International Population growth in Africa & Europe this century.

[Ice That Jaw]

World War Z wall scene is coming.
Europeans need to reject cultural relativism, learn from the Jews and get a healthy dose of ethnocentrism.
It's already happening, I just hope it happens fast enough to salvage the GOAT people's future.

 

[BassAckwards]

These videos are always fascinating in the things that they don't discuss.

For example - Africa is 3x the landmass of Europe. It makes plenty of sense for the population in Africa to eventually be larger than the population of Europe.

30% of the world's natural resources are in Africa. Again, it would make sense that a part of the world with a huge percentage of the world's resources plus 20% of the world's landmass should eventually have a larger percentage of the world's population. Only Asia is a larger continent and, naturally, they have a larger percentage of the world's population.

good point but the govts there are so corrupt and mismanage everything. so these rapefugees go to europe because they want the free benefits and better opportunities. even when they dont have jobs, they have a better quality of life than back in africa. this is why taking them in is a bad thing; sure, the people who make it live better but their country of origin is still fucked up and it only promotes more people to leave their chit hole.

 

[djacobox372]

The population density of Africa is about half that of Europe.

So I'm not sure what TS point is.

 

[Carl Sonnen]

Instead of blaming a certain demographic, I find it a powerful tool to sometimes see things from their eyes. The culture is different there and it's asinine to blame these people or compare them to our cultural standards.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I'm sure nothing bad will happen in Africa to curb this population explosion.

 

[tinker_190]

Thanks for your response. You hit a bunch of good points and helped me understand.

My question for you, and I don't have an agenda with this I genuinely want to know your opinion, is that are you in favor less international interaction in general? As in less international trade, immigration etc. Do you think it would be better for each country to more or less keep to itself and develop from within?

Some of the Scandinavian countries poll very high in terms of happiness statistics and they also have some of the world's strictest immigration policies. Of course, what the right wing doesn't like, is that these are also socialist nations.

So I know that this preface is really unnecessary, but I need to start by saying that I fully recognize that it's an extremely complicated problem for a ton of different reasons. International trade has been a growing force globally since... forever. Human migration has been a thing since... forever. It has also always been tied to growing technology for human travel. Early horse development led to new people coming to the Indus valley. Better metals = more people = more specialization, etc. Technology led to better navigation, ship trade, development of finance, etc. So international trade is growing in scope and it generates big pluses and minuses. The technology developments that this impulse has led to over time has increased the capacity for war. It has lead to such a huge economy that the environment is being threatened. But it also has pluses like the fact that international trade can really allow countries to rise out of third world status, and thus increase the quality of life for huge swaths of people worldwide. Think about this - China grew wealth in part building plastic items to sell for cheap in the US. The plastic was made from oil from Saudi Arabia, a nation involved in violence and terrorism. The USA has to back the petro-dollar and is involved in endless wars globally. It's certainly so all encompassing it seems moot to try to undo it. The idea of globalism and it as a driving force has been going on forever.

So, in short, I recognize the positives and negatives of the pressure of globalism/internationalism. I am, in general, of the persuasion that natural, voluntary organization of groups will result in the most peace, that individual freedom trumps group interests, and that good fences make good neighbors. I find a lot of the international groups like the IMF or UN or even major players (USA, Russia, China, EU) to be too intrusive and coercive with how they handle their globalist interests versus that of the common person in each country.

I know that's a lot of word-salad-diarrhea but it's a subject that needs a lot of words, and I am still not very happy with my own response

 

[Teppodama]

Guess the American people need to organize around pushing Planned Parenthood to Africa. Stop federally funding them except for centers based in Africa. After all, don't they need some of that sweet PP care as well?

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

Carpet bomb with condoms and safe sex pamphlets

Yeah, about that..
My neighbors daughter did some missionary work in Africa and using condoms was part of her groups teaching. They showed them how to put them on using broom handles.
Take a guess how they found them using condoms when they returned a few months later.
That's right, on broom handles.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

This is why we need to stop aiding Africa. We are enabling them, and ultimately it is coming back to hurt us.

Says the guy with no knowledge of sociology or economics. You are absolutely out of your mind if you think that building infrastructure, providing medicine and education is going to hurt us. It goes against virtually every shred of what we know from sociology. As education goes up, as life expectancy and infant mortality stabilize, their birth rates will go down. If you abandon them that is when birth rates skyrocket.

 

[all caps]

I'm sure nothing bad will happen in Africa to curb this population explosion.

 

[JamesRussler]

Says the guy with no knowledge of sociology or economics. You are absolutely out of your mind if you think that building infrastructure, providing medicine and education is going to hurt us. It goes against virtually every shred of what we know from sociology. As education goes up, as life expectancy and infant mortality stabilize, their birth rates will go down. If you abandon them that is when birth rates skyrocket.

None of that should be our problem

 

[JamesRussler]

 

[Bald1]

These videos are always fascinating in the things that they don't discuss.

For example - Africa is 3x the landmass of Europe. It makes plenty of sense for the population in Africa to eventually be larger than the population of Europe.

30% of the world's natural resources are in Africa. Again, it would make sense that a part of the world with a huge percentage of the world's resources plus 20% of the world's landmass should eventually have a larger percentage of the world's population. Only Asia is a larger continent and, naturally, they have a larger percentage of the world's population.

Begs the question of why such a land, manpower and resource rich people don't take advantage of the opportunities they have.

 

[panamaican]

Begs the question of why such a land, manpower and resource rich people don't take advantage of the opportunities they have.

It's a pretty complicated issue and it involves colonialism.

Basically, most of those African countries only gained independence from colonial powers since the 1950s. While under colonial rule, the foreign countries exploited the local resources to enrich the primary country, not to develop the African one. Additionally, even when the colonial powers pulled out, their companies remained in control of many of those resources so even though the African countries were independent, they didn't control the resources that could enrich them. On top of that, the local population was never taught, trained, etc. on how to take advantage of the resources so they remained dependent on foreign expertise until they can develop sufficient homegrown talent.

Also relevant is the national borders themselves. Many of the borders in those countries were created by the colonial powers, not the Africans themselves. One negative consequence of such a system is that groups that had no affinity for each other and often had animosity towards each other were suddenly forced to co-govern a "nation" before they'd even finished settling their own differences.

Sorting out all of those things takes quite a bit of time. People have to manage their inter-community differences, organize and run a government, find out how to regain control of their natural resources while not having been given the opportunity to learn the skills necessary to maximize those resources and simultaneously catch up to the rest of the global economy on the fly.

It's going to take more than 50 years to get through. A far more instructive area would be to examine the growth from date of independence to now on a country by country basis, factoring in the things I've mentioned and then separating out which countries have made tremendous progress vs. which ones have not and what leads to those different outcomes.

 

[Bald1]

It's a pretty complicated issue and it involves colonialism.

Basically, most of those African countries only gained independence from colonial powers since the 1950s. While under colonial rule, the foreign countries exploited the local resources to enrich the primary country, not to develop the African one. Additionally, even when the colonial powers pulled out, their companies remained in control of many of those resources so even though the African countries were independent, they didn't control the resources that could enrich them. On top of that, the local population was never taught, trained, etc. on how to take advantage of the resources so they remained dependent on foreign expertise until they can develop sufficient homegrown talent.

Also relevant is the national borders themselves. Many of the borders in those countries were created by the colonial powers, not the Africans themselves. One negative consequence of such a system is that groups that had no affinity for each other and often had animosity towards each other were suddenly forced to co-govern a "nation" before they'd even finished settling their own differences.

Sorting out all of those things takes quite a bit of time. People have to manage their inter-community differences, organize and run a government, find out how to regain control of their natural resources while not having been given the opportunity to learn the skills necessary to maximize those resources and simultaneously catch up to the rest of the global economy on the fly.

It's going to take more than 50 years to get through. A far more instructive area would be to examine the growth from date of independence to now on a country by country basis, factoring in the things I've mentioned and then separating out which countries have made tremendous progress vs. which ones have not and what leads to those different outcomes.

With the exception of still not being in control of resources after the end of colonialism you just described central/eastern European nations to a tee. And that's a topic I'm quite familar with. To add, brain drain is something that needs to be factored in as well in both cases. Unfortunately African countrues do not have the option that many Warsaw pact countries did, and that is the opportunity to join an economic powerhouse such as the EU.

So, fair enough, yet migrating to Europe or giving control to China isn't of benefit either

 

[Joe265]

Great little video from Mark Steyn entitled Tomorrow by the Numbers. It's about how much the population of Western Europe & Sub-Sahara Africa will change from the beginning to the end of the 21st century. It's all pretty scary stuff really, if you are in Europe anyway.
The growth in the number of people in Africa over this century will be staggering. While at the same time Western Europeans just aren't having many kids anymore, if any at all.
There are already thousands leaving Africa in little boats and rubber dingies hoping to be picked up by people like the Italian navy, once they're picked up they've made it.
If millions of Africans wish to make the journey to Europe, then Europe with find it cannot defend itself.

People that make predictions suck at making predictions. They are just peddling fear, which sells very easily in this cowardly generation as verifiable proof. Just cowards leading cowards.

Cowards can’t help but try to anticipate threats before they manifest. But when has the coward ever seen things clearly? They take a couple of data points that trigger their fears and then extrapolate wildly, ignoring the staggering incompleteness of their data.

 

[panamaican]

With the exception of still not being in control of resources after the end of colonialism you just described central/eastern European nations to a tee. And that's a topic I'm quite familar with. To add, brain drain is something that needs to be factored in as well in both cases. Unfortunately African countrues do not have the option that many Warsaw pact countries did, and that is the opportunity to join an economic powerhouse such as the EU.

So, fair enough, yet migrating to Europe or giving control to China isn't of benefit either

I have mixed opinion on both the migration conversation and the China conversation. I think people are being fairly superficial here. Brain drain is an issue but as India and China have both demonstrated, a valuable percentage of the people who leave the country will eventually return once they've acquired enough skills to be helpful. And then they will put things into place that reduce the need for the highly intelligent to leave in the first place.

If the home country lacks the skilled population to train the next generation and lacks the economic opportunity to make enough money to help themselves then the local population needs to go out and find those opportunities on their own. Once acquired, they can go back and train the next generation or create economic opportunities that did not exist when they left. As Jay-Z said "I can't help the poor if I'm one of them." And this already happens, it just takes time to build a critical mass locally.

China's situation is fairly similar yet in the reverse as far as where, China is offering a path towards technological and economic advancement that no one else is offering. Is it a tough deal clearly in China's favor? Yes. But if the other option is do nothing and wither then China is the far better choice. I mentioned training - one of the things that China is offering Africans is more opportunity for higher education in the areas that can be used when they return home, more and more African students are going to China to study engineering and other STEM fields instead of the West.

Absolute worst case scenario for China is that an African nation defaults on their loans and then uses their government power to nationalize those assets for whatever reason. China would have to either take control by force or work their way through the international courts. There's risk on both side and so both sides have an incentive to operate above board. China is making the smart move, imo. Africa is resource rich in the very resources that are necessary in the future and they are going to be a growing global population. China is attempting to form the types of bonds that will lead those developing nations to choose them over nations in the West. When those African nations are eventually economically powerful enough to matter, they're going to remember those relationships and where they studied and choose the economic and trading partner that they feel most closely aligned with.

People who spend their time bemoaning the portended global demographic changes instead of finding out how to benefit from it are short-sighted, imo. I hope that my government doesn't fall into that category and is smart enough to ignore the mindless mob while forging the type of relationships that keep us ahead of China in terms of African country loyalty.

 

[King Koopa]

Great little video from Mark Steyn entitled Tomorrow by the Numbers. It's about how much the population of Western Europe & Sub-Sahara Africa will change from the beginning to the end of the 21st century. It's all pretty scary stuff really, if you are in Europe anyway.
The growth in the number of people in Africa over this century will be staggering. While at the same time Western Europeans just aren't having many kids anymore, if any at all.
There are already thousands leaving Africa in little boats and rubber dingies hoping to be picked up by people like the Italian navy, once they're picked up they've made it.
If millions of Africans wish to make the journey to Europe, then Europe with find it cannot defend itself.

.....

 

[all caps]

Also relevant is the national borders themselves. Many of the borders in those countries were created by the colonial powers, not the Africans themselves. One negative consequence of such a system is that groups that had no affinity for each other and often had animosity towards each other were suddenly forced to co-govern a "nation" before they'd even finished settling their own differences.

Can this be called anything other than evil?

 

[panamaican]

Can this be called anything other than evil?

Nope. Especially because the reason those warring groups were placed together in the first place was that their in-fighting facilitated the colonial power remaining in power and the colonial powers often instigated and promoted said in-fighting for the same reason.

Then to just walk away and "Hey, you guys that we know hate each other and whom we encouraged to hate each other, run a democratic government." Shit is fucking brutal.