The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Bangladesh vs. Nigeria: There Is Hope
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

nigeria and bangladesh un population 2017

The moderating trajectory of Bangladesh’s population growth shows that there is a reasonable hope that the African population bomb can be defused.

According to the UN Population Division, back in 1950, what are now the countries of Bangladesh (blue line above) and Nigeria (red) were host to 37 million people each.

(How accurate are the UN’s historical population data? Who knows … But, to their credit, they took the hit to their egos a half decade ago of revealing that they had discovered that they had badly underestimated Africa’s rate of population growth by trusting the lackadaisical official statistics of African governments.)

Nigeria and Bangladesh are geographically similar: well-watered lowland areas where multiple large rivers deposit rich soils that support a relatively high density of farmers. If climate change really does lead to the oceans rising, both countries are vulnerable, although Bangladesh is in the path of cyclones, such as the cataclysmic one that hit in 1970 and led to George Harrison’s famous 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and encouraged East Pakistan to declare its independence from West Pakistan in 1971.

Of course, Asian farmers are traditionally far more efficient than African farmers: Nigeria has more than six times the area of Bangladesh despite a similar population. (In general, Africa countries are huge. The Mercator projection used in flat maps understates how much land Africans have compared to Europeans.)

But Bangladesh grew faster in population than Nigeria during the Green Revolution era, peaking at a 16% higher population over Nigeria in 1970. But by 2007 Nigeria had caught up and by 2017 Nigeria had 26 million more people.

According to the UN’s projections, Bangladesh is expected to peak at 203 million in 2058 when Nigeria is at 476 million. By 2100, Bangladesh will be down to 174 million (compared to 165 million in 2017), while Nigeria will be at … 794 million and rising almost six million per year.

Obviously, there isn’t likely to be 794 million people in 2100 living in a polity known as Nigeria. All sorts of things are likely to happen over the next 83 years. But these projections serve a useful purpose in alerting us to the locomotive headed our ways.

Why does Bangladesh’s future look less outlandish than Nigeria’s? Because Bangladesh has done the hard work of lowering its total fertility rate (2.17 babies per woman in 2014) down to about the replacement level. Due to Demographic Momentum, Bangladesh’s population is expected to keep growing into the late 2050s, but a slowing growth rate appears to be baked in by now.

In contrast, Nigeria was still at 5.65 babies per woman in 2014, which means that another generation of rapid population growth is, barring catastrophe, almost inevitable.

Screenshot 2017-06-26 01.18.10

The world has the right to demand of Nigeria and the other several dozen sub-Saharan countries that they make the same sacrifices as Bangladesh.

Unfortunately, due to the Sacred Cow status of blacks in the 21st Century’s moral economy, many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

However, there is one half-black who, having enjoyed eight years as the world’s biggest Sacred Cow, could in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America, could make this his special issue: it’s not racist to encourage blacks to get their population growth under control.

Would that fit into your schedule, Mr. Obama?

 
Hide 78 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Would that fit into your schedule, Mr. Obama?

    It’s true: this is an area in which Obama could actually do some good. And he can even lead by example. He and the missus stopped at two kids, even though both were girls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/bangladesh-vs-nigeria-there-is-hope/#comment-1915989
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. 1. How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support? There has to be some kind of a limit, but it’s not obvious that Western agriculture can’t support 4 billion Africans if there is enough political will.

    2. Partially Africanised Western nations should still be highly agriculturally productive and will be able to go on exporting large amounts of food. It only takes a relatively small cognitive elite to stay productive.

    3. At some point Western nations swamped by immigration will suffer a step-change collapse prompted by corruption and expropriation, as happened in Zimbabwe and may be happening in South Africa shortly, but this may be well beyond the end of this century. This assumes China is not able or willing to prevent this.

    So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and ‘dark age’ it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.

    It’s also possible however that the West will evolve cultural mechanisms to keep a cognitive elite in power, like the whites in Latin America. This could very well be an Obama-style ‘mulatto elite’ though. Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @anon
    "So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and ‘dark age’ it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands."

    In the 22nd century the idea of a white minority will be antiquated. There will be a mixed race majority (whitish) and outsiders (dark people of African descent and perhaps Muslim Arabs).
    , @Dieter Kief

    Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question
     
    .

    Sir, if you please: 2200 and beyond - indefinitely, even: That's way into future-land: And this is a part of a country, nobody knows.

    , @bomag

    How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support?
     
    Depends on how you look at it.

    I've heard the planet can support 15 billion people, which is current grain production divided by what a person needs in grain calories each year. There are other calorie sources, so wonking the numbers would let us support more people, but you have to forego animal feeding, bio fuels, etc.; plus, it gets harder to manage the macro nutrients, specifically phosphorus, and water, soils, etc; so pretty soon you are standing on your head and juggling multiple chainsaws and wondering how tight of a matrix do we really want?
    , @Anonymous
    The question of whether western agriculture can 'support' 4 billion Africans.

    Pure Malthus.

    Firstly, the US population is rapidly growing and will continue to grow rapidly (all non white growth).Enormous tracts of prime US agricultural land be built upon. Then there is the question of aquifier depletion. It is conceivable that the USA itself will be a big net food importer.
    Then there is the question of the Africans having the actual wherewithal to purchase the food on the open market - or to else to be a massive, permanent a dcever growing fiscal liability to what's left of the foolish white world - forget Orientals doing anything, and remember that the USA will be non white run - and possibly financially chaotic - by that time.
    Plus you have the sheer logistics of transporting that enormous quantity of food, plus the enormous tax/adminstrative/corporate complex to organise the massive supply chain, remember the free market won't touch dead losses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. 5371 says:

    Obama has never in his life got anyone to do anything other than vote for him.

    Read More
    • Agree: Forbes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Kyle McKenna [AKA "Mika-Non"] says:

    When Bangladesh is being held up as a model of any kind, you know that the world is well and truly f***ed.

    Read More
    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Lin
    "When Bangladesh is being held up as a model of any kind, you know that the world is well and truly f***ed..."

    I personally have good respect for the Bangladeshis. Basically they recognized their country was economically a basket case and have been wisely attracted investment to achieve fairly good econ growth. They definitely are more capable of self-appraisal than neighboring Hindustan which keeps bragging they'll become superpower by this or that year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Rob McX says:

    There are significant differences between South Asians and sub-Saharan Africans, whether in their home countries or settled abroad for generations. I wouldn’t be too hopeful of Nigeria or Niger or anywhere else in SSA following Bangladesh’s example. On the other hand, there would be great hope if they were encouraged or forced to do it by white countries. Aid and trade could be made conditional on population control – “limit your population, or we’ll stand idly by when famine and disease do it for you”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I was thinking the same thing. Bangladeshis are not SSAs. But what about Detroit or Compton? Maybe what is needed is to export gangster rap culture to Africa. But they already have it. :(

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_hip_hop

    So what exactly is the secret sauce of AAs to lower the birthrate in America?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Lin says:
    @Kyle McKenna
    When Bangladesh is being held up as a model of any kind, you know that the world is well and truly f***ed.

    “When Bangladesh is being held up as a model of any kind, you know that the world is well and truly f***ed…”

    I personally have good respect for the Bangladeshis. Basically they recognized their country was economically a basket case and have been wisely attracted investment to achieve fairly good econ growth. They definitely are more capable of self-appraisal than neighboring Hindustan which keeps bragging they’ll become superpower by this or that year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    And now they're snatching spots at Stanford from racist ole whitey #blacklivesmatter #blacklivesmatter #blacklivesmatter. That's some gumption that whitey just lacks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. there is a reasonable hope that the African population bomb can be defused.

    many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

    You’re coming off more alarmist than usual—and necessary, Steve.

    This is Africa, we’re talking about. Sub-Saharan African. When shit actually hits the fan there, nobody cares or gets involved (see: Rwandan genocide). If the population of Nigeria grows too much too quickly, it will be a crisis for the Africans to deal with, using whatever methods they deem necessary (see: Rwandan genocide). Liberals will refuse to get involved for the exact same reason they refuse to talk about there being any problems in Africa: fear of being racist, or even worse, a neo-colonialial imperialist. They’ll cast a blind eye until it’s all over and the hand-wringing begins over the atrocities and horrors which just occurred.

    As for foreign powers getting involved, well… they won’t. China isn’t dumb enough to get mired down in an African bloodbath, and honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Would these hands-off-Africa liberals be the same ones who now so loudly proclaim that African blacks have an inalienable Gaia-given right to swarm into white homelands and leech off of white welfare states?

    If Africans are allowed to leave Africa, then their population problem is our population problem. So far, there is no indication that whites have the will to keep blacks out of their midst. Whites would rather die - literally - than take any actions that might make them look racist.

    If we do find the will to bar them from our lands, then, yes, you're right - they'll breed like rabbits, exhaust their resources, and end up slaughting each other and/or starving to death, and we won't have to worry about it.

    But wouldn't it be nice if we could spare them the agony in the first place?

    , @Anonymous
    I'll believe you the moment that a tow-rope is attached to the prow of an African 'refugee' boat and it is towed right back to the Libyan coast.
    , @Karl
    7 al-Gharaniq > [China is] honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    nothing has ever happened in Africa for very long.

    Anyway, these things actually do NOT happen "overnight". No place in Africa is VERY far from a jetplane ride to Djibouti.... where there is a Chinese military base.

    The mining engineers will get to the correct side of the PLA checkpoint, in plenty of time. With enough money in their pocket to fuck a few Eritrean mulatta amateur bar-hookers before they fly back to wifey in Shanghai.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Andy says:

    Perhaps in the 22th century it will be said that the worst thing Europe ever did for itself was to bring modern Western medicine to Africa

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Perhaps in the 22th century it will be said that the worst thing Europe ever did for itself was to bring modern Western medicine to Africa

    I was implying that with a previous post. It seems that we have a hard time keeping our secrets to ourselves, outside of the military, sometimes. China was able to keep the secret of silk for a long, long time. Europeans had hardly discovered Western Medicine before we gave it away.

    Anyway, here is some vibrancy to add to the thread. Where is Whiskey when you need him? Don't white women LOVE LOVE LOVE them some highway bandits (footpads)? You thought that was just a quaint medieval practice? Well, we have it now in the $CURRENT_YEAR!

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jhc1p/just_a_late_night_drive_in_france/

    And if you want to feel angry try this thread.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jgzr3/video_of_the_little_french_girl_that_keeps/

    I blame Sally Struthers. If y'all had just drank an extra soda instead of giving money to Jamal, we wouldn't be in this mess.

    https://youtu.be/ePENcrE_xcQ

    That's not to mention the millions of children who have now lived to see their third birthdays, and are setting about bringing dungheap culture to a city near you. Its a good thing we all have hearts, as we all know it's far kinder for 100 African children to die in a few decades than 1 African child to die right now. And the African megafauna? Who needs it anyway? Where would we be without the baizuo?

    https://youtu.be/XsxVy7vyyk0

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It may be a bit premature to pop the champagne for Bangladesh, this is largely a projection -they are still growing at nearly the same rate as of 2017. And as you mention with Africa, projections can be far off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Simon in London
    1. How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support? There has to be some kind of a limit, but it's not obvious that Western agriculture can't support 4 billion Africans if there is enough political will.

    2. Partially Africanised Western nations should still be highly agriculturally productive and will be able to go on exporting large amounts of food. It only takes a relatively small cognitive elite to stay productive.

    3. At some point Western nations swamped by immigration will suffer a step-change collapse prompted by corruption and expropriation, as happened in Zimbabwe and may be happening in South Africa shortly, but this may be well beyond the end of this century. This assumes China is not able or willing to prevent this.

    So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and 'dark age' it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.

    It's also possible however that the West will evolve cultural mechanisms to keep a cognitive elite in power, like the whites in Latin America. This could very well be an Obama-style 'mulatto elite' though. Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question.

    “So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and ‘dark age’ it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.”

    In the 22nd century the idea of a white minority will be antiquated. There will be a mixed race majority (whitish) and outsiders (dark people of African descent and perhaps Muslim Arabs).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anonym says:
    @Rob McX
    There are significant differences between South Asians and sub-Saharan Africans, whether in their home countries or settled abroad for generations. I wouldn't be too hopeful of Nigeria or Niger or anywhere else in SSA following Bangladesh's example. On the other hand, there would be great hope if they were encouraged or forced to do it by white countries. Aid and trade could be made conditional on population control - "limit your population, or we'll stand idly by when famine and disease do it for you".

    I was thinking the same thing. Bangladeshis are not SSAs. But what about Detroit or Compton? Maybe what is needed is to export gangster rap culture to Africa. But they already have it. :(

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_hip_hop

    So what exactly is the secret sauce of AAs to lower the birthrate in America?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I think what keeps the black American birthrate low is the fact that they live in an advanced white society where the attractions of consumer goods and the benefits of technology are a substitute for reproduction. But Africans themselves will never build such a society.
    , @Triumph104
    The abortion rate for black Americans is three to four times that of white Americans. Around 2008, the black American abortion rate was four to five times higher than white Americans.

    Most black American women are single and don't have the safety net of a husband's income. Married black American women are more educated, have higher income, and less likely to have children than unmarried black American women.

    American society is vocally negative when people have more than two children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Pericles says:
    @Lin
    "When Bangladesh is being held up as a model of any kind, you know that the world is well and truly f***ed..."

    I personally have good respect for the Bangladeshis. Basically they recognized their country was economically a basket case and have been wisely attracted investment to achieve fairly good econ growth. They definitely are more capable of self-appraisal than neighboring Hindustan which keeps bragging they'll become superpower by this or that year.

    And now they’re snatching spots at Stanford from racist ole whitey #blacklivesmatter #blacklivesmatter #blacklivesmatter. That’s some gumption that whitey just lacks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @al-Gharaniq

    there is a reasonable hope that the African population bomb can be defused.
     

    many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.
     
    You're coming off more alarmist than usual—and necessary, Steve.

    This is Africa, we're talking about. Sub-Saharan African. When shit actually hits the fan there, nobody cares or gets involved (see: Rwandan genocide). If the population of Nigeria grows too much too quickly, it will be a crisis for the Africans to deal with, using whatever methods they deem necessary (see: Rwandan genocide). Liberals will refuse to get involved for the exact same reason they refuse to talk about there being any problems in Africa: fear of being racist, or even worse, a neo-colonialial imperialist. They'll cast a blind eye until it's all over and the hand-wringing begins over the atrocities and horrors which just occurred.

    As for foreign powers getting involved, well... they won't. China isn't dumb enough to get mired down in an African bloodbath, and honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    Would these hands-off-Africa liberals be the same ones who now so loudly proclaim that African blacks have an inalienable Gaia-given right to swarm into white homelands and leech off of white welfare states?

    If Africans are allowed to leave Africa, then their population problem is our population problem. So far, there is no indication that whites have the will to keep blacks out of their midst. Whites would rather die – literally – than take any actions that might make them look racist.

    If we do find the will to bar them from our lands, then, yes, you’re right – they’ll breed like rabbits, exhaust their resources, and end up slaughting each other and/or starving to death, and we won’t have to worry about it.

    But wouldn’t it be nice if we could spare them the agony in the first place?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonym says:
    @Andy
    Perhaps in the 22th century it will be said that the worst thing Europe ever did for itself was to bring modern Western medicine to Africa

    Perhaps in the 22th century it will be said that the worst thing Europe ever did for itself was to bring modern Western medicine to Africa

    I was implying that with a previous post. It seems that we have a hard time keeping our secrets to ourselves, outside of the military, sometimes. China was able to keep the secret of silk for a long, long time. Europeans had hardly discovered Western Medicine before we gave it away.

    Anyway, here is some vibrancy to add to the thread. Where is Whiskey when you need him? Don’t white women LOVE LOVE LOVE them some highway bandits (footpads)? You thought that was just a quaint medieval practice? Well, we have it now in the $CURRENT_YEAR!

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jhc1p/just_a_late_night_drive_in_france/

    And if you want to feel angry try this thread.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jgzr3/video_of_the_little_french_girl_that_keeps/

    I blame Sally Struthers. If y’all had just drank an extra soda instead of giving money to Jamal, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    That’s not to mention the millions of children who have now lived to see their third birthdays, and are setting about bringing dungheap culture to a city near you. Its a good thing we all have hearts, as we all know it’s far kinder for 100 African children to die in a few decades than 1 African child to die right now. And the African megafauna? Who needs it anyway? Where would we be without the baizuo?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. It is interesting to note that Bangladesh women’s fertility rate started dropping circa 1971, the year it was founded, having been the erstwhile East Pakistan. In the year that preceded its founding, it lost approximately half a million people to a hurricane, and a like amount to famine and West Pakistani army mass killings. It is normal to see a baby boom in a nation after a period like that, but Muslim Bangladesh’s decline in fertility numbers mirrors that of Hindu majority India next door, almost year for year.

    A demographer friend of mine who has spent her life studying contraception, fertility and social/cultural factors says that Sub-Saharan African fertility is utterly bizarre, in terms of what is known about declining fertility levels elsewhere during the 20th century.

    Elsewhere, historically high infant mortality meant that women had many babies, hoping that a few would survive to adulthood, and form the basis of old-age support. Once mortality drops for a single generation, women quickly realize that they are producing too many mouths to feed, and fertility drops in the next generation as they turn to contraception.

    In Africa, though, women have been born with large sibling cohorts for a generation, since infant mortality fell a while ago. Yet they produce many offspring, despite watching their siblings scramble for scarce resources. It’s a mystery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marck
    Nobody mentions how incredible it is that these backward third World countries manage to accurately count their populations. How do we really know there are 190 million people in Nigeria or 160 million in Bangladesh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. TG says:

    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.

    A recent article suggests that in Bangladesh there is a 41% incidence of ‘stunting’ and a 16% incidence of ‘wasting’. These people are not going to have six kids a pop no matter how hard they try.

    https://bangladesh.savethechildren.net/news/malnutrition-bangladesh-new-report-published

    And of course Bangladesh has had the safety valve of immigration to India – there are no reliable statistics on this but it might be huge. Remember, if a couple who are going to have six kids and 36 grandkids etc. immigrate to India it has a restraint on Bangladesh’s potential population growth of more than just minus two…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin

    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.
     
    There is more to this than "Calories in, babies out."

    There are evolutionarily and geographically sculpted differences between Bengali and (various) African women regarding how much "malnourishment" of what types can be endured and still reproduce at what level.

    Global food aid regimes never took this into account that I could see. Those were mainly efforts to deliver to leaders of nations that deliberately starve their own people surplus carbs produced by highly centralized American corporate agriculture. Generally this delivery occurs for political and career reasons under the mask of Conspicuous Altruism. (I'll come back to Live Aid in a moment.) Though I've known some hard-headed geopolitical types who admit the use of food as a diplomatic (so to speak) instrument.

    This was coupled with other forms of death control, but setting that aside for the moment:

    • Which subpopulation of the two you note will have a higher reproduction rate at near starvation?

    • What features of their biology--both in the moment and upstream (ancestral)--account for this?

    • What does "hunger" or "famine" mean when you can still proliferate genes at a rate outstripping those who are not hungry?

    Those two words seem to get used interchangeably. But "hunger" seems to be the individual experience while "famine" is the population effect. We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of "famine" at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.

    In my mid- to late 20s I had enough life experience, stats, and evolutionary biology under my belt to consider that "starving" may be the natural state of Africans who have not evolved much in the past 50,000 years. Around then the whole Live Aid scam appeared.

    At that time in my life, it struck me as noteworthy that the populations of Ethiopia and Sudan kept increasing steadily despite all the reports of "famine." I thought famine implied a population crash of some sort. Like I'd read about in ancient Sumerian texts.

    But no.

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/ethiopia/2017/
    https://www.populationpyramid.net/sudan/2017/

    So what was "famine"? Was it a population-affecting matter, or something else? Which population(s) and what effects?

    In my 30s and 40s, in my professional work I'd raise this question in roundabout ways since talking about African fertility at the population level has been entirely taboo. The response was without exception a sort of gob-smacked horror that I was asking even so mild a question.

    Then the reply would be on order of, well, yes, they are still increasing their population. But the hunger/famine is terrible suffering that Keeps Them From Living Up To Their Potential and makes them Die Before They Should.

    And besides, we are so very good at growing food in the First World--we are obligated to share!

    Plus what are farmers supposed to do with the surpluses they were ordered to grow by the grocery and food and Big Pharma-Ag speculators?

    And besides, white farmers in the Midwest should shut up and do what their global betters on both coasts tell them to!!

    I will note that it is an interesting exercise to look up the organizers of Live Aid, Harvey Goldsmith and Bill Graham, and see how they are monetarizing other human suffering. IIRC Goldsmith is now organizing concerts against cancer or some such.

    And maybe this is worth reviewing:

    http://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/28/the-tarnished-halo-of-saint-bob-geldof/

    , @Randy the Auditor
    "And of course Bangladesh has had the safety valve of immigration to India...."

    And of course Africa has the safety valve of emigration to Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Kylie says:

    “Unfortunately, due to the Sacred Cow status of blacks in the 21st Century’s moral economy, many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

    However, there is one half-black who, having enjoyed eight years as the world’s biggest Sacred Cow, could in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America, could make this his special issue: it’s not racist to encourage blacks to get their population growth under control.

    Would that fit into your schedule, Mr. Obama?”

    Are you serious? I’m asking in all seriousness. Obama has NEVER publicly shown any charitable or altruistic inclinations. He want to be a Big Man or the cool kid. I don’t think of him as a statesman or former world leader or public figure. He’s a “celeb” with about the same depth of character and humanitarian concerns as that other deep thinker, Gwyneth Paltrow.

    He’s not going to say anything that doesn’t elevate him in his own eyes and serve his anti-white animus.

    Seriously, I can’t believe you’re serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I agree with your assessment of Obama. The way to get him to encourage population restriction in Africa would be to somehow make population restriction a cool idea and a remunerative one for him personally. And I don't think Africans are going to pay him big money to come and tell them we'd like to see a lot fewer of them. I can't see anyone willing to shell out millions to him for doing that. Population control is not where the money is.
    , @Forbes

    in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America
     
    This strikes me as the patented iSteve tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at Obama's big ego, way of posing a solution that has a lead-balloon chance of getting off the ground. It could be posed to highlight the yawning gap between the Dems' proclamation of Obama being the World's Most Successful President, and the Reps' rhetorical question, Where are the accomplishments?"

    Seriously, the seriousness was far less serious than you thought.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Well watered lowlands? With a lot of hard work, you can prosper. No need to send these people foreign aid. Sounds like the Netherlands. There is your inspiration

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Tiny Duck says:

    How does it feel knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?

    So much for HBD or whatever pseudo scientific bullshit you guys believe in

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    "This is beautiful.......what is that velvet?"


    - Leonard Pitts
     
    All people of color agree....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Nigeria is a fault line between Christendom and Dar al Islam. Their population mirrors that tension. Both sides, rightly!, think that at any moment it’s genocidal mayhem total war between the two. And there’s already cracks-boko haram-for both sides to look at. As palis and Israelis see fertility as a state defense issue, so to do Nigerians. And there’s really no end insight here. The 10th parallel is always going to be an ugly place to eek out a living

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. HBD Guy says:

    http://cis.org/rush/dont-read-too-much-drop-refugee-arrivals-under-president-trump

    Don’t Read Too Much into the Drop in Refugee Arrivals Under President Trump

    A sharp decrease in FY 2017 refugee admissions under President Trump compared to those under the Obama administration has been reported recently (see here and here). The drop could easily be interpreted as a sign of policy change and tougher screening measures brought about by Obama’s successor. But the numbers are not quite as telling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Travis says:

    Europe will be much less Christian in 2050, with more practicing muslims than christians. They seem more likely to stop aid to Africa, more likely to sink the migrant ships than rescue them. Due to the influx of Islamists, and the aging of the aboriginal Europeans, the economies of Europe will be struggling. Doubtful the exploding populations of Africa will be allowed to immigrate to Europe in 2050.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Rob McX says:
    @Kylie
    "Unfortunately, due to the Sacred Cow status of blacks in the 21st Century’s moral economy, many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

    However, there is one half-black who, having enjoyed eight years as the world’s biggest Sacred Cow, could in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America, could make this his special issue: it’s not racist to encourage blacks to get their population growth under control.

    Would that fit into your schedule, Mr. Obama?"

    Are you serious? I'm asking in all seriousness. Obama has NEVER publicly shown any charitable or altruistic inclinations. He want to be a Big Man or the cool kid. I don't think of him as a statesman or former world leader or public figure. He's a "celeb" with about the same depth of character and humanitarian concerns as that other deep thinker, Gwyneth Paltrow.

    He's not going to say anything that doesn't elevate him in his own eyes and serve his anti-white animus.

    Seriously, I can't believe you're serious.

    I agree with your assessment of Obama. The way to get him to encourage population restriction in Africa would be to somehow make population restriction a cool idea and a remunerative one for him personally. And I don’t think Africans are going to pay him big money to come and tell them we’d like to see a lot fewer of them. I can’t see anyone willing to shell out millions to him for doing that. Population control is not where the money is.

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag, Kylie
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Obama is of a specific tribe of Kenyans. Him telling other Africans to have less children will be about as effective as Frenchmen telling Germans to have fewer children, or Russians telling Poles, or any number of similar scenarios. Nobody will pay any attention.
    , @cynthia curran
    I think that is what Obama did with Latinos in the US. He increased birth control devices for the poor and noticed Latino birth rates in the US have dropped. His problem was DACA and DARPA and of course allowing central american kids and women, but just think if a Republican conservative pushed birth control for Latinos and controlling the border we would have less Latinos in the next 10 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rob McX says:
    @Anonym
    I was thinking the same thing. Bangladeshis are not SSAs. But what about Detroit or Compton? Maybe what is needed is to export gangster rap culture to Africa. But they already have it. :(

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_hip_hop

    So what exactly is the secret sauce of AAs to lower the birthrate in America?

    I think what keeps the black American birthrate low is the fact that they live in an advanced white society where the attractions of consumer goods and the benefits of technology are a substitute for reproduction. But Africans themselves will never build such a society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    I wonder how much Black fertility is reduced by keeping 21% of Black men under the age of 35 in prison. another factor, of Black males ages 17 to 65 years old, 40% had no earnings in 2014.

    while Black fertility has been somewhat under control in America, they have doubled their population since 1970 while the white population is stagnant, not growing since 1975.

    US born .... 1970.....................2015................ 2050.......... 2100
    Blacks.......21,000,000 - 40,000,000 -- 70,000,000.... 150,000,000
    Whites... 175,000,000 - 179,000,000 - 160,000,000....140,000,000

    at current trends Blacks will out number whites in America by 2100.
    One reason, while Black Female fertility is just 2.1 , many Black men have children with white females which causes the number of Blacks to increase faster than the Black fertility would suggest. Millions of Americans like Obama and Tiger Woods, Halle Berry to name a few.

    , @Massimo Heitor
    The happy solution: private city style of non-democratic governance. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried". The world needs a new form of government, especially as the city state model is dissolving.

    Look at the terrible catastrophe in Venezuela. A functional nation is simply imploding. Part of this is the voters fault, because they voted for Chavez and that's what they got. But obviously, they thought they were voting for something completely different. The fiery rhetoric was exciting and didn't sound like this miserable dystopia outcome. People would rather pick what they want and move to the city they like, rather than try to understand the complexities of governance and which staff would better lead to the outcomes that they want. When you buy consumer goods or services, if you buy a smartphone, purchase a meal from a fast food chain, or rent housing, you have direct choice. You don't vote on the executive management team or the CEO, you just vote with your wallet as to what you want. Government should work more like that.

    Better governance in Africa could reduce suffering, give Africans more of the lives that they want, and reduce the burden imposed on Europe and the rest of the world to resolve an endless series of humanitarian crises.

    Let Google or Tesla build private cities on some unused space in Africa that people want to move to and use a non-fiat currency like Bitcoin so people are free to leave with their assets at any time.
    , @The Practical Conservative
    No, what keeps the black American birthrate low is that smart black women have very nearly stopped having kids. A big chunk of the smart ones who do marry non-black and their babies are in the white, multiracial or Hispanic data. And the handful of ghetto enclaves full of baby mamas are sufficiently inhibiting to most other black women that they don't have very many either.

    Immigrant blacks are propping up the black birth rate (and it's still dropping anyway). Native blacks are down in the dumps, birth wise.

    The college mom thing is probably also an inhibitor. White kids are mostly born to college moms, and that's getting more so, not less so, and black women with the same background are lighter on the ground, so there's class clash because they are scattered rather than being able to reliably find a group of themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Why bar catastrophe when catastrophe is the answer to catastrophe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. HBD Guy says:

    http://cis.org/camarota/among-working-age-tennessee-all-employment-2007-has-gone-immigrants

    Even though the election is more than a year away, the issue of immigration has come up repeatedly in the Tennessee governor’s race. To put this debate into context, the Center for Immigration Studies has analyzed recent government data on employment in the state. The analysis shows that immigrants (legal and illegal) accounted for all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in Tennessee between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2017 — even though the native-born accounted for 77 percent of growth among the total working-age population. Prior analysis indicates that 30 percent to 40 percent of immigrants in Tennessee are in the country illegally. Of the 229,000 immigrants in the state working, 70,000 to 90,000 are likely to be illegal immigrants.

    Among the findings:

    There were 47,000 more working-age (16 to 65) immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job in Tennessee in the first quarter of 2017 than in the same quarter in 2007. The same data also shows 16,000 fewer working-age native-born Americans in the state working over the same time.

    The fact that all of the long-term net gain in employment among the working-age went to immigrants is striking because natives accounted for 77 percent of the increase in the total working-age (16-65) population in the state.

    There were 224,000 more working-age natives in Tennessee in 2017 than in 2007, yet 16,000 fewer of them were actually working. In short, the number of potential native-born workers in the state grew significantly, but the number actually working was lower in 2017 than in 2007.

    The official unemployment rate in Tennessee is low because it only includes those who have looked for a job in the last four weeks prior to the survey. It does not count those have given up looking for work and have dropped out of the labor force entirely.

    The labor force participation rate, the share of working-age natives working or looking for work, has not returned to pre-recession levels in Tennessee. In 2007, 75 percent of working-age natives were in the labor force; in 2017 it was 70 percent.

    The number of working-age natives not in the labor force was nearly 1.2 million in the first quarter of 2017 in the state, a quarter of a million more than in 2007. There were also 64,000 immigrants not in the labor force. There would appear to be an enormous pool of unutilized labor in the state for employers to draw upon.

    Older natives in Tennessee did make some employment gains. In 2017 there were 30,000 more native-born Tennesseans over the age of 65 working than in 2007. It is worth adding that there are relatively few immigrants over age 65 in the state, so older Tennessean face much less job competition form immigrants than those under age 65.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Forbes says:
    @Kylie
    "Unfortunately, due to the Sacred Cow status of blacks in the 21st Century’s moral economy, many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

    However, there is one half-black who, having enjoyed eight years as the world’s biggest Sacred Cow, could in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America, could make this his special issue: it’s not racist to encourage blacks to get their population growth under control.

    Would that fit into your schedule, Mr. Obama?"

    Are you serious? I'm asking in all seriousness. Obama has NEVER publicly shown any charitable or altruistic inclinations. He want to be a Big Man or the cool kid. I don't think of him as a statesman or former world leader or public figure. He's a "celeb" with about the same depth of character and humanitarian concerns as that other deep thinker, Gwyneth Paltrow.

    He's not going to say anything that doesn't elevate him in his own eyes and serve his anti-white animus.

    Seriously, I can't believe you're serious.

    in between his rounds of golf and collecting his huge payoffs from corporate America

    This strikes me as the patented iSteve tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at Obama’s big ego, way of posing a solution that has a lead-balloon chance of getting off the ground. It could be posed to highlight the yawning gap between the Dems’ proclamation of Obama being the World’s Most Successful President, and the Reps’ rhetorical question, Where are the accomplishments?”

    Seriously, the seriousness was far less serious than you thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Travis says:
    @Rob McX
    I think what keeps the black American birthrate low is the fact that they live in an advanced white society where the attractions of consumer goods and the benefits of technology are a substitute for reproduction. But Africans themselves will never build such a society.

    I wonder how much Black fertility is reduced by keeping 21% of Black men under the age of 35 in prison. another factor, of Black males ages 17 to 65 years old, 40% had no earnings in 2014.

    while Black fertility has been somewhat under control in America, they have doubled their population since 1970 while the white population is stagnant, not growing since 1975.

    US born …. 1970…………………2015……………. 2050………. 2100
    Blacks…….21,000,000 – 40,000,000 — 70,000,000…. 150,000,000
    Whites… 175,000,000 – 179,000,000 – 160,000,000….140,000,000

    at current trends Blacks will out number whites in America by 2100.
    One reason, while Black Female fertility is just 2.1 , many Black men have children with white females which causes the number of Blacks to increase faster than the Black fertility would suggest. Millions of Americans like Obama and Tiger Woods, Halle Berry to name a few.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Vinay says:

    “The world has the right to demand of Nigeria and the other several dozen sub-Saharan countries that they make the same sacrifices as Bangladesh”

    This is just about the WORST possible way to frame the issue. Countries aren’t doing the world a favor by reducing population growth.

    Getting its birth rate under control wasn’t a “sacrifice” for Bangladesh. Even with millions of Bangladeshi migrants to India, the Middle East and Europe, most of the population growth has to be absorbed by Bangladesh itself. Iran certainly didn’t curtail its population growth as a favor to the West. Neither did India.

    This is a bit like insisting that Sierra Leone control Ebola because of the risk that it’ll spread to the West! It’d not even be counterproductive — it’s not as if Sierra Leone can refuse just to spite the West. It’d just be pointlessly insulting and clueless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Jimi says:

    Bangladesh also has a strong religious establishment that opposed birth control and think people should have as many kids as possible. Good for Bangladesh for rejecting the religious nuts on this issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. JI says:

    “…locomotive headed our ways.” A reference to Jethro Tull’s song, Locomotive Breath?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. MBlanc46 says:

    Demand things of blacks? The very idea. Just thinking such a racist thought will cost you your head.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Simon in London
    1. How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support? There has to be some kind of a limit, but it's not obvious that Western agriculture can't support 4 billion Africans if there is enough political will.

    2. Partially Africanised Western nations should still be highly agriculturally productive and will be able to go on exporting large amounts of food. It only takes a relatively small cognitive elite to stay productive.

    3. At some point Western nations swamped by immigration will suffer a step-change collapse prompted by corruption and expropriation, as happened in Zimbabwe and may be happening in South Africa shortly, but this may be well beyond the end of this century. This assumes China is not able or willing to prevent this.

    So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and 'dark age' it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.

    It's also possible however that the West will evolve cultural mechanisms to keep a cognitive elite in power, like the whites in Latin America. This could very well be an Obama-style 'mulatto elite' though. Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question.

    Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question

    .

    Sir, if you please: 2200 and beyond – indefinitely, even: That’s way into future-land: And this is a part of a country, nobody knows.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Rob McX
    I think what keeps the black American birthrate low is the fact that they live in an advanced white society where the attractions of consumer goods and the benefits of technology are a substitute for reproduction. But Africans themselves will never build such a society.

    The happy solution: private city style of non-democratic governance. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried”. The world needs a new form of government, especially as the city state model is dissolving.

    Look at the terrible catastrophe in Venezuela. A functional nation is simply imploding. Part of this is the voters fault, because they voted for Chavez and that’s what they got. But obviously, they thought they were voting for something completely different. The fiery rhetoric was exciting and didn’t sound like this miserable dystopia outcome. People would rather pick what they want and move to the city they like, rather than try to understand the complexities of governance and which staff would better lead to the outcomes that they want. When you buy consumer goods or services, if you buy a smartphone, purchase a meal from a fast food chain, or rent housing, you have direct choice. You don’t vote on the executive management team or the CEO, you just vote with your wallet as to what you want. Government should work more like that.

    Better governance in Africa could reduce suffering, give Africans more of the lives that they want, and reduce the burden imposed on Europe and the rest of the world to resolve an endless series of humanitarian crises.

    Let Google or Tesla build private cities on some unused space in Africa that people want to move to and use a non-fiat currency like Bitcoin so people are free to leave with their assets at any time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Steve,
    Why are you so certain that Nigeria will not reach a population of around 800 million?

    No doubt observers in the 1920s thought a population of 200 millions in Nigeria unfeasible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @al-Gharaniq

    there is a reasonable hope that the African population bomb can be defused.
     

    many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.
     
    You're coming off more alarmist than usual—and necessary, Steve.

    This is Africa, we're talking about. Sub-Saharan African. When shit actually hits the fan there, nobody cares or gets involved (see: Rwandan genocide). If the population of Nigeria grows too much too quickly, it will be a crisis for the Africans to deal with, using whatever methods they deem necessary (see: Rwandan genocide). Liberals will refuse to get involved for the exact same reason they refuse to talk about there being any problems in Africa: fear of being racist, or even worse, a neo-colonialial imperialist. They'll cast a blind eye until it's all over and the hand-wringing begins over the atrocities and horrors which just occurred.

    As for foreign powers getting involved, well... they won't. China isn't dumb enough to get mired down in an African bloodbath, and honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    I’ll believe you the moment that a tow-rope is attached to the prow of an African ‘refugee’ boat and it is towed right back to the Libyan coast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. bomag says:
    @Simon in London
    1. How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support? There has to be some kind of a limit, but it's not obvious that Western agriculture can't support 4 billion Africans if there is enough political will.

    2. Partially Africanised Western nations should still be highly agriculturally productive and will be able to go on exporting large amounts of food. It only takes a relatively small cognitive elite to stay productive.

    3. At some point Western nations swamped by immigration will suffer a step-change collapse prompted by corruption and expropriation, as happened in Zimbabwe and may be happening in South Africa shortly, but this may be well beyond the end of this century. This assumes China is not able or willing to prevent this.

    So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and 'dark age' it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.

    It's also possible however that the West will evolve cultural mechanisms to keep a cognitive elite in power, like the whites in Latin America. This could very well be an Obama-style 'mulatto elite' though. Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question.

    How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support?

    Depends on how you look at it.

    I’ve heard the planet can support 15 billion people, which is current grain production divided by what a person needs in grain calories each year. There are other calorie sources, so wonking the numbers would let us support more people, but you have to forego animal feeding, bio fuels, etc.; plus, it gets harder to manage the macro nutrients, specifically phosphorus, and water, soils, etc; so pretty soon you are standing on your head and juggling multiple chainsaws and wondering how tight of a matrix do we really want?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. The prospect of emigrating to Europe might be playing a role in sustaining Africa’s high birth rate. Think of a child as a lottery ticket that “wins” if that child makes it to Europe. By logic, you’d want to produce as many lottery tickets as possible.

    So my not-entirely-disinterested suggestion for reducing Africa’s birthrate: stop rescuing boats in the Mediterranean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    So my not-entirely-disinterested suggestion for reducing Africa’s birthrate: stop rescuing boats in the Mediterranean.
     
    But of course.

    Let's say it failed to have the desired effect, however.

    Hypothetically, imagine the only alternatives were:

    (a) allow yourself to be swamped by SSA's

    (b) sink their boats and strafe the survivors with machine gun fire

    Which would you choose?

    For me (b) is a complete no-brainer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The world has the right to demand of Nigeria and the other several dozen sub-Saharan countries that they make the same sacrifices as Bangladesh.

    Unfortunately, due to the Sacred Cow status of blacks in the 21st Century’s moral economy, many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.

    It seems that the West itself is an extended phenotype of Africans and has been for centuries now, and perhaps even for millenia. There aren’t any natives on, say, Jamaica because the British replaced them with Africans. The West has its roots in the Mediterranean, and Mediterraneans have African admixture going very far back. The Sacred Cow status of blacks now seems to be this extended phenotype just becoming more overt and explicit.

    So the conflict may not be the world vs. Africa, but the West/Africa vs. the rest of the world, with the rest of the world like the Arawaks and Taino and the West/Africa like the British and African slaves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Olorin says:
    @TG
    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.

    A recent article suggests that in Bangladesh there is a 41% incidence of 'stunting' and a 16% incidence of 'wasting'. These people are not going to have six kids a pop no matter how hard they try.

    https://bangladesh.savethechildren.net/news/malnutrition-bangladesh-new-report-published

    And of course Bangladesh has had the safety valve of immigration to India - there are no reliable statistics on this but it might be huge. Remember, if a couple who are going to have six kids and 36 grandkids etc. immigrate to India it has a restraint on Bangladesh's potential population growth of more than just minus two...

    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.

    There is more to this than “Calories in, babies out.”

    There are evolutionarily and geographically sculpted differences between Bengali and (various) African women regarding how much “malnourishment” of what types can be endured and still reproduce at what level.

    Global food aid regimes never took this into account that I could see. Those were mainly efforts to deliver to leaders of nations that deliberately starve their own people surplus carbs produced by highly centralized American corporate agriculture. Generally this delivery occurs for political and career reasons under the mask of Conspicuous Altruism. (I’ll come back to Live Aid in a moment.) Though I’ve known some hard-headed geopolitical types who admit the use of food as a diplomatic (so to speak) instrument.

    This was coupled with other forms of death control, but setting that aside for the moment:

    • Which subpopulation of the two you note will have a higher reproduction rate at near starvation?

    • What features of their biology–both in the moment and upstream (ancestral)–account for this?

    • What does “hunger” or “famine” mean when you can still proliferate genes at a rate outstripping those who are not hungry?

    Those two words seem to get used interchangeably. But “hunger” seems to be the individual experience while “famine” is the population effect. We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of “famine” at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.

    In my mid- to late 20s I had enough life experience, stats, and evolutionary biology under my belt to consider that “starving” may be the natural state of Africans who have not evolved much in the past 50,000 years. Around then the whole Live Aid scam appeared.

    At that time in my life, it struck me as noteworthy that the populations of Ethiopia and Sudan kept increasing steadily despite all the reports of “famine.” I thought famine implied a population crash of some sort. Like I’d read about in ancient Sumerian texts.

    But no.

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/ethiopia/2017/

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/sudan/2017/

    So what was “famine”? Was it a population-affecting matter, or something else? Which population(s) and what effects?

    In my 30s and 40s, in my professional work I’d raise this question in roundabout ways since talking about African fertility at the population level has been entirely taboo. The response was without exception a sort of gob-smacked horror that I was asking even so mild a question.

    Then the reply would be on order of, well, yes, they are still increasing their population. But the hunger/famine is terrible suffering that Keeps Them From Living Up To Their Potential and makes them Die Before They Should.

    And besides, we are so very good at growing food in the First World–we are obligated to share!

    Plus what are farmers supposed to do with the surpluses they were ordered to grow by the grocery and food and Big Pharma-Ag speculators?

    And besides, white farmers in the Midwest should shut up and do what their global betters on both coasts tell them to!!

    I will note that it is an interesting exercise to look up the organizers of Live Aid, Harvey Goldsmith and Bill Graham, and see how they are monetarizing other human suffering. IIRC Goldsmith is now organizing concerts against cancer or some such.

    And maybe this is worth reviewing:

    http://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/28/the-tarnished-halo-of-saint-bob-geldof/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Anyone else ever find it interesting that Bob Geldof made his mega millions from rights he retained to a Swedish game show invented by a business partner with whom he owned a TV production company.

    It involved people stuck on an island who get to vote others off it.

    The show was called Expedition Robinson, and it was remade later as Survivor.

    Ironic, nu?

    , @Rob McX

    We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of “famine” at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.
     
    From a hard biological point of view, hunger and famine are preferable to genetic extinction. Leaving descendants is the supreme priority. Judged by this standard, Africans are phenomenally successful compared to whites, no matter how many famines or diseases they endure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Searching for a high correlation with Nigeria’s population up to present day and then reverse-sorting by correlation coefficient (and filtering by overall population) in the future also yielded a similar relative trend for Pakistan relative to Nigeria:

    Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Pakistan

    It’s also interesting to take a look at India’s population projections given its neighbors Pakistan and Bangladesh. Those are the only countries I found that were about the same size as Nigeria from 1950 – present, but I didn’t search exhaustively.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Simon in London
    1. How many Africans can American agribusiness subsidised exports actually support? There has to be some kind of a limit, but it's not obvious that Western agriculture can't support 4 billion Africans if there is enough political will.

    2. Partially Africanised Western nations should still be highly agriculturally productive and will be able to go on exporting large amounts of food. It only takes a relatively small cognitive elite to stay productive.

    3. At some point Western nations swamped by immigration will suffer a step-change collapse prompted by corruption and expropriation, as happened in Zimbabwe and may be happening in South Africa shortly, but this may be well beyond the end of this century. This assumes China is not able or willing to prevent this.

    So I think on current trajectories, while there will likely be a massive die-back and 'dark age' it may well after 2100 (nearer to 2200), and well after whites become a small minority in their homelands.

    It's also possible however that the West will evolve cultural mechanisms to keep a cognitive elite in power, like the whites in Latin America. This could very well be an Obama-style 'mulatto elite' though. Whether this elite could keep the system running indefinitely is an open question.

    The question of whether western agriculture can ‘support’ 4 billion Africans.

    Pure Malthus.

    Firstly, the US population is rapidly growing and will continue to grow rapidly (all non white growth).Enormous tracts of prime US agricultural land be built upon. Then there is the question of aquifier depletion. It is conceivable that the USA itself will be a big net food importer.
    Then there is the question of the Africans having the actual wherewithal to purchase the food on the open market – or to else to be a massive, permanent a dcever growing fiscal liability to what’s left of the foolish white world – forget Orientals doing anything, and remember that the USA will be non white run – and possibly financially chaotic – by that time.
    Plus you have the sheer logistics of transporting that enormous quantity of food, plus the enormous tax/adminstrative/corporate complex to organise the massive supply chain, remember the free market won’t touch dead losses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rob McX
    I agree with your assessment of Obama. The way to get him to encourage population restriction in Africa would be to somehow make population restriction a cool idea and a remunerative one for him personally. And I don't think Africans are going to pay him big money to come and tell them we'd like to see a lot fewer of them. I can't see anyone willing to shell out millions to him for doing that. Population control is not where the money is.

    Obama is of a specific tribe of Kenyans. Him telling other Africans to have less children will be about as effective as Frenchmen telling Germans to have fewer children, or Russians telling Poles, or any number of similar scenarios. Nobody will pay any attention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @TG
    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.

    A recent article suggests that in Bangladesh there is a 41% incidence of 'stunting' and a 16% incidence of 'wasting'. These people are not going to have six kids a pop no matter how hard they try.

    https://bangladesh.savethechildren.net/news/malnutrition-bangladesh-new-report-published

    And of course Bangladesh has had the safety valve of immigration to India - there are no reliable statistics on this but it might be huge. Remember, if a couple who are going to have six kids and 36 grandkids etc. immigrate to India it has a restraint on Bangladesh's potential population growth of more than just minus two...

    “And of course Bangladesh has had the safety valve of immigration to India….”

    And of course Africa has the safety valve of emigration to Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Anonym
    I was thinking the same thing. Bangladeshis are not SSAs. But what about Detroit or Compton? Maybe what is needed is to export gangster rap culture to Africa. But they already have it. :(

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_hip_hop

    So what exactly is the secret sauce of AAs to lower the birthrate in America?

    The abortion rate for black Americans is three to four times that of white Americans. Around 2008, the black American abortion rate was four to five times higher than white Americans.

    Most black American women are single and don’t have the safety net of a husband’s income. Married black American women are more educated, have higher income, and less likely to have children than unmarried black American women.

    American society is vocally negative when people have more than two children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Regardless of one's personal feelings on the practice, one must acknowledge that abortion on demand has been mostly eugenic if one considers intelligent and functional people to be in the plus column and low IQ, low time preference, or completely clueless and dysfunctional people in the minus column.

    White women who have abortions are mostly skanks, dopers, sluts, and the like. When one factors in women who have multiple abortions, the numbers are even more lopsided. Women who have only one usually go on to have families after marriage, marriages that wouldn't happen if they already had one illegitimate kid.

    Nonwhite abortion is much more evenly spread across relative socioeconomic factors. Blacks, mestizos, and aboriginals just can't use birth control consistently. White girls with >100 IQs mostly do. They take the pill on time, every time, and/or make sure the guy wraps his rascal and uses proper procedure.

    Paying black girls with<85 IQs a stipend for ten years to be Essured (actually , any girls with that low an IQ) would have huge benefits. And black males in jail should be DNA tested and matched up with the welfare earning spawn of baby mamas nationwide and those responsible should be made to pay child support or be put in detention unless submitting to a vasectomy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. jJay says:

    I spent a couple of months in Bangladesh 8 years ago, mostly in Dhaka but I went off into the rural areas too.

    Dhaka is just horrible. As for the rural areas, one word: bananas. There were banana trees everywhere I went out there. These are small, sweet bananas, not the South American ones. There were too many bananas to pick. Constipation might be a problem in rural Bangledesh, but not outright starvation. This contrasts with what the people of Niger might meet on the edge of a barren desert.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. eah says:

    this enormous threat to the world

    How is African population growth an “enormous threat to the world”? — please explain.

    Your posts on this topic are very wimpy — all that needs to be done is turn the boats back — I would suggest the following: deploy appropriate naval forces, including a hospital ship or two; intercept and pacify the boats, using whatever force is necessary; give all aboard any needed medical care (which won’t be much, since a big majority are healthy young men), also food and water of course; take biometric data/info from them (whatever can be most conveniently and cheaply stored, and later quickly scanned/recognized); distribute 100€ (or $100, many of them would have paid a lot more for the crossing) to each person — note the biometric data is to make sure this only happens once; then take all of them back to an African port, preferably the one the boat came from (if known), towing the boat; disembark all the people back in Africa; then sink the boat right in the harbor, telling the government there that if they do not want their harbor to fill up with sunken boats, they better do something to stop the trafficking.

    There is nothing inhumane about this (how much force is used depends on how well the migrants cooperate; no resistance should be tolerated), and it averts your “enormous threat to the world” — the number of boats attempting to cross would dwindle very quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    How is African population growth an “enormous threat to the world”? — please explain.
     
    Let me put it this way: if you're not black, you'd have to be out of your mind to want to see earth's black population quadruple in relation to yours.

    It ain't rocket science.

    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/V_of_Europe/status/879748269445873664
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Rob McX
    I agree with your assessment of Obama. The way to get him to encourage population restriction in Africa would be to somehow make population restriction a cool idea and a remunerative one for him personally. And I don't think Africans are going to pay him big money to come and tell them we'd like to see a lot fewer of them. I can't see anyone willing to shell out millions to him for doing that. Population control is not where the money is.

    I think that is what Obama did with Latinos in the US. He increased birth control devices for the poor and noticed Latino birth rates in the US have dropped. His problem was DACA and DARPA and of course allowing central american kids and women, but just think if a Republican conservative pushed birth control for Latinos and controlling the border we would have less Latinos in the next 10 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Would these hands-off-Africa liberals be the same ones who now so loudly proclaim that African blacks have an inalienable Gaia-given right to swarm into white homelands and leech off of white welfare states?

    Yes, in fact. Why do you think they advocate for it now? Because there’s no looming threat of a massive refugee crisis which could flood the country with enormous amounts of Africans. These white-guilt driven liberals are just trying to ease their conscience, but when the threat becomes manifest they’ll suddenly become very, very quiet. Letting in 50k or even 100k African refugees right now is enough of a token gesture (for them, at least) that lets them sleep easy while avoiding any impact those refugees would have on their lives. But if that number skyrockets to 1mil+, the side effects will be catastrophically unavoidable.

    Whites would rather die – literally – than take any actions that might make them look racist.

    You’re forgetting the Fundamental Law of White Liberals: whenever minorities threaten a white liberal’s own living standards and everyday life, they will become incredibly racist.

    But wouldn’t it be nice if we could spare them the agony in the first place?

    It would be nice, I completely agree—I’m not an advocate of human suffering. But realistically, it’s almost impossible to stop human-caused disasters in Africa.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Kevin C.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    One significant difference.

    Bangladeshis can be cooperative and moral.

    Most Nigerians? Unruly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    How does it feel knowing your daughters will bear Children of Color?

    So much for HBD or whatever pseudo scientific bullshit you guys believe in

    “This is beautiful…….what is that velvet?”

    - Leonard Pitts

    All people of color agree….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. All sorts of things are likely to happen over the next 83 years.

    One thing I hope happens is that the primary political-demographic distinction in people’s minds shifts from white/non-white to black/non-black. By the time SSA’s grow from 1 billion to 4 billion, I would like to think it’s almost certain that shift will have taken place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    One thing I hope happens is that the primary political-demographic distinction in people’s minds shifts from white/non-white to black/non-black. By the time SSA’s grow from 1 billion to 4 billion, I would like to think it’s almost certain that shift will have taken place.
     
    You can hope this happens, like to think it'll happen, but it's clear that it's not going to happen. However much the various non-whites hate one another, the KKKrazy Glue of hating whitey is too strong for them to be divided. "White/non-white" will remain; so long as there's one white person still alive on this planet, non-whites the world over will still set aside their mutual hatreds and come together in the cause of killing him and stealing his stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @eah
    this enormous threat to the world

    How is African population growth an "enormous threat to the world"? -- please explain.

    Your posts on this topic are very wimpy -- all that needs to be done is turn the boats back -- I would suggest the following: deploy appropriate naval forces, including a hospital ship or two; intercept and pacify the boats, using whatever force is necessary; give all aboard any needed medical care (which won't be much, since a big majority are healthy young men), also food and water of course; take biometric data/info from them (whatever can be most conveniently and cheaply stored, and later quickly scanned/recognized); distribute 100€ (or $100, many of them would have paid a lot more for the crossing) to each person -- note the biometric data is to make sure this only happens once; then take all of them back to an African port, preferably the one the boat came from (if known), towing the boat; disembark all the people back in Africa; then sink the boat right in the harbor, telling the government there that if they do not want their harbor to fill up with sunken boats, they better do something to stop the trafficking.

    There is nothing inhumane about this (how much force is used depends on how well the migrants cooperate; no resistance should be tolerated), and it averts your "enormous threat to the world" -- the number of boats attempting to cross would dwindle very quickly.

    How is African population growth an “enormous threat to the world”? — please explain.

    Let me put it this way: if you’re not black, you’d have to be out of your mind to want to see earth’s black population quadruple in relation to yours.

    It ain’t rocket science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Mr Sailer has been posting (a lot) about population growth in Africa -- how are you personally affected by the number of Africans in Africa? -- I repeat the general question: how is population growth in Africa an "enormous threat to the world"? -- I can understand how it is a threat, maybe even an "enormous" one, to Africa itself, where most people live in poverty, as it is difficult to imagine that changing with such large population growth -- but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an "enormous threat to the world"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @International Jew
    The prospect of emigrating to Europe might be playing a role in sustaining Africa's high birth rate. Think of a child as a lottery ticket that "wins" if that child makes it to Europe. By logic, you'd want to produce as many lottery tickets as possible.

    So my not-entirely-disinterested suggestion for reducing Africa's birthrate: stop rescuing boats in the Mediterranean.

    So my not-entirely-disinterested suggestion for reducing Africa’s birthrate: stop rescuing boats in the Mediterranean.

    But of course.

    Let’s say it failed to have the desired effect, however.

    Hypothetically, imagine the only alternatives were:

    (a) allow yourself to be swamped by SSA’s

    (b) sink their boats and strafe the survivors with machine gun fire

    Which would you choose?

    For me (b) is a complete no-brainer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Karl says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    there is a reasonable hope that the African population bomb can be defused.
     

    many non-blacks are terrified to give due emphasis to this enormous threat to the world.
     
    You're coming off more alarmist than usual—and necessary, Steve.

    This is Africa, we're talking about. Sub-Saharan African. When shit actually hits the fan there, nobody cares or gets involved (see: Rwandan genocide). If the population of Nigeria grows too much too quickly, it will be a crisis for the Africans to deal with, using whatever methods they deem necessary (see: Rwandan genocide). Liberals will refuse to get involved for the exact same reason they refuse to talk about there being any problems in Africa: fear of being racist, or even worse, a neo-colonialial imperialist. They'll cast a blind eye until it's all over and the hand-wringing begins over the atrocities and horrors which just occurred.

    As for foreign powers getting involved, well... they won't. China isn't dumb enough to get mired down in an African bloodbath, and honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    7 al-Gharaniq > [China is] honestly is more likely to pull all their assets out if something happens.

    nothing has ever happened in Africa for very long.

    Anyway, these things actually do NOT happen “overnight”. No place in Africa is VERY far from a jetplane ride to Djibouti…. where there is a Chinese military base.

    The mining engineers will get to the correct side of the PLA checkpoint, in plenty of time. With enough money in their pocket to fuck a few Eritrean mulatta amateur bar-hookers before they fly back to wifey in Shanghai.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. SnakeEyes says:

    What happens to the population curve when a totalitarian one-child policy is enforced? How quickly does that halt population momentum?

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    It depends how close to replacement level you were when the enforcement kicks in. Going from, say, 2.5 to 1.0 stops momentum pretty much dead in its tracks. Going from 5.0 to 1.0 leaves you, from memory, with some twenty years still (but I may be completely misremembering).
    , @Olorin
    http://www.miniwebtool.com/exponential-decay-calculator/

    Express decay rate as a decimal--10% = .1, etc.

    Compare:

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialDecay.html

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MalthusianParameter.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @SnakeEyes
    What happens to the population curve when a totalitarian one-child policy is enforced? How quickly does that halt population momentum?

    It depends how close to replacement level you were when the enforcement kicks in. Going from, say, 2.5 to 1.0 stops momentum pretty much dead in its tracks. Going from 5.0 to 1.0 leaves you, from memory, with some twenty years still (but I may be completely misremembering).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Triumph104
    The abortion rate for black Americans is three to four times that of white Americans. Around 2008, the black American abortion rate was four to five times higher than white Americans.

    Most black American women are single and don't have the safety net of a husband's income. Married black American women are more educated, have higher income, and less likely to have children than unmarried black American women.

    American society is vocally negative when people have more than two children.

    Regardless of one’s personal feelings on the practice, one must acknowledge that abortion on demand has been mostly eugenic if one considers intelligent and functional people to be in the plus column and low IQ, low time preference, or completely clueless and dysfunctional people in the minus column.

    White women who have abortions are mostly skanks, dopers, sluts, and the like. When one factors in women who have multiple abortions, the numbers are even more lopsided. Women who have only one usually go on to have families after marriage, marriages that wouldn’t happen if they already had one illegitimate kid.

    Nonwhite abortion is much more evenly spread across relative socioeconomic factors. Blacks, mestizos, and aboriginals just can’t use birth control consistently. White girls with >100 IQs mostly do. They take the pill on time, every time, and/or make sure the guy wraps his rascal and uses proper procedure.

    Paying black girls with<85 IQs a stipend for ten years to be Essured (actually , any girls with that low an IQ) would have huge benefits. And black males in jail should be DNA tested and matched up with the welfare earning spawn of baby mamas nationwide and those responsible should be made to pay child support or be put in detention unless submitting to a vasectomy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Olorin says:
    @Olorin

    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.
     
    There is more to this than "Calories in, babies out."

    There are evolutionarily and geographically sculpted differences between Bengali and (various) African women regarding how much "malnourishment" of what types can be endured and still reproduce at what level.

    Global food aid regimes never took this into account that I could see. Those were mainly efforts to deliver to leaders of nations that deliberately starve their own people surplus carbs produced by highly centralized American corporate agriculture. Generally this delivery occurs for political and career reasons under the mask of Conspicuous Altruism. (I'll come back to Live Aid in a moment.) Though I've known some hard-headed geopolitical types who admit the use of food as a diplomatic (so to speak) instrument.

    This was coupled with other forms of death control, but setting that aside for the moment:

    • Which subpopulation of the two you note will have a higher reproduction rate at near starvation?

    • What features of their biology--both in the moment and upstream (ancestral)--account for this?

    • What does "hunger" or "famine" mean when you can still proliferate genes at a rate outstripping those who are not hungry?

    Those two words seem to get used interchangeably. But "hunger" seems to be the individual experience while "famine" is the population effect. We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of "famine" at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.

    In my mid- to late 20s I had enough life experience, stats, and evolutionary biology under my belt to consider that "starving" may be the natural state of Africans who have not evolved much in the past 50,000 years. Around then the whole Live Aid scam appeared.

    At that time in my life, it struck me as noteworthy that the populations of Ethiopia and Sudan kept increasing steadily despite all the reports of "famine." I thought famine implied a population crash of some sort. Like I'd read about in ancient Sumerian texts.

    But no.

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/ethiopia/2017/
    https://www.populationpyramid.net/sudan/2017/

    So what was "famine"? Was it a population-affecting matter, or something else? Which population(s) and what effects?

    In my 30s and 40s, in my professional work I'd raise this question in roundabout ways since talking about African fertility at the population level has been entirely taboo. The response was without exception a sort of gob-smacked horror that I was asking even so mild a question.

    Then the reply would be on order of, well, yes, they are still increasing their population. But the hunger/famine is terrible suffering that Keeps Them From Living Up To Their Potential and makes them Die Before They Should.

    And besides, we are so very good at growing food in the First World--we are obligated to share!

    Plus what are farmers supposed to do with the surpluses they were ordered to grow by the grocery and food and Big Pharma-Ag speculators?

    And besides, white farmers in the Midwest should shut up and do what their global betters on both coasts tell them to!!

    I will note that it is an interesting exercise to look up the organizers of Live Aid, Harvey Goldsmith and Bill Graham, and see how they are monetarizing other human suffering. IIRC Goldsmith is now organizing concerts against cancer or some such.

    And maybe this is worth reviewing:

    http://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/28/the-tarnished-halo-of-saint-bob-geldof/

    Anyone else ever find it interesting that Bob Geldof made his mega millions from rights he retained to a Swedish game show invented by a business partner with whom he owned a TV production company.

    It involved people stuck on an island who get to vote others off it.

    The show was called Expedition Robinson, and it was remade later as Survivor.

    Ironic, nu?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. eah says:
    @silviosilver

    How is African population growth an “enormous threat to the world”? — please explain.
     
    Let me put it this way: if you're not black, you'd have to be out of your mind to want to see earth's black population quadruple in relation to yours.

    It ain't rocket science.

    Mr Sailer has been posting (a lot) about population growth in Africa — how are you personally affected by the number of Africans in Africa? — I repeat the general question: how is population growth in Africa an “enormous threat to the world”? — I can understand how it is a threat, maybe even an “enormous” one, to Africa itself, where most people live in poverty, as it is difficult to imagine that changing with such large population growth — but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an “enormous threat to the world”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    They're a threat to the non-human environment in Africa, which makes up more than a fifth of the planet's land area. As Africans keep multiplying, they'll drive one species after another to extinction. Making sure the natives stay in Africa would be a huge benefit to us, but it would still be in our interests to keep their numbers from increasing.
    , @Kevin C.

    but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed
     
    That right there is your problem; this is not at all a reasonable — or even plausible — assumption.
    , @silviosilver

    but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an “enormous threat to the world”?
     
    I have no faith in that assumption, none whatsoever. So what if this generation or the next few succeed in prohibiting Africans from entering? Who's to say sentiments won't change? I'd feel many times safer knowing the relative number of Africans on earth was diminishing, no matter where in the world they're parked, for simple fear (or call it political wisdom) that they won't remain stationary.

    Also, with growing numbers comes growing global political clout. I don't want Africans making the rules (or even having in any say in it); do you? It's all very well to take pity on the poor bastards today, given how impoverished and still demographically 'manageable' they are. But whoah, hold on, I definitely don't want to see them being a rising global influence. Why in the world should I? What's in it for my group (or for any non-black group)? The African problem requires hardassed realism, not softhearted fantasies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Rob McX says:
    @Olorin

    It matters how a fertility rate is falling. There is a lot of chronic malnutrition in Bangladesh. Women who are chronically malnourished are generally incapable of bringing large numbers of pregnancies to term. This should be factored into the discussion.
     
    There is more to this than "Calories in, babies out."

    There are evolutionarily and geographically sculpted differences between Bengali and (various) African women regarding how much "malnourishment" of what types can be endured and still reproduce at what level.

    Global food aid regimes never took this into account that I could see. Those were mainly efforts to deliver to leaders of nations that deliberately starve their own people surplus carbs produced by highly centralized American corporate agriculture. Generally this delivery occurs for political and career reasons under the mask of Conspicuous Altruism. (I'll come back to Live Aid in a moment.) Though I've known some hard-headed geopolitical types who admit the use of food as a diplomatic (so to speak) instrument.

    This was coupled with other forms of death control, but setting that aside for the moment:

    • Which subpopulation of the two you note will have a higher reproduction rate at near starvation?

    • What features of their biology--both in the moment and upstream (ancestral)--account for this?

    • What does "hunger" or "famine" mean when you can still proliferate genes at a rate outstripping those who are not hungry?

    Those two words seem to get used interchangeably. But "hunger" seems to be the individual experience while "famine" is the population effect. We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of "famine" at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.

    In my mid- to late 20s I had enough life experience, stats, and evolutionary biology under my belt to consider that "starving" may be the natural state of Africans who have not evolved much in the past 50,000 years. Around then the whole Live Aid scam appeared.

    At that time in my life, it struck me as noteworthy that the populations of Ethiopia and Sudan kept increasing steadily despite all the reports of "famine." I thought famine implied a population crash of some sort. Like I'd read about in ancient Sumerian texts.

    But no.

    https://www.populationpyramid.net/ethiopia/2017/
    https://www.populationpyramid.net/sudan/2017/

    So what was "famine"? Was it a population-affecting matter, or something else? Which population(s) and what effects?

    In my 30s and 40s, in my professional work I'd raise this question in roundabout ways since talking about African fertility at the population level has been entirely taboo. The response was without exception a sort of gob-smacked horror that I was asking even so mild a question.

    Then the reply would be on order of, well, yes, they are still increasing their population. But the hunger/famine is terrible suffering that Keeps Them From Living Up To Their Potential and makes them Die Before They Should.

    And besides, we are so very good at growing food in the First World--we are obligated to share!

    Plus what are farmers supposed to do with the surpluses they were ordered to grow by the grocery and food and Big Pharma-Ag speculators?

    And besides, white farmers in the Midwest should shut up and do what their global betters on both coasts tell them to!!

    I will note that it is an interesting exercise to look up the organizers of Live Aid, Harvey Goldsmith and Bill Graham, and see how they are monetarizing other human suffering. IIRC Goldsmith is now organizing concerts against cancer or some such.

    And maybe this is worth reviewing:

    http://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/28/the-tarnished-halo-of-saint-bob-geldof/

    We might expect individualists, like altruistic whites, to think more of “famine” at the level of individual suffering and not population effects. We might expect more tribally based people to think of it at the population level…which certainly ties in to the immivasion of Europe.

    From a hard biological point of view, hunger and famine are preferable to genetic extinction. Leaving descendants is the supreme priority. Judged by this standard, Africans are phenomenally successful compared to whites, no matter how many famines or diseases they endure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Rob McX says:
    @eah
    Mr Sailer has been posting (a lot) about population growth in Africa -- how are you personally affected by the number of Africans in Africa? -- I repeat the general question: how is population growth in Africa an "enormous threat to the world"? -- I can understand how it is a threat, maybe even an "enormous" one, to Africa itself, where most people live in poverty, as it is difficult to imagine that changing with such large population growth -- but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an "enormous threat to the world"?

    They’re a threat to the non-human environment in Africa, which makes up more than a fifth of the planet’s land area. As Africans keep multiplying, they’ll drive one species after another to extinction. Making sure the natives stay in Africa would be a huge benefit to us, but it would still be in our interests to keep their numbers from increasing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Not enough people here understand or know about the African population problem. A short while ago I attended a social event where some white woman asked if I would want to contribute to an African well digging fund. Her husband died and she is setting up a memorial fund.
    This is just one example of how clueless many white people are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Her memorial to her husband is digging a hole to pour money into?

    My my.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Olorin says:
    @SnakeEyes
    What happens to the population curve when a totalitarian one-child policy is enforced? How quickly does that halt population momentum?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Olorin says:
    @europeasant
    Not enough people here understand or know about the African population problem. A short while ago I attended a social event where some white woman asked if I would want to contribute to an African well digging fund. Her husband died and she is setting up a memorial fund.
    This is just one example of how clueless many white people are.

    Her memorial to her husband is digging a hole to pour money into?

    My my.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Rob McX
    I think what keeps the black American birthrate low is the fact that they live in an advanced white society where the attractions of consumer goods and the benefits of technology are a substitute for reproduction. But Africans themselves will never build such a society.

    No, what keeps the black American birthrate low is that smart black women have very nearly stopped having kids. A big chunk of the smart ones who do marry non-black and their babies are in the white, multiracial or Hispanic data. And the handful of ghetto enclaves full of baby mamas are sufficiently inhibiting to most other black women that they don’t have very many either.

    Immigrant blacks are propping up the black birth rate (and it’s still dropping anyway). Native blacks are down in the dumps, birth wise.

    The college mom thing is probably also an inhibitor. White kids are mostly born to college moms, and that’s getting more so, not less so, and black women with the same background are lighter on the ground, so there’s class clash because they are scattered rather than being able to reliably find a group of themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. eah says:
    @eah
    this enormous threat to the world

    How is African population growth an "enormous threat to the world"? -- please explain.

    Your posts on this topic are very wimpy -- all that needs to be done is turn the boats back -- I would suggest the following: deploy appropriate naval forces, including a hospital ship or two; intercept and pacify the boats, using whatever force is necessary; give all aboard any needed medical care (which won't be much, since a big majority are healthy young men), also food and water of course; take biometric data/info from them (whatever can be most conveniently and cheaply stored, and later quickly scanned/recognized); distribute 100€ (or $100, many of them would have paid a lot more for the crossing) to each person -- note the biometric data is to make sure this only happens once; then take all of them back to an African port, preferably the one the boat came from (if known), towing the boat; disembark all the people back in Africa; then sink the boat right in the harbor, telling the government there that if they do not want their harbor to fill up with sunken boats, they better do something to stop the trafficking.

    There is nothing inhumane about this (how much force is used depends on how well the migrants cooperate; no resistance should be tolerated), and it averts your "enormous threat to the world" -- the number of boats attempting to cross would dwindle very quickly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Marck says:
    @PiltdownMan
    It is interesting to note that Bangladesh women's fertility rate started dropping circa 1971, the year it was founded, having been the erstwhile East Pakistan. In the year that preceded its founding, it lost approximately half a million people to a hurricane, and a like amount to famine and West Pakistani army mass killings. It is normal to see a baby boom in a nation after a period like that, but Muslim Bangladesh's decline in fertility numbers mirrors that of Hindu majority India next door, almost year for year.

    A demographer friend of mine who has spent her life studying contraception, fertility and social/cultural factors says that Sub-Saharan African fertility is utterly bizarre, in terms of what is known about declining fertility levels elsewhere during the 20th century.

    Elsewhere, historically high infant mortality meant that women had many babies, hoping that a few would survive to adulthood, and form the basis of old-age support. Once mortality drops for a single generation, women quickly realize that they are producing too many mouths to feed, and fertility drops in the next generation as they turn to contraception.

    In Africa, though, women have been born with large sibling cohorts for a generation, since infant mortality fell a while ago. Yet they produce many offspring, despite watching their siblings scramble for scarce resources. It's a mystery.

    Nobody mentions how incredible it is that these backward third World countries manage to accurately count their populations. How do we really know there are 190 million people in Nigeria or 160 million in Bangladesh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    We don't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Kevin C. says:
    @silviosilver

    All sorts of things are likely to happen over the next 83 years.
     
    One thing I hope happens is that the primary political-demographic distinction in people's minds shifts from white/non-white to black/non-black. By the time SSA's grow from 1 billion to 4 billion, I would like to think it's almost certain that shift will have taken place.

    One thing I hope happens is that the primary political-demographic distinction in people’s minds shifts from white/non-white to black/non-black. By the time SSA’s grow from 1 billion to 4 billion, I would like to think it’s almost certain that shift will have taken place.

    You can hope this happens, like to think it’ll happen, but it’s clear that it’s not going to happen. However much the various non-whites hate one another, the KKKrazy Glue of hating whitey is too strong for them to be divided. “White/non-white” will remain; so long as there’s one white person still alive on this planet, non-whites the world over will still set aside their mutual hatreds and come together in the cause of killing him and stealing his stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    It's not clear to me at all. I don't see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil. People there aren't reflexively anti-white, they're reflexively anti-black. Anti-whitism is largely the result of a fifty year anti-white propaganda war. One of the results of 'anti-racism' has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren't (or are 'no longer') the bad guys and that they've got much more to gain from keeping out blacks than they have from criticizing whites. Maybe you and I won't be around to see it, but that shouldn't mean it's not an outcome worth setting our sights on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Kevin C. says:
    @eah
    Mr Sailer has been posting (a lot) about population growth in Africa -- how are you personally affected by the number of Africans in Africa? -- I repeat the general question: how is population growth in Africa an "enormous threat to the world"? -- I can understand how it is a threat, maybe even an "enormous" one, to Africa itself, where most people live in poverty, as it is difficult to imagine that changing with such large population growth -- but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an "enormous threat to the world"?

    but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed

    That right there is your problem; this is not at all a reasonable — or even plausible — assumption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @eah
    Mr Sailer has been posting (a lot) about population growth in Africa -- how are you personally affected by the number of Africans in Africa? -- I repeat the general question: how is population growth in Africa an "enormous threat to the world"? -- I can understand how it is a threat, maybe even an "enormous" one, to Africa itself, where most people live in poverty, as it is difficult to imagine that changing with such large population growth -- but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an "enormous threat to the world"?

    but assuming mass emigration from Africa is not allowed, how is it an “enormous threat to the world”?

    I have no faith in that assumption, none whatsoever. So what if this generation or the next few succeed in prohibiting Africans from entering? Who’s to say sentiments won’t change? I’d feel many times safer knowing the relative number of Africans on earth was diminishing, no matter where in the world they’re parked, for simple fear (or call it political wisdom) that they won’t remain stationary.

    Also, with growing numbers comes growing global political clout. I don’t want Africans making the rules (or even having in any say in it); do you? It’s all very well to take pity on the poor bastards today, given how impoverished and still demographically ‘manageable’ they are. But whoah, hold on, I definitely don’t want to see them being a rising global influence. Why in the world should I? What’s in it for my group (or for any non-black group)? The African problem requires hardassed realism, not softhearted fantasies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Dee says:

    Good luck with getting the Gay-Mulatto to help. His first inclination would be to tell the whites to stop breeding; that will leave more room and food for the feral minorities….just think, in 50 years white girls born today will be in menopause and no more whites!!!

    That would leave Europe and North America, New Zealand and Australia, with lots of empty room. I just read a op-ed in the Feminazi mag Medusa, she wanted all the whites aborted, so they’re already running down the white genocide road….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Marck
    Nobody mentions how incredible it is that these backward third World countries manage to accurately count their populations. How do we really know there are 190 million people in Nigeria or 160 million in Bangladesh?

    We don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    The United Nations, under various programs in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the US Government, which extended Bureau of Labor Statistics technical expertise and training under various bilateral programs under the umbrella of foreign aid, undertook a vast world-wide effort to set up statistical data gathering efforts on population, demographics, and economic data.

    The programs were ambitious, and staffed by some very smart people, who addressed themselves to the seemingly impossible task of setting up systems of getting comparable economic statistics in diverse countries, ranging from agrarian medieval societies to those at a second world, take-off stage.

    The branch of economic statistics is known as national accounts, and is quite specialized, presenting, obviously, significant logistical and definitional challeges to those who set them up. By and large they succeeded, but the problem since then, for the last 50 years or so, has been monitoring, quality control and drift. Some self-correcting bureaucratic mechanisms were indeed set up, but obviously, in countries that have seen large scale upheaval, and in countries where the professional or bureaucratic class is thin on the ground, the data can be iffy.

    But these countries have often had to resort to loans from the World Bank or IMF, and as a condition of the loans, they made to shape up their data gathering back to original standards. So there is some level of external audit going on, in many countries.

    I know about all this at an anecdotal level, because my dad, a economic statistician who had worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Julius Shiskin, spent a good part of 1961-1965 helping set up the statistical reporting systems in East Africa, and in the 70s, the Caribbean, which involved a lot of field work. His brother, who was in the same line of work, did the same in West Africa.

    At a technical level, the UN and US foreign aid effort wasn't always what is often comes across as today, a bunch of ideological bureaucrats. There were a lot of really smart, creative technical people with a sense of mission from advanced countries who formed the bulk of its non-political, technical assistance work from 1945-1975 or so.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Kevin C.

    One thing I hope happens is that the primary political-demographic distinction in people’s minds shifts from white/non-white to black/non-black. By the time SSA’s grow from 1 billion to 4 billion, I would like to think it’s almost certain that shift will have taken place.
     
    You can hope this happens, like to think it'll happen, but it's clear that it's not going to happen. However much the various non-whites hate one another, the KKKrazy Glue of hating whitey is too strong for them to be divided. "White/non-white" will remain; so long as there's one white person still alive on this planet, non-whites the world over will still set aside their mutual hatreds and come together in the cause of killing him and stealing his stuff.

    It’s not clear to me at all. I don’t see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil. People there aren’t reflexively anti-white, they’re reflexively anti-black. Anti-whitism is largely the result of a fifty year anti-white propaganda war. One of the results of ‘anti-racism’ has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren’t (or are ‘no longer’) the bad guys and that they’ve got much more to gain from keeping out blacks than they have from criticizing whites. Maybe you and I won’t be around to see it, but that shouldn’t mean it’s not an outcome worth setting our sights on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    I don’t see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil.
     
    Yet.

    One of the results of ‘anti-racism’ has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren’t (or are ‘no longer’) the bad guys
     
    No, I don't "have to figure that", because as I see it, that "incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races" hurts more than it helps. Because, at the level of individuals, I know plenty of folks who respond to help and charity with ingratitude and resentment toward those who give it — for having enough to be able to give such charity, for showing that the ungrateful recipient indeed needs it, and for still having more than them after such giving. The more you give this sort of person, the more they hate you for it, and the more they think they're entitled to everything else you have. And if this works at the individual level, why wouldn't it scale? Add in the "everyone loves a strong horse", whereby whites "incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races" looks like the weak submitting and offering tribute to their "betters". So as I see it, the more we burnish that "incomparable record", the more, not less, we become "the bad guys" in the eyes of much of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Kevin C. says:
    @silviosilver
    It's not clear to me at all. I don't see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil. People there aren't reflexively anti-white, they're reflexively anti-black. Anti-whitism is largely the result of a fifty year anti-white propaganda war. One of the results of 'anti-racism' has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren't (or are 'no longer') the bad guys and that they've got much more to gain from keeping out blacks than they have from criticizing whites. Maybe you and I won't be around to see it, but that shouldn't mean it's not an outcome worth setting our sights on.

    I don’t see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil.

    Yet.

    One of the results of ‘anti-racism’ has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren’t (or are ‘no longer’) the bad guys

    No, I don’t “have to figure that”, because as I see it, that “incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races” hurts more than it helps. Because, at the level of individuals, I know plenty of folks who respond to help and charity with ingratitude and resentment toward those who give it — for having enough to be able to give such charity, for showing that the ungrateful recipient indeed needs it, and for still having more than them after such giving. The more you give this sort of person, the more they hate you for it, and the more they think they’re entitled to everything else you have. And if this works at the individual level, why wouldn’t it scale? Add in the “everyone loves a strong horse”, whereby whites “incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races” looks like the weak submitting and offering tribute to their “betters”. So as I see it, the more we burnish that “incomparable record”, the more, not less, we become “the bad guys” in the eyes of much of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    No, that's merely an indignant way of looking at it, not a sensible way.

    Anti-white propaganda struck a chord with non-whites the world over because the historical record was indeed largely one of whites subjugating non-whites.

    White attempts to point out the benefits they'd brought the world tended, understandably, to be overlooked.

    Ongoing attempts to portray whites as oppressors, however, are feeble indeed - the sort of thing only blacks (and, I guess, Muslims) can be taken in by, I'd argue.

    Therefore I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that white beneficence could aid in a global racial change of attitude.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Kevin C.

    I don’t see that anti-white hate in Latin America or Brazil.
     
    Yet.

    One of the results of ‘anti-racism’ has been that whites have built up an incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races, and you have to figure that in time other races are going to realize that whites aren’t (or are ‘no longer’) the bad guys
     
    No, I don't "have to figure that", because as I see it, that "incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races" hurts more than it helps. Because, at the level of individuals, I know plenty of folks who respond to help and charity with ingratitude and resentment toward those who give it — for having enough to be able to give such charity, for showing that the ungrateful recipient indeed needs it, and for still having more than them after such giving. The more you give this sort of person, the more they hate you for it, and the more they think they're entitled to everything else you have. And if this works at the individual level, why wouldn't it scale? Add in the "everyone loves a strong horse", whereby whites "incomparable record of working towards the benefits of other races" looks like the weak submitting and offering tribute to their "betters". So as I see it, the more we burnish that "incomparable record", the more, not less, we become "the bad guys" in the eyes of much of the world.

    No, that’s merely an indignant way of looking at it, not a sensible way.

    Anti-white propaganda struck a chord with non-whites the world over because the historical record was indeed largely one of whites subjugating non-whites.

    White attempts to point out the benefits they’d brought the world tended, understandably, to be overlooked.

    Ongoing attempts to portray whites as oppressors, however, are feeble indeed – the sort of thing only blacks (and, I guess, Muslims) can be taken in by, I’d argue.

    Therefore I think it’s quite reasonable to suppose that white beneficence could aid in a global racial change of attitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    No, that’s merely an indignant way of looking at it, not a sensible way.
     
    Are you saying that I'm "indignant, not sensible", or that those folks I know who hate those who offer charity to then are such? If it's the latter, then so what? "Sensibility" is in very short supply in the bulk of humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Kevin C. says:
    @silviosilver
    No, that's merely an indignant way of looking at it, not a sensible way.

    Anti-white propaganda struck a chord with non-whites the world over because the historical record was indeed largely one of whites subjugating non-whites.

    White attempts to point out the benefits they'd brought the world tended, understandably, to be overlooked.

    Ongoing attempts to portray whites as oppressors, however, are feeble indeed - the sort of thing only blacks (and, I guess, Muslims) can be taken in by, I'd argue.

    Therefore I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that white beneficence could aid in a global racial change of attitude.

    No, that’s merely an indignant way of looking at it, not a sensible way.

    Are you saying that I’m “indignant, not sensible”, or that those folks I know who hate those who offer charity to then are such? If it’s the latter, then so what? “Sensibility” is in very short supply in the bulk of humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Steve Sailer
    We don't.

    The United Nations, under various programs in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the US Government, which extended Bureau of Labor Statistics technical expertise and training under various bilateral programs under the umbrella of foreign aid, undertook a vast world-wide effort to set up statistical data gathering efforts on population, demographics, and economic data.

    The programs were ambitious, and staffed by some very smart people, who addressed themselves to the seemingly impossible task of setting up systems of getting comparable economic statistics in diverse countries, ranging from agrarian medieval societies to those at a second world, take-off stage.

    The branch of economic statistics is known as national accounts, and is quite specialized, presenting, obviously, significant logistical and definitional challeges to those who set them up. By and large they succeeded, but the problem since then, for the last 50 years or so, has been monitoring, quality control and drift. Some self-correcting bureaucratic mechanisms were indeed set up, but obviously, in countries that have seen large scale upheaval, and in countries where the professional or bureaucratic class is thin on the ground, the data can be iffy.

    But these countries have often had to resort to loans from the World Bank or IMF, and as a condition of the loans, they made to shape up their data gathering back to original standards. So there is some level of external audit going on, in many countries.

    I know about all this at an anecdotal level, because my dad, a economic statistician who had worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics under Julius Shiskin, spent a good part of 1961-1965 helping set up the statistical reporting systems in East Africa, and in the 70s, the Caribbean, which involved a lot of field work. His brother, who was in the same line of work, did the same in West Africa.

    At a technical level, the UN and US foreign aid effort wasn’t always what is often comes across as today, a bunch of ideological bureaucrats. There were a lot of really smart, creative technical people with a sense of mission from advanced countries who formed the bulk of its non-political, technical assistance work from 1945-1975 or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation