Myers on Africa...

ei.sdraob

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-africa-has-to-learn-lessons--the-hard-way-if-necessary-1929014.html

so Myers writes again


this time i sort of agree with him that rising population is a problem


but i can not help but see the obvious hypocrisy in his article, with Ireland having highest birth rates in Europe and people getting into fit even when one suggests that having a lot of sprogs is a large responsibility, and its unfair to to be dependant on state and child supplements to feed them

mike65

The difference is that here (as in all Europe) todays sprogs are tomorrows pension payment creators.

Macha

Congratulations Myers, for totally ignoring the European hand in making Africa what it is today.

Another story today: Shell says would fight Chinese grab in Nigeria

So the rest of the world seems happy to get involved in Africa when it suits them. I don't see any Myers articles about these neo-colonial scrambles.

ei.sdraob

mike65 wrote: »

The difference is that here (as in all Europe) todays sprogs are tomorrows pension payment creators.

translated: todays children's are slaves to the pension pyramid scheme

mike65

Someone has to pay for the likes of you and me in 20/30/40 years time.

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but i can not help but see the obvious hypocrisy in his article, with Ireland having highest birth rates in Europe and people getting into fit even when one suggests that having a lot of sprogs is a large responsibility, and its unfair to to be dependant on state and child supplements to feed them

We are below replacement level TFR.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Congratulations Myers, for totally ignoring the European hand in making Africa what it is today.
.

good point

BUT some may point out that most African colonies became states around the same time Ireland became an official state in 1948 and lost its British ties

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

We are below replacement level TFR.

are you sure? lets not forget inward migration (which now reversed but nevertheless we do now have more mixed society)

http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/population-statistics-for-ireland/12/Population-Growth-of-Ireland.html

P. Breathnach

It makes individual sense for poor people in under-developed countries to have large families. Myers is applying first-world thinking to third-world problems.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It makes individual sense for poor people in under-developed countries to have large families. Myers is applying first-world thinking to third-world problems.

that is also true and lets not forget religion is having large role in having large families too (as was case in Ireland not too long ago)


but lets take an example of ex USSR

after the collapse of USSR the place got raped into 3rd world living standards

people were simply not making babies (and now there is -10% population growth) because they couldn't bear/afford to bring a child into the world in such misery, crime and poverty

this could probably be attributed to high education standards that existed or the general pragmatism of the population

jimmmy

The proplem is , the population of the world has trebled since the end of the second world war. That sort of growth is not sustainable. The resources on earth are very finite. Our planet has survived for many thousands of years and we cannot go from a world population of 1 billion to 2 billion to 6 billion without expecting difficulties....and suppose its 18 billion in a generation or twos time ?

994

The Ethiopian famine of the 80s was more due to war than underproduction of food. And Ethiopia has a smaller population than Germany despite being 3 times the size.

And had Myers bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia, he'd have found

Ethiopia has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, according to The Economist. ... the fastest-growing non-oil-dependent African nation in 2007 ... It also has the greatest water reserves in Africa, but few irrigation systems in place to use it. Just 1% is used for power production and 1.5% for irrigation ... Ethiopia has a big potential and it is one of the most fertile countries. According to the New York Times, Ethiopia "could easily become the breadbasket for much of Europe if her agriculture were better organized."

So actually Kevin, it's not the case of stupid darkies breeding out of control.

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

BUT some may point out that most African colonies became states around the same time Ireland became an official state in 1948 and lost its British ties

There is a huge difference between Ireland as a post-colonial state and many African countries.

Firstly, we had the traditions, mechanisms and institutions of democracy in place when we gained our independence - most African nations did not.

Secondly, we did not have huge amounts of strategic natural resources that major world powers were hell-bent on gaining/reserving access to.

Edit: jimmy - it isn't the consumption patterns of most Africans that is bringing huge pressure on the world's natural resources but rather it's the consumption patterns in wealthy nations, eg us.

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

are you sure? lets not forget inward migration (which now reversed but nevertheless we do now have more mixed society)

http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/population-statistics-for-ireland/12/Population-Growth-of-Ireland.html

Our population is increasing because of population momentum and immigration. Population momentum is when a large number of a specific part of the population hit child bearing age at the same time, like the baby boom generation in the US. Ireland is there now. The other reason for the increase is immigration.

The replacement level is 2.1 children per woman. The last figures I have access to have it at 1.85 for Ireland, which in European terms is huge, but still below replacement level long term.

The reason a lot of African countries populations are booming is because birth rates are averaging 5 or 6 children per woman.

speedboatchase

Good article, point well-made. A lot of white guilt out there, not surprised people are trying to talk about colonialism 150-200 years ago rather than what's actually happening today and focus on how the of population growth etc can be turned

Macha

speedboatchase wrote: »

Good article, point well-made. A lot of white guilt out there, not surprised people are trying to talk about colonialism 150-200 years ago rather than what's actually happening today and focus on how the of population growth etc can be turned

Er...the decolonisation of most African states happened after WWII..

bill_ashmount

jimmmy wrote: »

The proplem is , the population of the world has trebled since the end of the second world war. That sort of growth is not sustainable. The resources on earth are very finite. Our planet has survived for many thousands of years and we cannot go from a world population of 1 billion to 2 billion to 6 billion without expecting difficulties....and suppose its 18 billion in a generation or twos time ?

It's going to hit about 9 billion by 2050, it won't make 18 billion ever, unless something dramatically changes. It should start to level off after 2050. However between now and 2050, that is an extra 2,200 million people to feed, look after etc.

I agree with you on finite resources, I believe we are in for major trouble this century. Either way, nature will find the right level for the number of humans she wants to support long term.

speedboatchase

taconnol wrote: »

Er...the decolonisation of most African states happened after WWII..

I wasn't talking about decolonisation. I was talking about people constantly invoking arguments based on colonisation and victimhood in an argument about today's population growth in Africa when the governments can't get their houses in order and there is zero long-term planning for sustainability and population control in the region. Why would there be, when we're always good for a handout

jimmmy

bill_ashmount wrote: »

It's going to hit about 9 billion by 2050, it won't make 18 billion ever, unless something dramatically changes.

As far as I remember ( I was not alive then but have read about it ) at the end of WW2 world population was 2 billion....now its over 6 billion.
Thats an extra 4 billion people.... I know us in the west consume more oil etc than poor people , but the poor people in Africa / central America etc do not want to stay poor....many are moving north etc. Poor people in Afghanistan grow poppies unless we pay them enough not to.

Amtmann

Demography will be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century. Myers is absolutely correct to point out that the African situation is completely unsustainable and downright dangerous.
Meanwhile in Europe we have the calamitous situation where all of our populations (bar that of Albania, possibly) are dropping, in some cases halving every generation. Italy and Spain, I believe, are on the 1.2 TFR mark, while countries like Estonia are facing a 50% reduction by the 2050s. Of the population left in Europe, an enormous coterie will be middle aged or older, meaning that we are facing a demographic death spiral the likes of which has not been seen before.
Spare a thought for 'Mother' Russia, though; because there the population is falling by almost 700,000 per year. The country is aborting itself out of existence. If trends continue (and demographers think they probably will), Russia could have a population of under 30 million by the nineties.

So the dichotomy is that population among the most uneducated and superstitious segment of the world's population is growing at a startling pace, while those of the wealthier, educated countries is plummeting furiously. Trouble's brewing.

EDIT: TFR rates worldwide.

Macha

speedboatchase wrote: »

I wasn't talking about decolonisation. I was talking about people constantly invoking arguments based on colonisation and victimhood in an argument about today's population growth in Africa when the governments can't get their houses in order and there is zero long-term planning for sustainability and population control in the region. Why would there be, when we're always good for a handout

Look at what is in bold. Are you going to argue that decolonisation has nothing to do with colonisation?

Also, as a country that has been a net recipient of EU handouts that are estimated to reach €41billion by 2013, I find complaints about handouts" risible.

Nodin

speedboatchase wrote: »

I wasn't talking about decolonisation. I was talking about people constantly invoking arguments based on colonisation and victimhood ...

......which you implied happened 150-200 years ago when in fact the process of decolonisation only started post WWII.

Bottle_of_Smoke

994 wrote: »

The Ethiopian famine of the 80s was more due to war than underproduction of food. And Ethiopia has a smaller population than Germany despite being 3 times the size.

And had Myers bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia, he'd have found



So actually Kevin, it's not the case of stupid darkies breeding out of control.

So if they have such a great economy why do we have to feed them?

Gonna agree with Myers. We have to stop rewarding the ridiculous amounts of children Africans tend to have.

bill_ashmount

jimmmy wrote: »

As far as I remember ( I was not alive then but have read about it ) at the end of WW2 world population was 2 billion....now its over 6 billion.
Thats an extra 4 billion people.... I know us in the west consume more oil etc than poor people , but the poor people in Africa / central America etc do not want to stay poor....many are moving north etc. Poor people in Afghanistan grow poppies unless we pay them enough not to.

These are some of the problems. When everyone lives at a western standard of living which they are entitled to imo, it is going to put severe pressure on the planet. Plus like I said add another 2 billion plus in the next 40 years and you can see the potential for major problems.

ei.sdraob

Furet wrote: »

Spare a thought for 'Mother' Russia, though; because there the population is falling by almost 700,000 per year. The country is aborting itself out of existence. If trends continue (and demographers think they probably will), Russia could have a population of under 30 million by the nineties.

they are not aborting themselves out of anything, people are choosing not to have kids due to very negative environment

if you ever visit Russia you would understand why its a very hard choice to bring a child into the world in that country

tho things might be changing as Putin is now offering several thousand dollars to each new mother

Macha

bill_ashmount wrote: »

When everyone lives at a western standard of living which they are entitled to imo, it is going to put severe pressure on the planet.

While I acknowledge the material necessities that the western standard of living provides for, I don't think holding up our grossly materialistic way of life as the ideal is the best idea.

bill_ashmount

taconnol wrote: »

While I acknowledge the material necessities that the western standard of living provides for, I don't think holding up our grossly materialistic way of life as the ideal is the best idea.

I agree, but it's seems like the rest of the world wants it. It must look attractive if you don't have it.

Amtmann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they are not aborting themselves out of anything, people are choosing not to have kids due to very negative environment

if you ever visit Russia you would understand why its a very hard choice to bring a child into the world in that country

tho things might be changing as Putin is now offering several thousand dollars to each new mother

You might not like the way I've put it, but that's effectively what is happening. Russia is a country where most pregnancies end in termination rather than birth. Now, I raised this not to talk about the morality of abortion (I am pro-choice btw), but rather to show the contrast with the Ethiopian situation. Putin has introduced pro-natalist policies, but most demographers feel this is too little, and far too late.

Dull people know that clever people are cleverer than they are, but they do not know why. The nekulturny Colonel Ralph Peters, a former US military intelligence analyst, is impressed by the tactical success of Russian arms in Georgia, but cannot fathom the end-game to which these tactics contribute. He writes, "The new reality is that a nuclear, cash-rich and energy-blessed Russia doesn't really worry too much whether its long-term future is bleak, given problems with Muslim minorities, poor life-expectancy rates, and a declining population. Instead, in the here and now, it has a window of opportunity to reclaim prestige and weaken its adversaries."

Precisely the opposite is true: like a good chess player, Putin has the end-game in mind as he fights for control of the board in the early stages of the game. Demographics stand at the center of Putin's calculation, and Russians are the principal interest that the Russian Federation has in its so-called near abroad. The desire of a few hundred thousand Abkhazians and South Ossetians to remain in the Russian Federation rather than Georgia may seem trivial, but Moscow is setting a precedent that will apply to tens of millions of prospective citizens of the Federation - most controversially in Ukraine.

Before turning to the demographics of the near abroad, a few observations about Russia's demographic predicament are pertinent. The United Nations publishes population projections for Russia up to 2050, and I have extended these to 2100. If the UN demographers are correct, Russia's adult population will fall from about 90 million today to only 20 million by the end of the century. Russia is the only country where abortions are more numerous than live births, a devastating gauge of national despair.

Under Putin, the Russian government introduced an ambitious natalist program to encourage Russian women to have children. As he warned in his 2006 state of the union address, "You know that our country's population is declining by an average of almost 700,000 people a year. We have raised this issue on many occasions but have for the most part done very little to address it ... First, we need to lower the death rate. Second, we need an effective migration policy. And third, we need to increase the birth rate."

Russia's birth rate has risen slightly during the past several years, perhaps in response to Putin's natalism, but demographers observe that the number of Russian women of childbearing age is about to fall off a cliff. No matter how much the birth rate improves, the sharp fall in the number of prospective mothers will depress the number of births. UN forecasts show the number of Russians aged 20-29 falling from 25 million today to only 10 million by 2040.

Russia, in other words, has passed the point of no return in terms of fertility. Although roughly four-fifths of the population of the Russian Federation is considered ethnic Russians, fertility is much higher among the Muslim minorities in Central Asia. Some demographers predict a Muslim majority in Russia by 2040, and by mid-century at the latest.

Part of Russia's response is to encourage migration of Russians left outside the borders of the federation after the collapse of communism in 1991. An estimated 6.5 million Russians from the former Soviet Union now work in Russia as undocumented aliens, and a new law will regularize their status. Only 20,000 Russian "compatriots" living abroad, however, have applied for immigration to the federation under a new law designed to draw Russians back.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tho things might be changing as Putin is now offering several thousand dollars to each new mother

It will be interesting to see if this works. Other countries tried it before and it had a very small effect. Signapore tried it if I remember correctly, it only increased their birthrate by a few hundred. They decided then to concentrate on immigration. Once a birthrate drops it can be hard to get it to increase again, people become accustomed to a certain way of living. You won't find to many Irish women now who want 7 or 8 children, no matter what incentives you offer them.

Macha

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I agree, but it's seems like the rest of the world wants it. It must look attractive if you don't have it.

Of course it's attractive in the short term like a shiny bauble you see in the shop but once you get it home you realise you didn't really need it, it wasn't as amazing as you thought it was and now what the hell are you going to do with all the packaging.

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if this works. Other countries tried it before and it had a very small effect. Signapore tried it if I remember correctly, it only increased their birthrate by a few hundred. They decided then to concentrate on immigration. Once a birthrate drops it can be hard to get it to increase again, people become accustomed to a certain way of living. You won't find to many Irish women now who want 7 or 8 children, no matter what incentives you offer them.

a few here keeps on assuming that dropping populations are a bad thing

why?

just because theres less slaves to pay your pension is not a valid reason, whats wrong with saving for own pension/retirement?

less people => less pressure on environment

less people => more wealth passed on to the siblings

less people => more resources left for siblings


one of the factors attributing to population slowdown is increased education, people just realize that you can have 1-2 children and give them the best advantage and attention

bill_ashmount

taconnol wrote: »

Of course it's attractive in the short term like a shiny bauble you see in the shop but once you get it home you realise you didn't really need it, it wasn't as amazing as you thought it was and now what the hell are you going to do with all the packaging.

Agreed. A combination of all these things above makes me think we are in big trouble (to put it mildly).

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a few here keeps on assuming that dropping populations are a bad thing

why?

just because theres less slaves to pay your pension is not a valid reason, whats wrong with saving for own pension/retirement?

less people => less pressure on environment

less people => more wealth passed on to the siblings

less people => more resources left for siblings


one of the factors attributing to population slowdown is increased education, people just realize that you can have 1-2 children and give them the best advantage and attention

I believe the world is over-populated. There are major issues to face with a declining population, I believe however they are easier to solve than the issues that come with a rapidly increasing population.

Dropping poulations are considered a bad thing by economists because it limits the market and by politicians because it lessens your level of influence in the world. The bigger the country the more clout they have. I agree with neither.

Amtmann

I would suggest that the fact that western populations are declining so markedly has the potential to create much strife.

1) In Europe many services depend on tax intake to pay for them. As populations get older the need for services (notably health) becomes greater, but the means to pay for them diminishes with the tax take. Looking at Spain and Italy for instance, this will be a huge problem. Social democracy might not be feasible a few decades hence.

2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.

* Disclaimer: I am not a believer in the Eurabia prediction of Bat Y'eor et al., nor am I in any way nationalistic (I consider myself a post-nationalist), but these are problems for the societies we live in. Declining human population might be good for the Earth and biodiversity, but within humanity, such a demographic discrepancy between rich and poor/educated and uneducated, in the scramble for resources, might prove devastating.

bill_ashmount

Furet wrote: »

I would suggest that the fact that western populations are declining so markedly has the potential to create much strife.

1) In Europe many services depend on tax intake to pay for them. As populations get older the need for services (notably health) becomes greater, but the means to pay for them diminishes with the tax take. Looking at Spain and Italy for instance, this will be a huge problem. Social democracy might not be feasible a few decades hence.

2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.

* Disclaimer: I am not a believer in the Eurabia prediction of Bat Y'eor et al., nor am I in any way nationalistic (I consider myself a post-nationalist), but these are problems for the societies we live in. Declining human population might be good for the Earth and biodiversity, but within humanity, such a demographic discrepancy between rich and poor/educated and uneducated, in the scramble for resources, might prove devastating.

I don't see how bringing in massive amounts of immigrants solves the problem though. All it will do is delay it for a few years. You will then need more again to pay for the traditional population plus the original immigrants in a never ending upwards spiral. Anyway this isn't an immigration discussion so I'll leave it there.

The demographic discrepancy you mention is one of the major issues, with the overall size imo being the greatest dilemma of all.

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I don't see how bringing in massive amounts of immigrants solves the problem though. All it will do is delay it for a few years. You will then need more again to pay for the traditional population plus the original immigrants in a never ending upwards spiral. Anyway this isn't an immigration discussion so I'll leave it there.

The demographic discrepancy you mention is one of the major issues, with the overall size imo being the greatest dilemma of all.

everyone is forgetting the big elephant in the room

technology

dropping population doesn't necessarily need to mean dropping productivity since technology is a large variable


Ireland is a prime example, are we not richer and more productive now with half the people we had in the 19th century?

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

everyone is forgetting the big elephant in the room

technology

dropping population doesn't necessarily need to mean dropping productivity since technology is a large variable


Ireland is a prime example, are we not richer and more productive now with half the people we had in the 19th century?

I read somewhere the Japanese are making a huge push on robot technology to address their declining population. When and what they come up with will be interesting.

djpbarry

Furet wrote: »

2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.

It’s a possibility, but we’re talking worst-case scenario here. People have been migrating from developing countries to Europe for a whole lot longer than any of us have been around and the predictions of doom have yet to come to pass – Europe is still here and is doing pretty well for itself, current economic difficulties aside.

And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.

One other thing, from Myers’ article:

Ethiopia is the sterling exemplar of why it's time we seriously re-examined our responses to the gathering catastrophe that is Africa.

This guy seriously needs to take out an atlas and observe the fact that Africa is about three times the size of Europe and making generalisations about the entire continent is about as meaningful as making comparisons between Ireland and Belarus. It’s also important to consider different aspects of aid, rather than dismissing it out of hand as ineffective simply because Ethiopia is still poor (from our perspective).

jimmi08

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s a possibility, but we’re talking worst-case scenario here. People have been migrating from developing countries to Europe for a whole lot longer than any of us have been around and the predictions of doom have yet to come to pass – Europe is still here and is doing pretty well for itself, current economic difficulties aside.

And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.

One other thing, from Myers’ article:

This guy seriously needs to take out an atlas and observe the fact that Africa is about three times the size of Europe and making generalisations about the entire continent is about as meaningful as making comparisons between Ireland and Belarus. It’s also important to consider different aspects of aid, rather than dismissing it out of hand as ineffective simply because Ethiopia is still poor (from our perspective).

I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.

I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.

bill_ashmount

jimmi08 wrote: »

I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.

I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.

These incentives don't tend to work. People won't have an extra child for a few thousand dollars. It would be a lifetime of work that many aren't prepared for.

Nearly every country in the world will have to face this issue in this century. Europe seems more open to immigration although for how much longer I am not sure. Other developed countries such as Japan and South Korea will not allow immigration into their societies.

ei.sdraob

jimmi08 wrote: »

I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.

I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.

once again

you assume that falling population is a bad thing? why??


a solution to a world with dwindling resources is to keep increasing the human population? i see....


heres a question for people to think about

would you like your /grandchildren in 2109 to:

a) live in a world where the population has stabilized at around 5 billion people and everyone is relatively well off

b) live in a world with 15 billion people and everyone is fighting over dwindling resources?

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

These incentives don't tend to work. People won't have an extra child for a few thousand dollars. It would be a lifetime of work that many aren't prepared for.

Nearly every country in the world will have to face this issue in this century. Europe seems more open to immigration although for how much longer I am not sure. Other developed countries such as Japan and South Korea will not allow immigration into their societies.

not only developed countries have this problem

China who everyone assumes is the next big thing has huge gender imbalance and a rapidly aging population

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not only developed countries have this problem

China who everyone assumes is the next big thing has huge gender imbalance and a rapidly aging population

China is heading towards something like 120 men for every 100 women. They have started to implement policies now though to resdress the situation. If they don't the country will fall apart. They could be left with a lot of angry men with a lot of pent up pressure

I believe India has a male bias problem as well.

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

heres a question for people to think about

would you like your /grandchildren in 2109 to:

a) live in a world where the population has stabilized at around 5 billion people and everyone is relatively well off

b) live in a world with 15 billion people and everyone is fighting over dwindling resources?

This to me is the ultimate question, how many people can the world support at an equal standard of living? I would guess 5 billion at most. We are currently at 6.8 billion and seem to be making a mess of everything and that's with wide variations in living standards.

Amtmann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again

you assume that falling population is a bad thing? why??

While I can't answer for the other poster, and while I agree with you fundamentally that less is better, I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance. It is the discrepancy that bothers me. My preference would be for a worldwide fall in population.

Diogenes

Furet wrote: »

While I can't answer for the other poster, and while I agree with you fundamentally that less is better, I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance.

I hesitate to point this out, but the for the last hundred years, Europe hasn't been a shining beacon of progressivism and tolerance. 60 years ago, large portions of Europe were going out of their way to engage in mass ethic cleansing, less than 20 years ago Bosnia and Herzegovina was the site of mass genocide, and are now currently applying for EU membership.

If anything the story of Europe over the last 30 years, is how quickly progressive societal changes happen.

Those who claim there is no longer a "White Man's Burden" (a fantastically racist term coined by that bigot Kipling) the West's involvement in Africa didn't finish in the rash of independence that occured post WWII, both the Soviet Union and the US treated Africa like a giant chessboard during the height of the cold war, with each side, funding and supplying dictatorships, juntas, rebels and coups. One needs to only look at Uganda for the tragic story of post colonial africa. Often these funded dictators racked up massive debts to the World Bank and the IMF, and once deposed these organisations now insisted that the democratic regimes honour these debts, leaving these countries incapable of basic infrastructure spending.

Myers argue is as usual simplistic, patronising with an underlying air of racism and bigotry.

O'Morris

Furet wrote:

I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance. It is also the discrepancy that bothers me.

You could nearly call it a kind of global dysgenics. The average IQ of the world's population is likely to be much lower in fifty years from now than it is today. We're living in a century in which serious brain-power will be required to solve some serious global problems and so the fall in global intelligence could have serious consequences for the survival of our advanced civilization.

And what makes it worse is that the global discrepancy in population growth will be replicated within countries. Not only will population growth be higher in the poorer and least educated parts of the world, but within countries themselves, the poorest, least-educated, least-productive elements will account for a disproportionate amount of the growth in those populations. Very depressing altogether.

Amtmann

Diogenes wrote: »

I hesitate to point this out, but the for the last hundred years, Europe hasn't been a shining beacon of progressivism and tolerance. 60 years ago, large portions of Europe were going out of their way to engage in mass ethic cleansing, less than 20 years ago Bosnia and Herzegovina was the site of mass genocide, and are now currently applying for EU membership.

Agreed.

If anything the story of Europe over the last 30 years, is how quickly progressive societal changes happen.

Given certain pre-requisites, yes.
I think the tribal nature of society is a big limiting factor in the advancement of African countries. Europe's nations are much more cohesive. That cohesion developed gradually over centuries, but the physical geography of Europe helped. Its east-west orientation and temperate lattitude for instance meant that climate across the continent was fairly static and benign, and this in turn led to the development of agriculture, cities, trade and nations. Africa has been afforded no such luxury, and has remained tribal and on the breadline. I'm not oblivious to imperialism and its affects, but longer term factors cannot be ignored: fundamentally, tribal strife is a major issue for Africa; it hinders its social, cultural, civic and political development, and there's very little anyone can do about that, apart from Africans themselves.

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote: »

And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.

I think it is very immoral to suggest we can solve our problems by importing humans from poorer countries. As others have mentioned already, Japan is investing heavily in robotic technology to combat the ageing problem. Having a huge population will surely be a disadvantage as technology progresses and more low end jobs continue to disappear.

bill_ashmount

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I think it is very immoral to suggest we can solve our problems by importing humans from poorer countries. As others have mentioned already, Japan is investing heavily in robotic technology to combat the ageing problem. Having a huge population will surely be a disadvantage as technology progresses and more low end jobs continue to disappear.

Importing people doesn't solve the problem it just delays it by a few years. Economic and political concerns are generally concerned with the present rather than the future though.

Diogenes

Furet wrote: »

Agreed.



Given certain pre-requisites, yes.
I think the tribal nature of society is a big limiting factor in the advancement of African countries. Europe's nations are much more cohesive. That cohesion developed gradually over centuries, but the physical geography of Europe helped. Its east-west orientation and temperate lattitude for instance meant that climate across the continent was fairly static and benign, and this in turn led to the development of agriculture, cities, trade and nations.

No sorry the huge majority of Africa is suitable for argiculture. And in terms of mineral wealth and natural resources it's still far more rich than Europe.

Africa has been afforded no such luxury, and has remained tribal and on the breadline. I'm not oblivious to imperialism and its affects, but longer term factors cannot be ignored: fundamentally, tribal strife is a major issue for Africa; it hinders its social, cultural, civic and political development, and there's very little anyone can do about that, apart from Africans themselves.

Part of the problem is that African countries were carved up on arbitrary lines by the colonialists, and when they left the borders remained the, but there was no tribal or social cohesion to these nations. For example the Rwandan Genocide can trace its routes to Belgium colonial inference between the Hutus and Tutsu.

However in a similar vein, the Soviet carve up of Eastern Europe post WW2 led to social and ethic groups being lumped together. We can't stand over African aloof and feeling superior and european, when we're still holding war crimes tribunals in the hague.