4 ms·

Yes, that was a bad analogy, sorry. What I wanted to say really: overpopulation is at the root of all the planet's troubles. For example, "There’s a strong cha

by sunseb 8y ago

Yes, that was a bad analogy, sorry. What I wanted to say really: overpopulation is at the root of all the planet's troubles. For example, "There’s a strong chance a third of all people on earth will be African by 2100": https://qz.com/africa/1099546/population-growth-africans-will-be-a-third-of-all-people-on-earth-by-2100/ https://qz.com/africa/1099546/population-growth-africans-wil... What could go wrong ?

Denzel 8y ago
Sure that's less hyperbolic and more reasonable. And I can appreciate how someone can arrive to the conclusion that overpopulation represents a significant problem. Thanks for updating your wording.
beat 8y ago
You seem to be assuming that lines of growth continue in one direction forever. They do not. In 1900, the population of Sweden was about 5M, and the birth rate was 4.02 (which was already falling from its historic average of around 5.0). In the 19th century, 20% of the population fled to the US to escape famine. Today, the population is around 10M, and the birth rate is 1.79. Sweden was pretty typical of Europe, pre-WWI. Would you have said "What could go wrong?" when talking about Europe's birth rate and population growth a century ago? No? Then why be afraid of the same pattern in Africa? Population growth today is mostly a function of increased life expectancy and drastically reduced child mortality rates. Low child mortality has led to reduced birth rates everywhere, to the point where most industrialized nations have negative growth (discounting immigration). The birth rate has already leveled off globally. It will level off in Africa, too, and the population will stabilize. A century from now, Africa will have zero population growth.
emodendroket 8y ago
I'm not seeing what's inherently wrong with Africans to be honest. In fact I feel like these malthusian arguments often have a racialized tinge to them

by sunseb 8y ago

Denzel 8y ago

Sure that's less hyperbolic and more reasonable. And I can appreciate how someone can arrive to the conclusion that overpopulation represents a significant problem. Thanks for updating your wording.

beat 8y ago

You seem to be assuming that lines of growth continue in one direction forever. They do not. In 1900, the population of Sweden was about 5M, and the birth rate was 4.02 (which was already falling from its historic average of around 5.0). In the 19th century, 20% of the population fled to the US to escape famine. Today, the population is around 10M, and the birth rate is 1.79. Sweden was pretty typical of Europe, pre-WWI. Would you have said "What could go wrong?" when talking about Europe's birth rate and population growth a century ago? No? Then why be afraid of the same pattern in Africa? Population growth today is mostly a function of increased life expectancy and drastically reduced child mortality rates. Low child mortality has led to reduced birth rates everywhere, to the point where most industrialized nations have negative growth (discounting immigration). The birth rate has already leveled off globally. It will level off in Africa, too, and the population will stabilize. A century from now, Africa will have zero population growth.

emodendroket 8y ago

I'm not seeing what's inherently wrong with Africans to be honest. In fact I feel like these malthusian arguments often have a racialized tinge to them