you had to deviate the convo into "muh rhetoric" field. Have fun in 2050 when dindus are wreaking havoc on the streets because we didn't bomb them decades earlier. I really can't understand why "morals" would be of any importance when discussing something that will directly affect the world in a negative way in just a few decades. When it comes to getting shit done, "morals" and "ethics" that otherwise may be useful in day-to-day life need to be put aside for the greater good.

Sounding like the Lannisters in Game of Thrones almost, though they believed in their own moral authority.

I don't watch GoT, tbh fam.

[sqishy]

What can you not understand? ... We were talking about African subhumans ...

That really just adds to his point, you know.

... "morals" and "ethics" ... need to be put aside for the greater good.

'For the greater good'. I don't see how that is not moral nor ethical in itself.

I don't watch GoT, tbh fam.

Alright.

[Judean Zealot]

I think I'll just mosey on back out of this discussion.

[Uniquemind]

I just want to clarify a concept that:


Morals does not equal ethics.
There are many "ethical decisions" that to a layman, would seem quite cruel actions to take.


I also don't agree in weaponizing biological pathogens, I think doing so will bite humanity in the butt, including those who developed the weaponized versions of a pathogen that rears it's head.


I believe in natural selection shaping humanity all by itself. Ethically that's much cleaner than to have humanity actively try to kill each other off, because nature is at least impartial, when man kills there are a bunch of subjective factors driving who is to be triaged out of their lives.

One can also argue that when nature does it, the human genotype is strengthened because those who survive are stronger.

Weaponized biological weapons are designed to KO too many people to the point where it hinders evolution of the species.


Let's also not forget Earth has a super volcano that can KO the whole planet taking 100% of the species out. It would be called a mass extinction event.


So in some cases overpopulation just isn't a problem when you look at the broad picture.


Being cruel to your fellow mankind isn't really required...you're just being a selfish person if you are mean to people.



Let me say Mars doesn't look like a better planet to live, and that no country had progressed far enough in math or science for technology to develop with the capability for interstellar/intra-dimensional travel.


Either would theoretically work for survival of the species.

[Jean Poutine]

If anything, atmospheric Venerean settlement (or subterranean Lunar) would be a better bet than Mars. Radiation is a huge issue. Aside from that, fair point.

No thanks, I don't want any maladies vénériennes.

[sqishy]

No thanks, I don't want any maladies vénériennes.

Har har :D

[Stronk Serb]

Salvaging Earth is a lost cause. Get a bunch of educated people regardless of race, stuff them on spaceships and send them off to planets similar to Earth. Just keep investing in space programs and for crying out lout, keep the liberals off the 'New Earth' project.

[phuckphace]

Vlerchan - I'd like to hear your thoughts on SA, although tbh I wasn't focusing on their National Party so much as including them as a side-note - I think the main problem is the policy of the West that is causing overpopulation to begin with.

haven't read through your links yet, although I'll likely be getting to that later today, I promise.

I agree with the capitalism part.

yeah my theory is that they'd have some semblance of basic civilization (their default native one is a throwback to the Stone Age) where it not for the disaster of colonialism and its neocolonial bastard child globalism. if you're going to annex some territory with indigenous people in it, you've obviously got to figure out what to do with them, and historically that has sometimes meant making treaties and brushing them aside if need be, in addition to m-m-monster killing them all of course. if I were a conquistador I'd go the former, least killy route and just drop in, mine and drill away, and shove them aside if they get in the way. what I most certainly would not do is impose Western culture on them and force them to urbanize, a total disaster where it has ever happened. with the Lebensraum approach, they get to keep their way of life mostly intact, in theory.

We need to stop with the population. I think that we should all emulate what China tried to do with the one-child policy, because then we get a reduction in the amount of babies that we have in the world. I think that we should make abortions more readily avaliable, so we do not have unwanted children, and I think we should make adoption easier also

well see my main point in the OP was that, although yes the American population is outsized, the main problem areas are that circle and the African subcontinent. unless we're sending thousands of abortion clinics-on-wheels to Africa, the idea of which to me is equally as abhorrent as the population continuing to increase. it also wouldn't go over too well with Africa's sizable Muslim population so I guess that's out the window too.

Hello I just want to say that Asia is not the biggest consumer of resources now, but it will be. I found this statistic while reading about waste management: the US (4% of world pop.) creates 30% of world trash. I think in the West, East Asia, and maybe the Middle East will be able to adopt a more sustainable way of livingAs a frequent traveler to India I know from experience the rapid change that is going on there. And with PM Modi, the country will develop faster because he has killed the bureaucratic monster for better or for worse. Honestly I feel that disease will be the death of humanity because of how connected we are and how much dirtier the world is getting. But hey, we can just move to Mars or something by then I hope.

is he going to do something about the Phlegethon of shit and corpses? 1 billion people would strain the infrastructure of a first-world country to the breaking point, and India is dirt poor so even if they found money somewhere the problems won't go away. it also doesn't help that most of the populace follows a whack-ass religion that sanctifies cows *tips fedora* so that you've got cows crapping literally everywhere and spreading more diseases. I just don't see any way India can salvage itself without shedding that population one way or another.

[sqishy]

yeah my theory is that they'd have some semblance of basic civilization (their default native one is a throwback to the Stone Age) where it not for the disaster of colonialism and its neocolonial bastard child globalism. if you're going to annex some territory with indigenous people in it, you've obviously got to figure out what to do with them, and historically that has sometimes meant making treaties and brushing them aside if need be, in addition to m-m-monster killing them all of course. if I were a conquistador I'd go the former, least killy route and just drop in, mine and drill away, and shove them aside if they get in the way. what I most certainly would not do is impose Western culture on them and force them to urbanize, a total disaster where it has ever happened. with the Lebensraum approach, they get to keep their way of life mostly intact, in theory.


It's relevant to how I don't like views that see western culture/society as THE way to do things, etc.
Ah yes, colonialism, my 'favourite'.

[Porpoise101]

is he going to do something about the Phlegethon of shit and corpses? 1 billion people would strain the infrastructure of a first-world country to the breaking point, and India is dirt poor so even if they found money somewhere the problems won't go away. it also doesn't help that most of the populace follows a whack-ass religion that sanctifies cows *tips fedora* so that you've got cows crapping literally everywhere and spreading more diseases. I just don't see any way India can salvage itself without shedding that population one way or another.

Lol it's the same religion that encourages vegetarianism filthy burger eater [emoji38]. You should know how wasteful meat is. No but seriously I see India in the North part cleaning up soon as the Southern place is pretty clean as the rainy climate washes it away. Already in the growing middle class the birthrate is decreasing too. If you want to save a country look at sub Saharan Africa (population, disease, and degradation) or the Philippines (pollution, climate change, and growing population).

[phuckphace]

It's relevant to how I don't like views that see western culture/society as THE way to do things, etc.

the ethical issues of imperialism aside, I can offer one concise reason we shouldn't do it - because it rarely if ever works.

Japan seems to have pulled it off, but they're outliers.

No but seriously I see India in the North part cleaning up soon as the Southern place is pretty clean as the rainy climate washes it away.

uhhh what

when I say pollution I mean giant landfills with people living in them. solid waste (plastics/electronics) and industrial runoff stays in the environment for a long time, especially if you deal with industrial pollution the Indian way and just say "welp that sucked" and leave it sitting pretty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Ongoing_contamination)the Indian gov't can find money for nukes but apparently not for waste cleanup.

Already in the growing middle class the birthrate is decreasing too. If you want to save a country look at sub Saharan Africa (population, disease, and degradation) or the Philippines (pollution, climate change, and growing population).

allow me to reiterate...one billion people. what the West considers middle class is going to be maybe a quarter to a third of any population at the very most, so you've still going to have more ultraproletariat than the US has people. the proles always outbreed the upper class 10 to one.

[Porpoise101]

when I say pollution I mean giant landfills with people living in them. solid waste (plastics/electronics) and industrial runoff stays in the environment for a long time, especially if you deal with industrial pollution the Indian way and just say "welp that sucked" and leave it sitting pretty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Ongoing_contamination)the Indian gov't can find money for nukes but apparently not for waste cleanup.

Let me clarify. The Southern area is not very industrialised, but there are a few population centers with sparse surroundings. This is because the communist party of India has roots here (the founder came from my ancestral village). As a result, industry moved North. Today a lot of the money from the Southern states comes from services, especially IT and tourism. This may change because of Modi as he is deregulating a ton so this could be good or bad like I said.

[Vlerchan]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on SA, although tbh I wasn't focusing on their National Party so much as including them as a side-note - I think the main problem is the policy of the West that is causing overpopulation to begin with.
Eh. It has to do with the ruling group using Mandela's name to leverage themselves and being corrupt so that the achievements that might be possible are hollowed out. It's not too indepth but then I don't have an indepth understanding of their politics.

haven't read through your links yet, although I'll likely be getting to that later today, I promise.
You also might be more interested in Spolaore & Wacziarg (2013), How Deep are the Roots of Economic Development? (http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/downloads/roots.pdf) that focuses on genetic and geographic differences, which are seen as important in the literature considering the low institutional reach of the governance of developing countries.

Yep. That's economists talking about genetic distance. Pass the can-opener.

what I most certainly would not do is impose Western culture on them and force them to urbanize, a total disaster where it has ever happened.
Urbanisation tends to be a boon for development. It provides agglomeration economies, more efficient searching, and demand densities. Least that seems to be the consensus. I've never had much of a look at the literature since urban economics is not something I'm too interested in.

If I remember correct though rapid expansion of a city's population tends to place it on a lower production equilibria and that's the main problem with the build-up in places like Lagos and so on.

---

I more or less agree with not imposing Western culture. Least as far as Western culture isn't required to develop proper institutions.

allow me to reiterate...one billion people. what the West considers middle class is going to be maybe a quarter to a third of any population at the very most, so you've still going to have more ultraproletariat than the US has people.
Fun tangent whilst I'm being able to discuss economics.

I've begun to adopt the opinion that the middle-class is doomed because at their wage rates it's profitable to automate* a large proportion of their semi-skilled labour. It's what's been driving increasing wage unequalness and the wage premium for college degrees. What happens is that automation compliments the labour of the professional and managerial classes and technicians. These become more productive and earn more.

There higher earning facilitate various leisure economies, higher demand for this labour, where the workers are unskilled and have little scope to increase their own wages. It's also difficult to automate a lot of these jobs because it relies on person-to-person care, or jobs that require tacit knowledge [intuition] that's difficult to replicate in a programme. I have a feeling that this is going to revive leftist movements and class-based voting as it becomes evident.

---

*Or offshore. But this is coming to and end too. We can see premature de-industrialisation in a lot developing countries. This is bad for multiple reasons but that's not the point of this tangent. The point is that we're at a stage in human development where to industrialise it's taking a higher degree of factor-resources than tends to be embedded in these countries.

You see countries then aiming to develop through the advancement of a service sector - take India - but without the stepping stone of industrialisation available it's difficult to see the formation of a middle class occurring. In such a case - though it's not certain at the moment - it might become pragmatic to engage in some amount of protectionism.

[Arkansasguy]

there are too many of us on this planet. for most of human history, our total population stayed well below 1 billion people, as nature intended. but then, SCIENCE!

image (http://i.imgur.com/JuRB9nC.png)

ridiculous. look at that "wall" up there. it shouldn't even be controversial that something must be done about curbing population growth, but unfortunately we're myopic fools who are quite content to trash the planet in exchange for access to penicillin and iPhones.

it seems many people view overpopulation very simplistically, and these folks tend to belong to the Life Is Precious crew. they imagine the worst possible scenario being one of everyone having to live in high-rise commieblocks and bumping elbows more frequently. it's much worse than that. for one thing, humans require resources to survive (duh). along with 7 billion precious human lives, there are also 50 billion chickens, 1.4 billion cattle, and 1 billion pigs. when you think of resource consumption, you must factor in not just the human mouths, but the animal mouths that come with them. that's a lot of mouths.

some of these mouths are the culprits, but it's not so much what goes into them as what comes out. the Life Is Precious crew can frequently be found on college campuses, in the media, and on the Internet telling you not to worry because, well, haven't you watched My Little Transistor: Technology Is Magic™? perhaps the iPhone 12 will dispense Soylent Green or something. whatever. the point is, if you're listening to these people you should stop.

the Crew is unwittingly more dangerous than you might realize. how many times have you heard the phrase "Aid for Africa" and immediately pictured Starvin' Marvin crawling pitifully over parched ground in a swarm of flies? lest you think I'm laying it all at the feet of evil Marxists, Evangelical Christians also belong to the Life crew and share a big part of the blame for African overpopulation in particular. donating a few bucks or bags of old clothes you don't want is for Westerners a hit of emotional heroin - you get that little tingly altruistic rush knowing Mbeke might get to swill a few gulps of water before he's picked apart by hyenas. alternatively, he might survive into late adolescence and start a career, in a machete-wielding rape gang that is. apparently, raping infants cures AIDS (the more you know!)

I had to sit through this tripe many a time when I was younger and still went to church. "just ONE DOLLAR can provide fresh water for an entire African village for 500 years" or something, with Starvin' Marvin mugging for the camera. if you were flat broke I highly doubt having five kids would seem like a good idea to you, but for millions in Africa, it's all the rage. by "saving" Starvin' Marvin from starving, you inadvertently create five more Marvins who are in turn also starvin'. you should avoid any and all "Aid for Africa" charities like an AIDS-filled condom.

here's another interesting pic, for your consideration:

image (http://i.imgur.com/udouHp8.png)

this is notable because, in the West, when overpopulation is brought up, they want you to imagine white people like the Duggars soaking up precious resources with their triggeringly large white family. when it comes to resources, they think of the water that white people use to water their lawns. India's shitrivers and 10-figure population? China's anthill-cities that belch ton upon ton of pollution into the sky like volcanoes? not a peep. they certainly wouldn't like you to consider that moving our industry to a country that doesn't regulate what goes into the environment probably caused more problems than it solved.

none of our current political leaders want to address this issue in a way that isn't either batshit insane or just plain stupid and ineffective. pseudoconservatives are of course completely useless on this issue as all others. if lolbertarians had their way, the entire United States would be covered by a hellish ecumenopolis from sea to shining sea.

tl;dr - 500 million or bust. literally.

Overpopulation is a myth. But if you think it's real, then as they say "you first"

(I would never seriously encourage anyone to off themselves, even if they're an antihuman-ist)

[WeathermanSam1]

If all of the women had as much babies as Michelle Duggar, then we would have like 500 billion people...

The countries that should have less babies are China and India. Both have babies out of control



Posts merged. Next time, please use the 'edit' button. -Alluring

[phuckphace]

Overpopulation is a myth.

care to explain why that's so? the evidence appears to support the contrary.

[Jinglebottom]

Maybe men in conservative Muslim societies should stop marrying four women and have 5 kids with each (and then encourage their male children to do the same when they're grown). That would also means less morons with that nasty mentality.

[Arkansasguy]

care to explain why that's so? the evidence appears to support the contrary.

The west has a subreplacement birth rate. We'll die out if that doesn't change.

[lliam]

I'm firmly convinced, we humans haven't enough brain capacity to really establish an effective population control.

But nature or circumstances or both will do this at some point. Whether through war, degeneration, diseases, etc.

There are many regulatory mechanisms to shrink a species or to let it extinct completely.

[Exocet]

It's amazing the amount of nukes we have,but don't dare to even use to save the planet....
You nuke Africa and India,already 2 billions....

*cruel mode over*

[Stronk Serb]

It's amazing the amount of nukes we have,but don't dare to even use to save the planet....
You nuke Africa and India,already 2 billions....

*cruel mode over*

More, you will probably kill off half of our population.

[Exocet]

More, you will probably kill off half of our population.

Major problems need radical decisions.

[sqishy]

The west has a subreplacement birth rate. We'll die out if that doesn't change.

Just because there is a birth/death rate ratio of less than one, does not mean we will die out.
That is like fearing for instant frostbite when the temperature starts going below 32 'F.
In other words, it does not help to asssume that the rates now are going to be the same in the future.
Even if it does, there is no reason to worry yet.

[phuckphace]

The west has a subreplacement birth rate. We'll die out if that doesn't change.

the West isn't the whole world, though. the West (meaning white people) is dying out, but this local reduction is offset millions of times over by the prolific replacement rate of the third world.

[Arkansasguy]

Just because there is a birth/death rate ratio of less than one, does not mean we will die out.
That is like fearing for instant frostbite when the temperature starts going below 32 'F.
In other words, it does not help to asssume that the rates now are going to be the same in the future.
Even if it does, there is no reason to worry yet.

I'm certain the birth rate will change. Current trends show that it's plummeting, and there's no reason to think that will stop.

the West isn't the whole world, though. the West (meaning white people) is dying out, but this local reduction is offset millions of times over by the prolific replacement rate of the third world.

The West is our part of the world. The goings on of the west are more important to us than the goings on of Africa.

[Porpoise101]

I'm certain the birth rate will change. Current trends show that it's plummeting, and there's no reason to think that will stop.



The West is our part of the world. The goings on of the west are more important to us than the goings on of Africa.
Not really if the goings on elsewhere start to have an affect on your "section". You can't deny that the world is connected in many ways.

[sqishy]

I'm certain the birth rate will change. Current trends show that it's plummeting, and there's no reason to think that will stop.


Interventions can be done if those rates do accelerate downwards sufficiently. I don't see why it needs to be done now; there are so many of us in the so-called developed world as it is.

[phuckphace]

The West is our part of the world. The goings on of the west are more important to us than the goings on of Africa.

I don't see how this fact makes overpopulation a "myth"?

the fact is we live in a globalized world whether we want to or no, and part of being globalized means when someone else falls, we stumble too. I don't understand how you can ignore that.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't understand how you can ignore that.

If there's a will there's a way... :P

[sqishy]

If there's a will there's a way... :P

Unfortunately so.

[Arkansasguy]

I don't see how this fact makes overpopulation a "myth"?

the fact is we live in a globalized world whether we want to or no, and part of being globalized means when someone else falls, we stumble too. I don't understand how you can ignore that.

It's a myth in the sense that it's primary assertion, that people need to have less kids, is substantially false.

I fail to see, for that matter, the harm that is done to Africa by its high birth rate. Africa was a craphole before it had a high birth rate, so I don't see the connection between Africa's underdevelopment and its high birth rate.

[sqishy]

I fail to see, for that matter, the harm that is done to Africa by its high birth rate. Africa was a craphole before it had a high birth rate, so I don't see the connection between Africa's underdevelopment and its high birth rate.

Here is one reason why.


Firstly: a certain number of people have a certain amount of food.

Then: the number of people increases and the amount of food stays generally the same.

Finally: there are more people per amount of food, so everyone gets less.


Where hunger and emaciation are serious issues, the situation has got worse.

[phuckphace]

It's a myth in the sense that it's primary assertion, that people need to have less kids, is substantially false.

it's a fact however that the wrong kind of people are having too many kids (ultra-poors) and that the right kind (white people with social capital) aren't having enough. do you know how many young white guys out there would like to start a family but can't even think about it because they're busy paying off student loans and a heavy payroll tax to feed Froot Loops and fried chicken to Shaniqua and her litter of eight thuglets? way too many, I'll tell you that right now.

I fail to see, for that matter, the harm that is done to Africa by its high birth rate. Africa was a craphole before it had a high birth rate, so I don't see the connection between Africa's underdevelopment and its high birth rate.

extremely high birthrates are generally the hallmark of the poor and stupid (but not always/everywhere, in Victorian times for example having a lot of children was a sign of success) so I'd say Africa's situation is rather self-explanatory. in a place like Africa, the more people born, the more of them there are to starve and die.

[Arkansasguy]

it's a fact however that the wrong kind of people are having too many kids (ultra-poors) and that the right kind (white people with social capital) aren't having enough. do you know how many young white guys out there would like to start a family but can't even think about it because they're busy paying off student loans and a heavy payroll tax to feed Froot Loops and fried chicken to Shaniqua and her litter of eight thuglets? way too many, I'll tell you that right now.



extremely high birthrates are generally the hallmark of the poor and stupid (but not always/everywhere, in Victorian times for example having a lot of children was a sign of success) so I'd say Africa's situation is rather self-explanatory. in a place like Africa, the more people born, the more of them there are to starve and die.

So the problem is a social system which looks down on procreation. The solution then is not to promote contraception (which gives a reproductive advantage to those who are least susceptible to social pressure, the poor and stupid), but rather to promote procreation. If anything, fornication should be restricted, if you want to limit the reproduction of dregs. Plus, if fornication is restricted it might inspire cads and sluts to settle down and become respectable.

[sqishy]

So the problem is a social system which looks down on procreation. The solution then is not to promote contraception (which gives a reproductive advantage to those who are least susceptible to social pressure, the poor and stupid), but rather to promote procreation. If anything, fornication should be restricted, if you want to limit the reproduction of dregs. Plus, if fornication is restricted it might inspire cads and sluts to settle down and become respectable.

How would the promotion of procreation and the discouraging of contraception lower the population??

[Vlerchan]

Current trends show that it's plummeting, and there's no reason to think that will stop.
Here we show, using new cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the total fertility rate and the human development index (HDI), a fundamental change in the well-established negative relationship between fertility and development as the global population entered the twenty-first century. Although development continues to promote fertility decline at low and medium HDI levels, our analyses show that at advanced HDI levels, further development can reverse the declining trend in fertility. The previously negative development–fertility relationship has become J-shaped, with the HDI being positively associated with fertility among highly developed countries.

Mrskyla, M., Kohler, H. and Billari, F. (2009) Advances in Development Reverse Fertility Declines, Nature, 460, pp. 741 - 743. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/nature08230.html)

Before I continue I'll add that Nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)) is a major interdisciplinary science journal. However the situation can be explained with reference to the economic principals of opportunity cost. In non-developed agrarian economies there is a small cost to having children and these children are quick to produce dividends. This logic is turned on its head as economies become more and more advanced - i.e. industrialise - insofar as the investment starts getting larger and larger and there's less of a return. However as economies reach a most advanced stage the relative investment diminishes and thus the number of children to be had increases.

So - Yes - if we'd all just kept on a serf-ing I imagine this wouldn't be happening. However I'll add again that I don't believe retaining Feudalism was possible.

The social pressures can be considered in Marxian terms of base-superstructure too. If we look to subsaharan africa we can see that families with more children are seen as being more secure - and in that environment: successful. However in our post-industrialised societies those with more children tend to be seen as without ambition - a no-no. These social pressures emerged as we shifted from one mode of production of the other - emphasising the effects of this shift.

---

The strength of this effect can be explained with reference to just woman too. It's the case that when woman were in the home and tied to men it was safe for them to have a number of children. There position became more tenuous during the equal wage struggles and so on of the 1960s. However as woman begin to establish themselves in their societies - and pressure is exerted on father's to undertake a more active contribution - woman find themselves in a more stable position and holding a greater likelihood to bear children.

This argument is laid out in a JEP article I can't find. If I do I'll link it.

I fail to see, for that matter, the harm that is done to Africa by its high birth rate.
It results in a lower savings rate and thus less investment - in the long-run where savings equals investment [there's an important but irrelevant qualifier here - I can expand if required but to avoid confusion I'm just going to ignore it]. This is coupled with a higher population depressing wages and inhibiting capitalists from swapping into capital [i.e. industrialising].

Africa was a craphole before it had a high birth rate, so I don't see the connection between Africa's underdevelopment and its high birth rate.
I'm of the opinion that lower fertility rates correlates with development more-so as a result of development prompting lower-fertility and not that higher-fertility has a catastrophic impact of development. However that doesn't remove the idea that higher-fertility inhibits growth even if it's not the dominant factor.

Just because I'm interested I'd also appreciate if the claim that Africa's fertility rates weren't always this high were sourced.

---

Firstly: a certain number of people have a certain amount of food.

Then: the number of people increases and the amount of food stays generally the same.

Finally: there are more people per amount of food, so everyone gets less.

The issue is that across the globe food per capita has been on the rise. The problem with Malthus' argument - this is more-or-less Malthus' argument - is that it ignores technological shifts.

This is in particular poor form when these technological shifts tend to be defining of patterns of economic development.

[sqishy]

The issue is that across the globe food per capita has been on the rise. The problem with Malthus' argument - this is more-or-less Malthus' argument - is that it ignores technological shifts.

This is in particular poor form when these technological shifts tend to be defining of patterns of economic development.

That also, yes. You'd know more about it than I do.