The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Economist: Free Contraception for Africa Would be a Great Investment
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For a number of years now, I’ve been pointing out that the unbounded growth of population in Africa is one of the great menaces facing civilization in the 21st Century. The business press has mostly focused instead upon the economic promise of Africa’s “good demographics.” Lately, however, publications like the Wall Street Journal and now The Economist have started to wake up.

From The Economist:

African demography
The young continent

With fertility rates falling more slowly than anywhere else, Africa faces a population explosion

Dec 12th 2015 | MERTULE MARIAM, ETHIOPIA

ON A trolley in a government clinic in rural Ethiopia lies Debalke Jemberu. As a medic and a nurse winkle the sperm-carrying tubes out of his testicles, he explains why he decided to have a vasectomy. He is a farmer, growing wheat, sorghum and a local staple grain called teff. But his plot is barely a quarter of a hectare. He already has four children, and has often struggled to provide for them. “I couldn’t feed more children,” he says.

… His parents had seven children, but they had eight hectares to farm. That plot has been shared among his siblings, and diminished by sales and land reforms. At the same time, he complains, the cost of living has gone up. Seven children would be far too big a family these days.

Mr Jemberu’s daughter, who is 25, is still single (he married at 19). He is happy for her to concentrate on her studies for a few more years before starting a family. And when she does, he thinks two children would be plenty.

It’s important to keep in mind the phenomenon of “population momentum:” Say that all of Mr. Jemberu’s children just have the replacement rate of two children apiece. Problem solved, right? Ethiopia’s population immediately stabilizes.

No, it keeps going up for another generation because of the number of children his generation had. Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate — and that’s what will drive Ethiopia’s total population through 2050 or so.

Graph: John Bongaarts

… Alarmingly, population growth in Africa is not slowing as quickly as demographers had expected. In 2004 the UN predicted that the continent’s population would grow from a little over 900m at the time, to about 2.3 billion in 2100. At the same time it put the world’s total population in 2100 at 9.1 billion, up from 7.3 billion today. But the UN’s latest estimates, published earlier this year, have global population in 2100 at 11.2 billion—and Africa is where almost all the newly added people will be. The UN now thinks that by 2100 the continent will be home to 4.4 billion people, an increase of more than 2 billion compared with its previous estimate.

If the new projections are right, geopolitics will be turned upside-down. By the end of this century, Africa will be home to 39% of the world’s population, almost as much as Asia, and four times the share of North America and Europe put together. At present only one of the world’s ten most populous countries is in Africa: Nigeria. In 2100, the UN believes, five will be: Nigeria, Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger.

Although much could change in the next 85 years, none of those countries is a byword for stability or prosperity. A quadrupling of their population is unlikely to improve matters. If nothing else, the number of Africans seeking a better life in Europe and other richer places is likely to increase several times over.

… But even relative to their levels of income, health and education, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa have high fertility rates. That has prompted some scholars to posit cultural explanations.

One theory is that African men want big families to enhance their status; another that communal land-holding makes them economically beneficial, since resources are shared according to family size. Without dismissing these arguments, John Bongaarts of the Population Council, an international non-profit group, suggests a third: relatively low use of modern contraception. In many places, after all, vigorous campaigns to disseminate contraceptives and discourage big families have contributed to sudden and deep falls in fertility. Such a drive in the 1970s in Matlab, a district in Bangladesh, saw the share of women using contraceptives increase six-fold in 18 months.

I blogged about Bongaarts’ article last month.

The African countries that have seen big falls in fertility are those, such as Burundi, Ethiopia and Senegal, with similar campaigns. In Ethiopia the fertility rate has fallen by about 0.15 a year for the past decade—blisteringly fast by demographic standards. That is probably thanks in large part to the nationwide network of 38,000 “health-extension workers”—one for every 2,500 people. Their job is to pay regular visits to each household within their locality and provide coaching on public health, from immunisations to hygiene. One of the 16 subjects in which they drill every Ethiopian is family planning. …

For the prevalence rate to keep rising, however, contraceptives must be omnipresent and cheap. Western donors have offered support here, too. At a conference in London in 2012, a group of them agreed to devote $2.6 billion to it. The Gates Foundation, the world’s biggest philanthropic organisation, promised to spend $140m a year. Since then, it claims, 24m women have gained access to contraceptives in the countries the group is targeting. It has also helped several African governments to build strong supply chains so that clinics in remote areas never run out and brought together a consortium of aid agencies that has promised to buy contraceptives in large quantities if their manufacturers lower the price. That has helped reduce the cost of contraceptive implants from about $24 a dose to about $8, says Lester Coutinho, who runs the charity’s family-planning efforts.

Alas, there is lots more to do. The UN estimates that there are still 216m married women in the world who would like access to modern methods of contraception, but do not have it. The Copenhagen Consensus, a group of academics which rates development policies, reckons it would cost $3.6 billion a year to provide what they need. The benefits, in terms of the diminished need for infrastructure and social spending, reduced pollution and so on, would be $432 billion a year—120 times more. That is the second-most productive investment the project has identified, after liberalising trade, out of a welter of different development goals. Better yet, it helps with all the others.

So, subsidizing contraception for Africans would be extremely cheap compared to the size of the bullet dodged.

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s wrong to say Africans are dumber in rhetoric but in practice we must give them free stuff cuz they can’t do anything on their own…. which basically means they are either dumber or irresponsible and therefore depend on others to fix their problems.

    • Replies: @anon
    It's worse than that. We can give them free stuff, but the Economist, starry-eyed liberal fools all, cherrypicks example Africans and neglects to mention that we could provide them literal mountains of contraceptives, but most will remain unused either to traditional culture (real men don't use condoms) or destroyed (Catholic inroads). It's money down the drown. The money would be better spent shoring up Europe's defenses. But of course it won't be, because it would be wayciss to delay the destruction of the West.
    , @Anonymous
    They are NOT dumb.

    The name of the game is, and has always been, Darwinian survival.

    The REALLY dumb bastards are Angela Merkel, the EU, New Labour, and the people who support them.
    Basically Merkel has intentioned her desire to let her ethnic German kin - whom, presumably she shares genetic clustering with, to die off in the near future, and be replaced in the land which is their womb and which they had defended, nurtured and developed for tens of thousands of years, by another ethny, an unrelated ethny, which never built Germany, and has no connection with German land.

    For that dumb shit she is lauded by the establishment as a 'great woman'.

    The upshot is that in the coming centuries, Africans will still be here, and European whites will not - even in the nations which birthed them.
  2. I doubt providing access to birth control will change much. In Niger, Birth control is already free, And it has had no significant effect on TFR.

    Since 2002, contraceptives have been provided free in Niger…
    In 2009, 11% of married Nigerien women aged 15–49 were practicing contraception, and fewer than half (5%) relied on a modern method…The most common reasons given for nonuse were a desire for more children
    https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3709511.html#2

    Also Happy Hanukkah from the cultural appropriation watchdogs: http://flavorwire.com/550421/again-with-the-cheesy-hanukkah-youtube-videos

    • Replies: @5371
    Good point. Furthermore, birth control devices, even ones as simple as condoms, aren't actually needed at all, if the will to reduce fertility is present. As I never cease to point out, the French became the first nation to reduce marital fertility drastically by coitus interruptus alone.
  3. As I said a while ago, Isn’t this why Fort Detrick is developing all the fine swine flue variants?

  4. And where is our proof these Africans won’t just blow up their condoms like balloons? I mean, these are the same people who use mosquito nets to poison their fishing holes because derp!

    • Replies: @Russell
    These are the same people who smoke their free HIV/AIDS medication ground up with broken glass and rat poison.
  5. Haven’t do gooders in the West been promoting birth control for Africans since the 1940s or something? If not the US government then at least NGOs like the Rockefeller Foundation. Evelyn Waugh even satirized those efforts – gee, eons ago.

    But you knew that.

  6. Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.

    • Replies: @ren
    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?

    In reality, the problem is with the folks of less than 100 IQ having any kids really. They should be given payments to get sterilized. African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.

    , @AnotherDad

    Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.
     
    The China question is indeed a somewhat interesting one.

    Pretty much all of us reading Steve--apologies to you much older readers--have lived our whole lives under the post-war "American system"--decolonization, open markets, free trade.

    This was a notable (and better) change from the colonial period which preceded it, which generated much actual physical conflict (including two big wars) as opposed to mere commercial competition. And this is the environment Africa is in. Corrupt elites trading their resources for Western technology and goods. African populations proper up by Western technology and medicine. (Suppression of the ebola outbreak an example.) But no one actually telling--much less making--Africans behave. The adults have "left the room", but left the keys to the liquor cabinet.

    But as the West demographically collapses--low fertility, disgenic fertility, importing hostile and lower IQ populaitons--there's no particular reason that the "American system" must stay in place. The Chinese in particular have no particular inclination toward these post-war white\European\Christian norms. And as the West declines the need to observe Western norms to placate trading partners declines.

    What China's mostly been doing in Africa so far, is making deals with corrupt elites to extract resources China needs. We build this railroad and have rights to mine these ore deposits. We build this pipeline and have rights to exploit this oil field. I'd expect that this pattern will only continue and intensify, with perhaps more explicit interventions to insure suitably "cooperative" elites to make deals with.

    But it's not wholly outside the bounds of possibility that as the West declines, that this could evolve into a more explicitly colonial relationship. Where China takes some of these nations as "protectorates". The tendency in most of these Chinese projects is that the Chinese bring in Chinese to build them because they are just so much more productive—and capable of quality work—than the Africans. It’s not impossible to imagine China actually physically colonizing some particular resource rich areas of Africa with Chinese, and perhaps booting Africans out.

    About the only thing I see making this much less likely is that China in reigning in its population has created its own demographic problems—especially old age overhang. However, one problem they have is surplus males and shipping ‘em off somewhere … not a bad solution.

    With the West having drunk the kool-aid, it's all up for grabs. The future really is an undiscovered country.
  7. meanwhile in the west women are either resetting sex in the city or completing their 4th phd until they are 40. guess africans are just doing the jobs westerners wont do.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    They bought into the feminist narrative that true meaningful rewards in life are found in the office cube that strips them of their dignity, health, family and life energy. By the the they figured out they've been screwed, it's too late for most.

    Of course they never noticed the feminist harpies promoting this idiocy never worked in the private sector but instead are professors in some Marxist college hot house or are from wealthy families.
    , @Hail

    guess africans are just doing the jobs westerners wont do.
     
    There is nothing inherently wrong with a contracting population.

    Would it be better to have babies full-tilt, and dive back into Mr. Malthus' Trap...?
  8. @Chrisnonymous
    Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.

    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?

    In reality, the problem is with the folks of less than 100 IQ having any kids really. They should be given payments to get sterilized. African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.
     
    So how many thousands of US dollars have you donated, and how many African women have you paid to spay?

    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?
     
    That's between the Chinese and the Africans. We can stay out-- we don't have a litter of pups in that fight.

    What's unacceptable is "some other country" (aka USA) forcing its taxpayers to fund things large portions of its population finds abhorrent.

    So, yeah, get out your checkbook and sign away. Leave the rest of us out of it.
  9. […] Average Joe At present only one of the world’s ten most populous countries is in Africa: Nigeria. In 2100, the UN believes that five will be: Nigeria, Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger. […]

  10. Same problem in Kenya. After the big land redistribution of 40+ years ago, the typical smallholder farm size has gone from ~ 10-20 acres to ~ 1-3 acres.

    Unfortunately, the farmers who got (relatively) big parcels of land back then continued to breed like bunny rabbits.

    John Deere (Africa) now has an initiative to reach out to smallholders, teaching them agronomy, fertilizers, good tillage practices, etc. in small classroom settings. It turns out that “smallholder” to John Deere means ~ 5 acre farms.

    John Deere is publicizing this as a diversity/feelgood effort, but its a head-scratcher trying to figure out how John Deere can make any money. The best I can figure is they are trying to get these guys to band together (maybe 30-40 of them) and buy one (1) 35 hp tractor between them on time payments.

    • Replies: @Workforlivn
    The Chinese already have rent-a-rim franchises set up for tractors.
    , @Triumph104

    John Deere is publicizing this as a diversity/feelgood effort, but its a head-scratcher trying to figure out how John Deere can make any money.
     
    Since the 2008 food crisis huge plots of land have been purchased or rented (called a land grab) in several parts of the world by foreign governments, hedge funds, and private businesses. These are the people that John Deere will be selling tractors to. The major players are from Saudi Arabia, India, China, and Europe.

    An informative documentary: http://www.ethiotube.net/video/13930/must-watch-documentary-food-crisis-and-the-global-land-grab-ethiopia

    There is no private ownership of land in Ethiopia. These businessmen from India are renting 1000 square miles of Ethiopian farmland for 150 British pounds a week. They will also receive tax breaks and roads built by the government. https://youtu.be/DeQFCBFYlwY
  11. Niger’s population in 2010 was around 15 million. If it is to become one of the 10 most populous countries in 2100 it will be only if the Sahara somehow becomes no longer arid, otherwise Malthus will finally be proven right long before that happens.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Malthus was 'proved right' 100,000 years ago.

    Think: Up to recent, historic centuries, no sapien population ever managed to increase its numbers beyond replacement fertility level. Look, even if a 'modest' rate of growth of say 1% per annum was the norm 100,000 years ago, then we would be now living in a billion upon billion populated multi-storey car-park earth.
    Somehow, ancient man kept his numbers down. Disease and famine have traditionally, but perhaps ignorantly implicated. But it is very likely that infanticide, universal with enormously deep roots was practised by just about every ethny on earth.
  12. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been doing this along with many other health initiatives in Africa:

    http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    If the efforts of the Gates Foundation were anywhere near being close to being adequate to the job, why is it that the UN is projecting the quadrupling of the African population?
  13. There is only one reason why Africa’s population is growing, and it has nothing to do with either lack of birth control or “culture.” It is living off the dividends of the West.

    Western medicine, Western technology, Western direct foreign investment, and Western bleeding-heart compassion have allowed the populations of Africa to stop dropping like tse-tse flies and to thrive better than they ever could have on their own. We have been throwing fertilizer on the African continent for over a century now and have bred a veritable plague of humanity. Withdraw that aid, and Africa will collapse back to its pre-Western state.

    Birth control is against the law of God and I will never advocate its use anywhere, no matter how great the supposed benefit may be from doing so. Still less would I at all subscribe to the forced or “encouraged” sterilization of an entire continent. However, I very much recommend allowing the whole of Africa to benefit from some benign neglect. The resulting chaos will solve the population problem on its own.

    • Agree: Sleep
    • Replies: @anon
    Modern Western medicine has also increased fertility by reducing the (iirc) 20% of African women who used to be rendered sterile from STD's. OWN GOAL! We'll learn to stop meddling in ecosystems we are, due to political correctness, cognitively incapable of understanding ... shortly before the final Death of the West, I'm sure.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Birth control is against the law of God
     
    Book, Chapter, and Verse please. More than one if you can. No proof-texting.
    , @Kit
    So epidemics and wars are better than birth control? You version of god is a monster.
  14. In Ethiopia the fertility rate has fallen by about 0.15 a year for the past decade … thanks in large part to the nationwide network of 38,000 “health-extension workers”—one for every 2,500 people. Their job is to pay regular visits to each household within their locality

    I’m reminded of Sarah’s response to Logan’s claim that he could condition an individual zombie (one of millions) to behave in Day of the Dead: “All that’s required is hours of fancy surgery that only a handful of people are trained to do.”

  15. Maybe I’ve missed a post here and there over the years, but how does the credibility of UN population modeling differ from the credibility of their climate modeling?

    • Replies: @Discordiax
    Many fewer inputs into the spreadsheet.

    How many women are there? How many children do they have? Whar age do they start haivng them at. Apply the compound interest algorithm and, done.

    Notice that even then, the UN revises the projections every year or two--hey, it turns out there are more/fewer women,

    And as our blog host keeps saying, the final numbers for Africa will never be reached because migration and horrible Malthusian things will change the numbers before they're halfway there

    Compared to climate modeling, which is impacted by a huge array of factors.
  16. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    It's wrong to say Africans are dumber in rhetoric but in practice we must give them free stuff cuz they can't do anything on their own.... which basically means they are either dumber or irresponsible and therefore depend on others to fix their problems.

    It’s worse than that. We can give them free stuff, but the Economist, starry-eyed liberal fools all, cherrypicks example Africans and neglects to mention that we could provide them literal mountains of contraceptives, but most will remain unused either to traditional culture (real men don’t use condoms) or destroyed (Catholic inroads). It’s money down the drown. The money would be better spent shoring up Europe’s defenses. But of course it won’t be, because it would be wayciss to delay the destruction of the West.

  17. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    There is only one reason why Africa's population is growing, and it has nothing to do with either lack of birth control or "culture." It is living off the dividends of the West.

    Western medicine, Western technology, Western direct foreign investment, and Western bleeding-heart compassion have allowed the populations of Africa to stop dropping like tse-tse flies and to thrive better than they ever could have on their own. We have been throwing fertilizer on the African continent for over a century now and have bred a veritable plague of humanity. Withdraw that aid, and Africa will collapse back to its pre-Western state.

    Birth control is against the law of God and I will never advocate its use anywhere, no matter how great the supposed benefit may be from doing so. Still less would I at all subscribe to the forced or "encouraged" sterilization of an entire continent. However, I very much recommend allowing the whole of Africa to benefit from some benign neglect. The resulting chaos will solve the population problem on its own.

    Modern Western medicine has also increased fertility by reducing the (iirc) 20% of African women who used to be rendered sterile from STD’s. OWN GOAL! We’ll learn to stop meddling in ecosystems we are, due to political correctness, cognitively incapable of understanding … shortly before the final Death of the West, I’m sure.

  18. Robert Heinlein had a good solution to this. Develop a drinkable birth control agent that tasted as good as Coca Cola.

    Problem solved.

    You think big business would support this? NO!!! They want the markets flooded with cheap, disposable labor across the board. That translates into two class societies, with the lower class providing unlimited pool of low wage laborers.

    Our current system of meddling in Africa has only made things much worse. It is the equivalent of putting out a man on fire and then having to take care of the cripple for the rest of his life.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Drinking a liter of Coke every day lowers your sperm count by about 30 percent. So if you drink four liters a day...
  19. Re. contraceptives going unused, I suggest the payment of bribe money upon timely injection of depo.

  20. @perry
    meanwhile in the west women are either resetting sex in the city or completing their 4th phd until they are 40. guess africans are just doing the jobs westerners wont do.

    They bought into the feminist narrative that true meaningful rewards in life are found in the office cube that strips them of their dignity, health, family and life energy. By the the they figured out they’ve been screwed, it’s too late for most.

    Of course they never noticed the feminist harpies promoting this idiocy never worked in the private sector but instead are professors in some Marxist college hot house or are from wealthy families.

  21. @perry
    meanwhile in the west women are either resetting sex in the city or completing their 4th phd until they are 40. guess africans are just doing the jobs westerners wont do.

    guess africans are just doing the jobs westerners wont do.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with a contracting population.

    Would it be better to have babies full-tilt, and dive back into Mr. Malthus’ Trap…?

  22. Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate

    But those eight kids will have eight parents among them, thus no population growth.

    But so much for the math; the problem is that the typical Ethiopian family is not having just two kids.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Eight grandchildren is NOT population replacement.

    Two kids for two parents is replacement. Thus four grandchildren is replacement.
    , @AnotherDad


    Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate
     
    But those eight kids will have eight parents among them, thus no population growth.
     
    Not at all. You're sidestepping, Steve's point here:

    No, it keeps going up for another generation because of the number of children his generation had.
     
    Steve's point is precisely that even if Ethiopia's his fertility goes to replacement immediately!, Mr.Jemberu's grandchildren's generation (not yet born) will still be twice the size as his own. (Assuming his four children is typical.) So population growth will continue for "another generation".

    And actually while Steve's "another generation" covers the worse part of the "population momentum" even with replacement fertility the population actually keeps growing much, much longer, basically for an entire human lifespan. What you need for ZPG is that the death rate equals the birthrate. At replacement fertility this requires that the mean cohort that is dying off had the same "birth size" as the new cohort being born. (It's even more complicated than that because of changes in lifespans and such.) But the bottom line is at replacement fertility you'll see growth until all the earlier smaller pre-replacement generations die off and your deaths are coming from generations the same size as the ones being born.

    ~

    The reason that a few nations--like Japan--have actually reached a peak stopped growing is that their fertility fell well below replacement.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#/media/File:Japan_sex_by_age_2010.png

    Japan had high fertility after WWI through the 20s and 30s. The huge postwar baby boom, managed to produce a respectable but somewhat smaller echo in the 1970s. But that generation has not come close to replacing itself. So now folks who are dying--born in the 20s and 30s--come from cohorts that were about 50% larger than the 1 million or so Japanese being born each year now. And Japanese population is set to plunge as they even larger post-war cohorts start dying off in another 20. Even if Japan suddenly recovered to replacement fertility it would still only hold at around 1 million births a year and have a stable population in the 80 million ballpark.

    Nothing like this is on the horizon for Africa. Ironically the "best" you could plausibly predict would be much higher death rates from famine or disease. But the big countries aren't anywhere close to even replacement fertility, much less sub-replacement. So even if contraceptive use improves dramatically, there is *huge* "population momentum" that is pretty much destined to drive African population through the roof--until the four horsemen saddle up.
  23. How good/fertile is African farmland? Can’t American style factory farms deal with the population increases? How about GMOs and high density animal raising?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Most African farmland is mediocre at best, but there's a lot of it.

    There's an island in Lake Victoria without sleeping sickness or marauding megafauna where the peasants achieved Asian-levels of farming intensity a century ago. It hit its Malthusian limit, so it annually sheds one or two percent of its population. The migrants to the mainland soon revert to typical African-levels of lackadaisicalness.

  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There is no way that Africa becomes that populace.

    1. Most of Africa is seeing an unprecedented economic boom. Cote d’iviore is projected to have nearly 10% growth for 5 years at least. Economic growth is the great destroyer of fertility rates. Notice how Botswana, filled to the brim with blacks, has a fertility rate of 2.6. Blacks in the Caribbean have a fertility rate of less than 2. Economic prosperity in countries like Nigeria will drive down fertility.

    2. African countries aren’t remotely productive enough to support 4 billion people.

    • Replies: @5371
    None of these GNP statistics are worth the pixels they are composed of, and the commodity boom, as you have surely noticed, has now gone dramatically bust.
    , @Erik Sieven
    "2. African countries aren’t remotely productive enough to support 4 billion people."
    of course they are not, but they don´t need to be anyway. African countries are also not productive enough to support the 1 billion people of today. But western and asian countries pay for it, and they will do the same in a hundred years. Apart from that 4 billion is really unrealistic, over 6-7 billion, maybe even a two digit number is much more realistic.
  25. How about selling farmland to the Chinese or ADM in order to increase its productivity?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is what happened in Zimbabwe. Chinese interests took over management of the tobacco crop. There was a huge slump in production after white farms had been taken but after the Chinese came, it completely recovered in volume.
  26. Of course it is a great idea. I know we have too many whack jobs in this country against birth control to prevent our government from handing out free birth control, but countries in northern Europe should and could be up to the job.

    But you can’t force people to take birth control if they don’t want to, and sadly there are plenty of cultures out there where they think birth control is a bad idea. It’s nuts, but what can we do.

  27. @rvg
    How good/fertile is African farmland? Can't American style factory farms deal with the population increases? How about GMOs and high density animal raising?

    Most African farmland is mediocre at best, but there’s a lot of it.

    There’s an island in Lake Victoria without sleeping sickness or marauding megafauna where the peasants achieved Asian-levels of farming intensity a century ago. It hit its Malthusian limit, so it annually sheds one or two percent of its population. The migrants to the mainland soon revert to typical African-levels of lackadaisicalness.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Also with Burundi and Rwanda.
    Malthus expresses itself with periodic, intermittent wholesale massacres, which when plotted on a graph resemble Hudson Bay 'hare and lynx' data.
    , @Hodag
    Reverend Malthus is about to get another kicking. Look up crispr technology and gene drives. They have already got a mosquito that won't carry the malaria parasite. The big tropical diseases are going away in the next 20 years. China already owns tens of millions of acres of farmland. If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Knowing ‘The Economist’ magazine only too well, they are probably already starting to badger dumb-ass politicians eager to ‘look clever’ in making plans for western nations, particularly Britain, to accept massive, uncontrolled, open ended black African immigration.
    The usual lies and deceit about ‘ageing populations’ and ‘added fiscal receipts form immigrant taxes’ will be trotted.
    Rest assured that the dumb, stupid bastards who govern us will fall for Economist lies and trash big time. Just like they always do,.
    You see the desire to appear ‘smart’ is overwhelming, see for example Merkel or Gorbachev or even Blair, amongst the vain and shallow types who climb to the top of the political tree.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wouldn't take any trickery to get the western politicians to go along with it, they hate whites enough already.
    Beside, don't you know that we desperately need millions of third worlders to keep our population growing heavily? Otherwise we won't have enough people to lay off when automation replaces 50% or whatever of jobs in a couple decades!
  29. @Massimo Heitor
    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been doing this along with many other health initiatives in Africa:

    http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning

    If the efforts of the Gates Foundation were anywhere near being close to being adequate to the job, why is it that the UN is projecting the quadrupling of the African population?

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    It's wrong to say Africans are dumber in rhetoric but in practice we must give them free stuff cuz they can't do anything on their own.... which basically means they are either dumber or irresponsible and therefore depend on others to fix their problems.

    They are NOT dumb.

    The name of the game is, and has always been, Darwinian survival.

    The REALLY dumb bastards are Angela Merkel, the EU, New Labour, and the people who support them.
    Basically Merkel has intentioned her desire to let her ethnic German kin – whom, presumably she shares genetic clustering with, to die off in the near future, and be replaced in the land which is their womb and which they had defended, nurtured and developed for tens of thousands of years, by another ethny, an unrelated ethny, which never built Germany, and has no connection with German land.

    For that dumb shit she is lauded by the establishment as a ‘great woman’.

    The upshot is that in the coming centuries, Africans will still be here, and European whites will not – even in the nations which birthed them.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    They are NOT dumb.
    The name of the game is, and has always been, Darwinian survival.

    The REALLY dumb bastards are Angela Merkel, the EU, New Labour, and the people who support them.
    Basically Merkel has intentioned her desire to let her ethnic German kin – whom, presumably she shares genetic clustering with, to die off in the near future, and be replaced in the land which is their womb and which they had defended, nurtured and developed for tens of thousands of years, by another ethny, an unrelated ethny, which never built Germany, and has no connection with German land.
     

    Well said Anon (now please just make up a name).

    But the fact is Africans are "dumb" in the IQ sense relative to most non-African populations. So the fact that the Africans breed breed breed till famine constrains is actually *more* sensible than what is happening in the higher IQ West, just shows how virulent a mind virus this minoritarian\multi-cultural\anti-nationalism really is.

    Modern leftism is the worst pathogen *ever*--it doesn't just wipe out say a 1/3 of the population like the plague, it kills entire races and civilizations wholesale.

  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Niger's population in 2010 was around 15 million. If it is to become one of the 10 most populous countries in 2100 it will be only if the Sahara somehow becomes no longer arid, otherwise Malthus will finally be proven right long before that happens.

    Malthus was ‘proved right’ 100,000 years ago.

    Think: Up to recent, historic centuries, no sapien population ever managed to increase its numbers beyond replacement fertility level. Look, even if a ‘modest’ rate of growth of say 1% per annum was the norm 100,000 years ago, then we would be now living in a billion upon billion populated multi-storey car-park earth.
    Somehow, ancient man kept his numbers down. Disease and famine have traditionally, but perhaps ignorantly implicated. But it is very likely that infanticide, universal with enormously deep roots was practised by just about every ethny on earth.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Don't archaeologists always associate a house of prostitution or temple of ritual prostitution with a nearby pile of neonate skeletons?
    , @rvg
    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.
  32. @Steve Sailer
    Most African farmland is mediocre at best, but there's a lot of it.

    There's an island in Lake Victoria without sleeping sickness or marauding megafauna where the peasants achieved Asian-levels of farming intensity a century ago. It hit its Malthusian limit, so it annually sheds one or two percent of its population. The migrants to the mainland soon revert to typical African-levels of lackadaisicalness.

    Also with Burundi and Rwanda.
    Malthus expresses itself with periodic, intermittent wholesale massacres, which when plotted on a graph resemble Hudson Bay ‘hare and lynx’ data.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Whilst the world is currently fixated on Isis/Assad/Sunni/Shia etc as the 'explanations' for the Syrian crisis, the vast majority of commentators are ignoring the real, root, underlying cause of the crisis - Isis and Assad are merely symptoms of much deeper, darker infinitely more powerful and subtle forces, namely good ol' fashioned Malthus.

    It has been scarcely remarked that Syria's population well and truly skyrocketed in the 20th century, in fact, some of highest population growth rates ever recorded in history.
    - But the 'means of subsistence' never grew at anything like the same rate.

    Don't worry, though. Germany or rather Merkel have rather magnimously donated hundreds of years of capital-accumulated German 'means of subsistence' to generously reward Syrian libidity and profligacy.
  33. I actually had this exact idea back in 2002 🙂 way ahead of my time.

  34. @Anonymous
    There is no way that Africa becomes that populace.

    1. Most of Africa is seeing an unprecedented economic boom. Cote d'iviore is projected to have nearly 10% growth for 5 years at least. Economic growth is the great destroyer of fertility rates. Notice how Botswana, filled to the brim with blacks, has a fertility rate of 2.6. Blacks in the Caribbean have a fertility rate of less than 2. Economic prosperity in countries like Nigeria will drive down fertility.

    2. African countries aren't remotely productive enough to support 4 billion people.

    None of these GNP statistics are worth the pixels they are composed of, and the commodity boom, as you have surely noticed, has now gone dramatically bust.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Like most people who frequent these sites and forums you are freakishly ignorant of economics. Africa's growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

    Try to actually learn economics before responding. If you think Africa doesn't havie booming economies than you know nothing.
  35. @Gingerbread Man
    I doubt providing access to birth control will change much. In Niger, Birth control is already free, And it has had no significant effect on TFR.

    Since 2002, contraceptives have been provided free in Niger...
    In 2009, 11% of married Nigerien women aged 15–49 were practicing contraception, and fewer than half (5%) relied on a modern method...The most common reasons given for nonuse were a desire for more children
    https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3709511.html#2
     
    Also Happy Hanukkah from the cultural appropriation watchdogs: http://flavorwire.com/550421/again-with-the-cheesy-hanukkah-youtube-videos

    Good point. Furthermore, birth control devices, even ones as simple as condoms, aren’t actually needed at all, if the will to reduce fertility is present. As I never cease to point out, the French became the first nation to reduce marital fertility drastically by coitus interruptus alone.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Pulling out doesn't really work that well, although it does decrease the odds and therefore the frequency of conception considerably as against nothing. It's also pretty well settled fact that some men secrete sperms in their Cowper's gland secretions (i.e., "pre-cum") and some don't, so that if you do it doesn't do nearly as much good.

    The problem with encouraging this also is that young people are encouraged to do this instead of using more reliable methods, and young men are not good at doing it on time.
  36. @International Jew

    Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate
     
    But those eight kids will have eight parents among them, thus no population growth.

    But so much for the math; the problem is that the typical Ethiopian family is not having just two kids.

    Eight grandchildren is NOT population replacement.

    Two kids for two parents is replacement. Thus four grandchildren is replacement.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Sure, but you're drawing the line in the wrong place. If this guy's grandchildren and great-grandchildren etc keep having just two kids apiece, our hero will have 1024 descendants in eight more generations; will you characterize that too as continued population growth?
  37. @5371
    Good point. Furthermore, birth control devices, even ones as simple as condoms, aren't actually needed at all, if the will to reduce fertility is present. As I never cease to point out, the French became the first nation to reduce marital fertility drastically by coitus interruptus alone.

    Pulling out doesn’t really work that well, although it does decrease the odds and therefore the frequency of conception considerably as against nothing. It’s also pretty well settled fact that some men secrete sperms in their Cowper’s gland secretions (i.e., “pre-cum”) and some don’t, so that if you do it doesn’t do nearly as much good.

    The problem with encouraging this also is that young people are encouraged to do this instead of using more reliable methods, and young men are not good at doing it on time.

    • Replies: @5371
    Well, history shows that for Africa's needs it is more than sufficient. It's typical of the "Economist" to propose commercial or technological solutions that do nothing to address the real point at issue.
  38. @Anonymous
    Malthus was 'proved right' 100,000 years ago.

    Think: Up to recent, historic centuries, no sapien population ever managed to increase its numbers beyond replacement fertility level. Look, even if a 'modest' rate of growth of say 1% per annum was the norm 100,000 years ago, then we would be now living in a billion upon billion populated multi-storey car-park earth.
    Somehow, ancient man kept his numbers down. Disease and famine have traditionally, but perhaps ignorantly implicated. But it is very likely that infanticide, universal with enormously deep roots was practised by just about every ethny on earth.

    Don’t archaeologists always associate a house of prostitution or temple of ritual prostitution with a nearby pile of neonate skeletons?

  39. @rvg
    How about selling farmland to the Chinese or ADM in order to increase its productivity?

    This is what happened in Zimbabwe. Chinese interests took over management of the tobacco crop. There was a huge slump in production after white farms had been taken but after the Chinese came, it completely recovered in volume.

  40. @Anonymous
    Malthus was 'proved right' 100,000 years ago.

    Think: Up to recent, historic centuries, no sapien population ever managed to increase its numbers beyond replacement fertility level. Look, even if a 'modest' rate of growth of say 1% per annum was the norm 100,000 years ago, then we would be now living in a billion upon billion populated multi-storey car-park earth.
    Somehow, ancient man kept his numbers down. Disease and famine have traditionally, but perhaps ignorantly implicated. But it is very likely that infanticide, universal with enormously deep roots was practised by just about every ethny on earth.

    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Yes, we'll always be able to grow more food on less land. A hundred years from now, we'll feed the world with SupaKrops grown on one square inch of farmland.

    And if that doesn't work out, we can kill all the useless-eater old folks and make them into Soylent Green.

    So there's nothing to worry about.
    , @AnAnon
    The green revolution(singular) has hit its limits, and we likely won't have a second one, if for no other reason than the inventor of the first one would be discriminated against in the university he went to today.
    , @Anonymous
    Yep - one day scientists will figure out a way of turning wood-pulp into wheaten flour.

    That day, the population will probably surpass 10 billion. Once that little wheeze has worked its magic, its the turn of transforming blow-fly larvae into hamburger meat - and then we get to 20 billion and another cunning wheeze is called for.
    Yes, I know! - it's the time of transforming human sewage back into 'usable' carbohydrates and proteins! - that will take care of 30 billion.
    My gosh! - how many bacilli are these 'cunning men' able to squeeze on to a petri dish!
    With a bit more scientific magic a solid ball of human flesh expanding into space would 'prove' Einstein wrong, never mind Malthus, and that ball of man meat will expand faster than the speed of light!
    , @AnotherDad

    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.
     
    You have an incorrect understanding of what Malthus actually wrote--what his point is.

    Malthus was a very smart guy, not an idiot. He was quite aware of technological improvement in "the means of subsistence". (And probably didn't feel competent to speculate on future developments.) His point in fact is that human population can grow faster than technological progress--will inevitably suck up the surplus that improved means provide, so that the new larger population will push against the new higher limit.

    Here's his quote pulled from wikipedia:

    That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
    That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
    That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.
     
    And this is in fact mostly what's happened. Technological improvements have been vast--unprecendented--and the world's population has responding with incredible growth, so that many people still manage to be impoverished.

    If you want to bash Malthus, what he did *not* foresee was not technological progress in means of production, but rather the "demographic transition". Essentially the failure in his argument is the "invariably". Turned out that people--at least some people--can reign in the baby making.

    But the point about Africa is that the demographic transition just does not seem to be happening there the way it has not just in Europe or East Asia, but even in the lower IQ, more backward regions of the non-African world.
  41. @Former Darfur
    Pulling out doesn't really work that well, although it does decrease the odds and therefore the frequency of conception considerably as against nothing. It's also pretty well settled fact that some men secrete sperms in their Cowper's gland secretions (i.e., "pre-cum") and some don't, so that if you do it doesn't do nearly as much good.

    The problem with encouraging this also is that young people are encouraged to do this instead of using more reliable methods, and young men are not good at doing it on time.

    Well, history shows that for Africa’s needs it is more than sufficient. It’s typical of the “Economist” to propose commercial or technological solutions that do nothing to address the real point at issue.

  42. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Maybe I've missed a post here and there over the years, but how does the credibility of UN population modeling differ from the credibility of their climate modeling?

    Many fewer inputs into the spreadsheet.

    How many women are there? How many children do they have? Whar age do they start haivng them at. Apply the compound interest algorithm and, done.

    Notice that even then, the UN revises the projections every year or two–hey, it turns out there are more/fewer women,

    And as our blog host keeps saying, the final numbers for Africa will never be reached because migration and horrible Malthusian things will change the numbers before they’re halfway there

    Compared to climate modeling, which is impacted by a huge array of factors.

  43. “As a medic and a nurse winkle the sperm-carrying tubes out of his testicles…”

    Boy, The Economist really makes this sound attractive.

  44. @Steve Sailer
    Most African farmland is mediocre at best, but there's a lot of it.

    There's an island in Lake Victoria without sleeping sickness or marauding megafauna where the peasants achieved Asian-levels of farming intensity a century ago. It hit its Malthusian limit, so it annually sheds one or two percent of its population. The migrants to the mainland soon revert to typical African-levels of lackadaisicalness.

    Reverend Malthus is about to get another kicking. Look up crispr technology and gene drives. They have already got a mosquito that won’t carry the malaria parasite. The big tropical diseases are going away in the next 20 years. China already owns tens of millions of acres of farmland. If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.

    • Replies: @5371
    Don't tell me - you've recently made a significant infrastructure investment in Kings County, NY.
    , @Reg Cæsar


    If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.
     
    Read the post and comments again, please-- it's Africans' coming that's the concern, not the Chinese

    An old joke went, a civil rights reverend was informed by his wife that she was carrying triplets. "Lawdy! I has ovuhcome!"
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @5371
    None of these GNP statistics are worth the pixels they are composed of, and the commodity boom, as you have surely noticed, has now gone dramatically bust.

    Like most people who frequent these sites and forums you are freakishly ignorant of economics. Africa’s growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

    Try to actually learn economics before responding. If you think Africa doesn’t havie booming economies than you know nothing.

    • Replies: @peterike

    Africa’s growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

     

    Hmmm. From African Economic Outlook:

    "On the supply side Africa’s growth has been mainly driven by agriculture, extractive industries, construction and services. On the demand side, the boost has come from private consumption and infrastructure investment."

    Yes, extractive industries, which in turn create the demand for construction and drive private consumption, because extractive industries are creating actual wealth. The "services" are often just government make-work jobs handed out to connected cronies, or services related to the extraction work.

    "So far African economies have been relatively resilient to the sharp fall of international commodity prices. Production has often increased despite the lower prices, and growth has also been boosted by other sectors."

    Uh oh. Continuing production in the face of lower prices? Very smart. Clearly, you have the local big man cashing out as quickly as possible so he can hi-tail it to Europe with his looted resource wealth.

    "But if commodity prices remain low or decline further, growth shortfalls in resource-rich countries would increase as governments need to cut spending. Governments will be keeping a close watch on conditions in key markets, especially Europe and China."

    Again, driving everything is the ur-wealth of commodities. And oh dear, governments might have to cut spending, which means a great deal of the non-commodity economy (which is nothing other than commodity wealth being redistributed) will fall.

    As the popular saying goes: Africa is the continent of the future, and it always will be.
    , @5371
    If you don't know agricultural products are commodities, you are ignorant. If you believe African GDP statistics, you are stupid. If you think the windfall of wealth enjoyed by a few Africans in recent years came from something other than high commodity prices, you are both.
  46. @Big Bill
    Same problem in Kenya. After the big land redistribution of 40+ years ago, the typical smallholder farm size has gone from ~ 10-20 acres to ~ 1-3 acres.

    Unfortunately, the farmers who got (relatively) big parcels of land back then continued to breed like bunny rabbits.

    John Deere (Africa) now has an initiative to reach out to smallholders, teaching them agronomy, fertilizers, good tillage practices, etc. in small classroom settings. It turns out that "smallholder" to John Deere means ~ 5 acre farms.

    John Deere is publicizing this as a diversity/feelgood effort, but its a head-scratcher trying to figure out how John Deere can make any money. The best I can figure is they are trying to get these guys to band together (maybe 30-40 of them) and buy one (1) 35 hp tractor between them on time payments.

    The Chinese already have rent-a-rim franchises set up for tractors.

  47. @Intelligent Dasein
    There is only one reason why Africa's population is growing, and it has nothing to do with either lack of birth control or "culture." It is living off the dividends of the West.

    Western medicine, Western technology, Western direct foreign investment, and Western bleeding-heart compassion have allowed the populations of Africa to stop dropping like tse-tse flies and to thrive better than they ever could have on their own. We have been throwing fertilizer on the African continent for over a century now and have bred a veritable plague of humanity. Withdraw that aid, and Africa will collapse back to its pre-Western state.

    Birth control is against the law of God and I will never advocate its use anywhere, no matter how great the supposed benefit may be from doing so. Still less would I at all subscribe to the forced or "encouraged" sterilization of an entire continent. However, I very much recommend allowing the whole of Africa to benefit from some benign neglect. The resulting chaos will solve the population problem on its own.

    Birth control is against the law of God

    Book, Chapter, and Verse please. More than one if you can. No proof-texting.

  48. @rod1963
    Robert Heinlein had a good solution to this. Develop a drinkable birth control agent that tasted as good as Coca Cola.

    Problem solved.

    You think big business would support this? NO!!! They want the markets flooded with cheap, disposable labor across the board. That translates into two class societies, with the lower class providing unlimited pool of low wage laborers.

    Our current system of meddling in Africa has only made things much worse. It is the equivalent of putting out a man on fire and then having to take care of the cripple for the rest of his life.

    Drinking a liter of Coke every day lowers your sperm count by about 30 percent. So if you drink four liters a day…

    • Replies: @Romanian
    As a lifelong Coke fiend of the liquid variety with otherwise excellent habits, I can attest to that.
  49. Ahem, I guess we can assume that within this century, if rampant immigration continues, that the world will become one great big hell-hole. There will be no glorious Europe or splendid United States for the riff-raff of the world to flee to. Finally, we shall have equality.

  50. @rvg
    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    Yes, we’ll always be able to grow more food on less land. A hundred years from now, we’ll feed the world with SupaKrops grown on one square inch of farmland.

    And if that doesn’t work out, we can kill all the useless-eater old folks and make them into Soylent Green.

    So there’s nothing to worry about.

  51. @Hodag
    Reverend Malthus is about to get another kicking. Look up crispr technology and gene drives. They have already got a mosquito that won't carry the malaria parasite. The big tropical diseases are going away in the next 20 years. China already owns tens of millions of acres of farmland. If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.

    Don’t tell me – you’ve recently made a significant infrastructure investment in Kings County, NY.

  52. @ren
    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?

    In reality, the problem is with the folks of less than 100 IQ having any kids really. They should be given payments to get sterilized. African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.

    African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.

    So how many thousands of US dollars have you donated, and how many African women have you paid to spay?

    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?

    That’s between the Chinese and the Africans. We can stay out– we don’t have a litter of pups in that fight.

    What’s unacceptable is “some other country” (aka USA) forcing its taxpayers to fund things large portions of its population finds abhorrent.

    So, yeah, get out your checkbook and sign away. Leave the rest of us out of it.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "That’s between the Chinese and the Africans. We can stay out– we don’t have a litter of pups in that fight. "

    But we may be pressured to accept a big "litter of those pups" in the future. Why do you think Sailer is so justifiably concerned about the projected big increase in Africa's population over the next part of the 21st century? Look at the swarm of "Syrian refugees" who have descended on Europe in recent months. Judging from the pictures, many of those "Syrian refugees" look like Africans to me. To merely declare that we don't have a dog in that fight is turning a blind eye to reality. I think that was one of the many great mistakes of the GWB Administration: curtailing funds directed at birth control in Africa and elsewhere and increasing funds to combat AIDS in Africa (where it originated btw). In other words, spur the population growth and cut the death rate (Mother Nature's "natural method" of birth control).
  53. @Hodag
    Reverend Malthus is about to get another kicking. Look up crispr technology and gene drives. They have already got a mosquito that won't carry the malaria parasite. The big tropical diseases are going away in the next 20 years. China already owns tens of millions of acres of farmland. If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.

    If they can get the disease load down then a lot more Chinese are coming.

    Read the post and comments again, please– it’s Africans’ coming that’s the concern, not the Chinese

    An old joke went, a civil rights reverend was informed by his wife that she was carrying triplets. “Lawdy! I has ovuhcome!”

  54. @Intelligent Dasein
    There is only one reason why Africa's population is growing, and it has nothing to do with either lack of birth control or "culture." It is living off the dividends of the West.

    Western medicine, Western technology, Western direct foreign investment, and Western bleeding-heart compassion have allowed the populations of Africa to stop dropping like tse-tse flies and to thrive better than they ever could have on their own. We have been throwing fertilizer on the African continent for over a century now and have bred a veritable plague of humanity. Withdraw that aid, and Africa will collapse back to its pre-Western state.

    Birth control is against the law of God and I will never advocate its use anywhere, no matter how great the supposed benefit may be from doing so. Still less would I at all subscribe to the forced or "encouraged" sterilization of an entire continent. However, I very much recommend allowing the whole of Africa to benefit from some benign neglect. The resulting chaos will solve the population problem on its own.

    So epidemics and wars are better than birth control? You version of god is a monster.

  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think that the Roman Catholic Church properly understands why contraception (artificial means of birth control) is actually on a par with abortion (also a no-no). The embryo is destroyed, which is a potential human being.

    I am not a member of the Roman Catholic church, but I do believe that their analysis is correct. Spreading this immoral practice to Africa (probably purchased through US entrepreneurs) is a step in the wrong direction.

    • Replies: @Kit
    There is no destruction of an embryo. Birth control doesn't work that way; hormonal birth control prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs, so there is nothing to become an embryo. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that an egg was released to be fertilized, the hormones thin the lining of the uterus so that the embryo can't attach, which is exactly the same process as in breastfeeding.

    The Catholic Church objects to birth control because a specific dogma related to the Virgin Mary; science has zilch to do with it.
  56. @Reg Cæsar

    African women would line up around the corner to get sterilized for the equivalent of $1,000 US dollars.
     
    So how many thousands of US dollars have you donated, and how many African women have you paid to spay?

    Why is it acceptable for the Chinese to force Africans to limit their reproduction, but not okay for say, the UN, or some other country to force Africans to have fewer kids?
     
    That's between the Chinese and the Africans. We can stay out-- we don't have a litter of pups in that fight.

    What's unacceptable is "some other country" (aka USA) forcing its taxpayers to fund things large portions of its population finds abhorrent.

    So, yeah, get out your checkbook and sign away. Leave the rest of us out of it.

    “That’s between the Chinese and the Africans. We can stay out– we don’t have a litter of pups in that fight. ”

    But we may be pressured to accept a big “litter of those pups” in the future. Why do you think Sailer is so justifiably concerned about the projected big increase in Africa’s population over the next part of the 21st century? Look at the swarm of “Syrian refugees” who have descended on Europe in recent months. Judging from the pictures, many of those “Syrian refugees” look like Africans to me. To merely declare that we don’t have a dog in that fight is turning a blind eye to reality. I think that was one of the many great mistakes of the GWB Administration: curtailing funds directed at birth control in Africa and elsewhere and increasing funds to combat AIDS in Africa (where it originated btw). In other words, spur the population growth and cut the death rate (Mother Nature’s “natural method” of birth control).

  57. Retroactive birth control for Africa?

  58. @Anonymous
    There is no way that Africa becomes that populace.

    1. Most of Africa is seeing an unprecedented economic boom. Cote d'iviore is projected to have nearly 10% growth for 5 years at least. Economic growth is the great destroyer of fertility rates. Notice how Botswana, filled to the brim with blacks, has a fertility rate of 2.6. Blacks in the Caribbean have a fertility rate of less than 2. Economic prosperity in countries like Nigeria will drive down fertility.

    2. African countries aren't remotely productive enough to support 4 billion people.

    “2. African countries aren’t remotely productive enough to support 4 billion people.”
    of course they are not, but they don´t need to be anyway. African countries are also not productive enough to support the 1 billion people of today. But western and asian countries pay for it, and they will do the same in a hundred years. Apart from that 4 billion is really unrealistic, over 6-7 billion, maybe even a two digit number is much more realistic.

  59. @Anonymous
    I think that the Roman Catholic Church properly understands why contraception (artificial means of birth control) is actually on a par with abortion (also a no-no). The embryo is destroyed, which is a potential human being.

    I am not a member of the Roman Catholic church, but I do believe that their analysis is correct. Spreading this immoral practice to Africa (probably purchased through US entrepreneurs) is a step in the wrong direction.

    There is no destruction of an embryo. Birth control doesn’t work that way; hormonal birth control prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs, so there is nothing to become an embryo. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that an egg was released to be fertilized, the hormones thin the lining of the uterus so that the embryo can’t attach, which is exactly the same process as in breastfeeding.

    The Catholic Church objects to birth control because a specific dogma related to the Virgin Mary; science has zilch to do with it.

  60. @Anonymous
    Like most people who frequent these sites and forums you are freakishly ignorant of economics. Africa's growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

    Try to actually learn economics before responding. If you think Africa doesn't havie booming economies than you know nothing.

    Africa’s growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

    Hmmm. From African Economic Outlook:

    “On the supply side Africa’s growth has been mainly driven by agriculture, extractive industries, construction and services. On the demand side, the boost has come from private consumption and infrastructure investment.”

    Yes, extractive industries, which in turn create the demand for construction and drive private consumption, because extractive industries are creating actual wealth. The “services” are often just government make-work jobs handed out to connected cronies, or services related to the extraction work.

    “So far African economies have been relatively resilient to the sharp fall of international commodity prices. Production has often increased despite the lower prices, and growth has also been boosted by other sectors.”

    Uh oh. Continuing production in the face of lower prices? Very smart. Clearly, you have the local big man cashing out as quickly as possible so he can hi-tail it to Europe with his looted resource wealth.

    “But if commodity prices remain low or decline further, growth shortfalls in resource-rich countries would increase as governments need to cut spending. Governments will be keeping a close watch on conditions in key markets, especially Europe and China.”

    Again, driving everything is the ur-wealth of commodities. And oh dear, governments might have to cut spending, which means a great deal of the non-commodity economy (which is nothing other than commodity wealth being redistributed) will fall.

    As the popular saying goes: Africa is the continent of the future, and it always will be.

  61. @rvg
    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    The green revolution(singular) has hit its limits, and we likely won’t have a second one, if for no other reason than the inventor of the first one would be discriminated against in the university he went to today.

  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @rvg
    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    Yep – one day scientists will figure out a way of turning wood-pulp into wheaten flour.

    That day, the population will probably surpass 10 billion. Once that little wheeze has worked its magic, its the turn of transforming blow-fly larvae into hamburger meat – and then we get to 20 billion and another cunning wheeze is called for.
    Yes, I know! – it’s the time of transforming human sewage back into ‘usable’ carbohydrates and proteins! – that will take care of 30 billion.
    My gosh! – how many bacilli are these ‘cunning men’ able to squeeze on to a petri dish!
    With a bit more scientific magic a solid ball of human flesh expanding into space would ‘prove’ Einstein wrong, never mind Malthus, and that ball of man meat will expand faster than the speed of light!

  63. @International Jew

    Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate
     
    But those eight kids will have eight parents among them, thus no population growth.

    But so much for the math; the problem is that the typical Ethiopian family is not having just two kids.

    Notice that if his children each have the replacement rate of two children, Mr. Jemberu will have eight grandchildren, twice the replacement rate

    But those eight kids will have eight parents among them, thus no population growth.

    Not at all. You’re sidestepping, Steve’s point here:

    No, it keeps going up for another generation because of the number of children his generation had.

    Steve’s point is precisely that even if Ethiopia’s his fertility goes to replacement immediately!, Mr.Jemberu’s grandchildren’s generation (not yet born) will still be twice the size as his own. (Assuming his four children is typical.) So population growth will continue for “another generation”.

    And actually while Steve’s “another generation” covers the worse part of the “population momentum” even with replacement fertility the population actually keeps growing much, much longer, basically for an entire human lifespan. What you need for ZPG is that the death rate equals the birthrate. At replacement fertility this requires that the mean cohort that is dying off had the same “birth size” as the new cohort being born. (It’s even more complicated than that because of changes in lifespans and such.) But the bottom line is at replacement fertility you’ll see growth until all the earlier smaller pre-replacement generations die off and your deaths are coming from generations the same size as the ones being born.

    ~

    The reason that a few nations–like Japan–have actually reached a peak stopped growing is that their fertility fell well below replacement.

    Japan had high fertility after WWI through the 20s and 30s. The huge postwar baby boom, managed to produce a respectable but somewhat smaller echo in the 1970s. But that generation has not come close to replacing itself. So now folks who are dying–born in the 20s and 30s–come from cohorts that were about 50% larger than the 1 million or so Japanese being born each year now. And Japanese population is set to plunge as they even larger post-war cohorts start dying off in another 20. Even if Japan suddenly recovered to replacement fertility it would still only hold at around 1 million births a year and have a stable population in the 80 million ballpark.

    Nothing like this is on the horizon for Africa. Ironically the “best” you could plausibly predict would be much higher death rates from famine or disease. But the big countries aren’t anywhere close to even replacement fertility, much less sub-replacement. So even if contraceptive use improves dramatically, there is *huge* “population momentum” that is pretty much destined to drive African population through the roof–until the four horsemen saddle up.

  64. @Anonymous
    Like most people who frequent these sites and forums you are freakishly ignorant of economics. Africa's growth has nothing to do with commodity booms (given the fact that there is no commodity boom). Most African countries gets far more of their GDPs from farming than they get from commodities.

    Try to actually learn economics before responding. If you think Africa doesn't havie booming economies than you know nothing.

    If you don’t know agricultural products are commodities, you are ignorant. If you believe African GDP statistics, you are stupid. If you think the windfall of wealth enjoyed by a few Africans in recent years came from something other than high commodity prices, you are both.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Also with Burundi and Rwanda.
    Malthus expresses itself with periodic, intermittent wholesale massacres, which when plotted on a graph resemble Hudson Bay 'hare and lynx' data.

    Whilst the world is currently fixated on Isis/Assad/Sunni/Shia etc as the ‘explanations’ for the Syrian crisis, the vast majority of commentators are ignoring the real, root, underlying cause of the crisis – Isis and Assad are merely symptoms of much deeper, darker infinitely more powerful and subtle forces, namely good ol’ fashioned Malthus.

    It has been scarcely remarked that Syria’s population well and truly skyrocketed in the 20th century, in fact, some of highest population growth rates ever recorded in history.
    – But the ‘means of subsistence’ never grew at anything like the same rate.

    Don’t worry, though. Germany or rather Merkel have rather magnimously donated hundreds of years of capital-accumulated German ‘means of subsistence’ to generously reward Syrian libidity and profligacy.

  66. @rvg
    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    The problem with Malthusian theories is that it never accounts for how technological change can improve crop yields and productivity.

    You have an incorrect understanding of what Malthus actually wrote–what his point is.

    Malthus was a very smart guy, not an idiot. He was quite aware of technological improvement in “the means of subsistence”. (And probably didn’t feel competent to speculate on future developments.) His point in fact is that human population can grow faster than technological progress–will inevitably suck up the surplus that improved means provide, so that the new larger population will push against the new higher limit.

    Here’s his quote pulled from wikipedia:

    That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
    That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
    That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.

    And this is in fact mostly what’s happened. Technological improvements have been vast–unprecendented–and the world’s population has responding with incredible growth, so that many people still manage to be impoverished.

    If you want to bash Malthus, what he did *not* foresee was not technological progress in means of production, but rather the “demographic transition”. Essentially the failure in his argument is the “invariably”. Turned out that people–at least some people–can reign in the baby making.

    But the point about Africa is that the demographic transition just does not seem to be happening there the way it has not just in Europe or East Asia, but even in the lower IQ, more backward regions of the non-African world.

  67. @Chrisnonymous
    Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.

    Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.

    The China question is indeed a somewhat interesting one.

    Pretty much all of us reading Steve–apologies to you much older readers–have lived our whole lives under the post-war “American system”–decolonization, open markets, free trade.

    This was a notable (and better) change from the colonial period which preceded it, which generated much actual physical conflict (including two big wars) as opposed to mere commercial competition. And this is the environment Africa is in. Corrupt elites trading their resources for Western technology and goods. African populations proper up by Western technology and medicine. (Suppression of the ebola outbreak an example.) But no one actually telling–much less making–Africans behave. The adults have “left the room”, but left the keys to the liquor cabinet.

    But as the West demographically collapses–low fertility, disgenic fertility, importing hostile and lower IQ populaitons–there’s no particular reason that the “American system” must stay in place. The Chinese in particular have no particular inclination toward these post-war white\European\Christian norms. And as the West declines the need to observe Western norms to placate trading partners declines.

    What China’s mostly been doing in Africa so far, is making deals with corrupt elites to extract resources China needs. We build this railroad and have rights to mine these ore deposits. We build this pipeline and have rights to exploit this oil field. I’d expect that this pattern will only continue and intensify, with perhaps more explicit interventions to insure suitably “cooperative” elites to make deals with.

    But it’s not wholly outside the bounds of possibility that as the West declines, that this could evolve into a more explicitly colonial relationship. Where China takes some of these nations as “protectorates”. The tendency in most of these Chinese projects is that the Chinese bring in Chinese to build them because they are just so much more productive—and capable of quality work—than the Africans. It’s not impossible to imagine China actually physically colonizing some particular resource rich areas of Africa with Chinese, and perhaps booting Africans out.

    About the only thing I see making this much less likely is that China in reigning in its population has created its own demographic problems—especially old age overhang. However, one problem they have is surplus males and shipping ‘em off somewhere … not a bad solution.

    With the West having drunk the kool-aid, it’s all up for grabs. The future really is an undiscovered country.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Yup. As someone who works mostly in Asia I am aware the critical benchmarks around which negotiation and discussion pivot were often erected by western dominated institutions.

    Be it human rights standards or trade rules. Even if flouted in practice at least this is the agenda.

    (I find an entity like Human Rights Watch irritating for its deliberate ignorance of how Asian countries really work; but it will be missed when it is gone/wholly ignored.)

    Perhaps ambituous youngsters anticipating dealing with Asia in the decades to come should educate themselves on how approaches were historically made to the Sublime Porte...

    A sign of the times perhaps being the Chinese company Alibaba's purchase of the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, which is still a let's-write-the-reality type newspaper (even if increasingly sucumbing to self-censorship in recent years) with its roots in the colonial era free press.

    "The company says its purchase was "fueled by a desire to improve China's image and offer an alternative to what it calls the biased lens of Western news outlets," according to The New York Times."

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/14/10077974/alibaba-buys-scmp-china-image
  68. @Anonymous
    They are NOT dumb.

    The name of the game is, and has always been, Darwinian survival.

    The REALLY dumb bastards are Angela Merkel, the EU, New Labour, and the people who support them.
    Basically Merkel has intentioned her desire to let her ethnic German kin - whom, presumably she shares genetic clustering with, to die off in the near future, and be replaced in the land which is their womb and which they had defended, nurtured and developed for tens of thousands of years, by another ethny, an unrelated ethny, which never built Germany, and has no connection with German land.

    For that dumb shit she is lauded by the establishment as a 'great woman'.

    The upshot is that in the coming centuries, Africans will still be here, and European whites will not - even in the nations which birthed them.

    They are NOT dumb.
    The name of the game is, and has always been, Darwinian survival.

    The REALLY dumb bastards are Angela Merkel, the EU, New Labour, and the people who support them.
    Basically Merkel has intentioned her desire to let her ethnic German kin – whom, presumably she shares genetic clustering with, to die off in the near future, and be replaced in the land which is their womb and which they had defended, nurtured and developed for tens of thousands of years, by another ethny, an unrelated ethny, which never built Germany, and has no connection with German land.

    Well said Anon (now please just make up a name).

    But the fact is Africans are “dumb” in the IQ sense relative to most non-African populations. So the fact that the Africans breed breed breed till famine constrains is actually *more* sensible than what is happening in the higher IQ West, just shows how virulent a mind virus this minoritarian\multi-cultural\anti-nationalism really is.

    Modern leftism is the worst pathogen *ever*–it doesn’t just wipe out say a 1/3 of the population like the plague, it kills entire races and civilizations wholesale.

  69. @Stan Adams
    Drinking a liter of Coke every day lowers your sperm count by about 30 percent. So if you drink four liters a day...

    As a lifelong Coke fiend of the liquid variety with otherwise excellent habits, I can attest to that.

  70. One of the great sadnesses of this era of mismatched population growths is that the world, and the west in particular, will not have a chance to find equilibrium at a lower level of population.

    Would this have been such a bad thing given the rise of automation etc?

    Why not countries with ample countryside and uncrowded cities in which to live and philosophise in? France, which has been in the news, had a population of 40 million at the end of the last war – less than two-thirds its current level – when it was still seen as a great cultural exemplar.

    Surely given time advanced societies at least might have found a way to adjust to the advent of contraception and perhaps returned back somewhat to the family?

    Much of the mania for constant population growth is driven by the Ponzi-like need to cover for the financial sins of current generations.

    I fully understand that a declining population can lead to a weakening of cultural vitality and ambition and competitive reach but all this might have been finessed.

    Of course this is just a mind game – although perhaps not in places like Japan – because the west has proven unable (until too late?) to maintain its borders against r-selected populations.

  71. @AnotherDad

    Obviously, the answer is to just give Africa to China on the condition they institute a one-child policy.
     
    The China question is indeed a somewhat interesting one.

    Pretty much all of us reading Steve--apologies to you much older readers--have lived our whole lives under the post-war "American system"--decolonization, open markets, free trade.

    This was a notable (and better) change from the colonial period which preceded it, which generated much actual physical conflict (including two big wars) as opposed to mere commercial competition. And this is the environment Africa is in. Corrupt elites trading their resources for Western technology and goods. African populations proper up by Western technology and medicine. (Suppression of the ebola outbreak an example.) But no one actually telling--much less making--Africans behave. The adults have "left the room", but left the keys to the liquor cabinet.

    But as the West demographically collapses--low fertility, disgenic fertility, importing hostile and lower IQ populaitons--there's no particular reason that the "American system" must stay in place. The Chinese in particular have no particular inclination toward these post-war white\European\Christian norms. And as the West declines the need to observe Western norms to placate trading partners declines.

    What China's mostly been doing in Africa so far, is making deals with corrupt elites to extract resources China needs. We build this railroad and have rights to mine these ore deposits. We build this pipeline and have rights to exploit this oil field. I'd expect that this pattern will only continue and intensify, with perhaps more explicit interventions to insure suitably "cooperative" elites to make deals with.

    But it's not wholly outside the bounds of possibility that as the West declines, that this could evolve into a more explicitly colonial relationship. Where China takes some of these nations as "protectorates". The tendency in most of these Chinese projects is that the Chinese bring in Chinese to build them because they are just so much more productive—and capable of quality work—than the Africans. It’s not impossible to imagine China actually physically colonizing some particular resource rich areas of Africa with Chinese, and perhaps booting Africans out.

    About the only thing I see making this much less likely is that China in reigning in its population has created its own demographic problems—especially old age overhang. However, one problem they have is surplus males and shipping ‘em off somewhere … not a bad solution.

    With the West having drunk the kool-aid, it's all up for grabs. The future really is an undiscovered country.

    Yup. As someone who works mostly in Asia I am aware the critical benchmarks around which negotiation and discussion pivot were often erected by western dominated institutions.

    Be it human rights standards or trade rules. Even if flouted in practice at least this is the agenda.

    (I find an entity like Human Rights Watch irritating for its deliberate ignorance of how Asian countries really work; but it will be missed when it is gone/wholly ignored.)

    Perhaps ambituous youngsters anticipating dealing with Asia in the decades to come should educate themselves on how approaches were historically made to the Sublime Porte…

    A sign of the times perhaps being the Chinese company Alibaba’s purchase of the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, which is still a let’s-write-the-reality type newspaper (even if increasingly sucumbing to self-censorship in recent years) with its roots in the colonial era free press.

    “The company says its purchase was “fueled by a desire to improve China’s image and offer an alternative to what it calls the biased lens of Western news outlets,” according to The New York Times.”

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/14/10077974/alibaba-buys-scmp-china-image

  72. @Big Bill
    Same problem in Kenya. After the big land redistribution of 40+ years ago, the typical smallholder farm size has gone from ~ 10-20 acres to ~ 1-3 acres.

    Unfortunately, the farmers who got (relatively) big parcels of land back then continued to breed like bunny rabbits.

    John Deere (Africa) now has an initiative to reach out to smallholders, teaching them agronomy, fertilizers, good tillage practices, etc. in small classroom settings. It turns out that "smallholder" to John Deere means ~ 5 acre farms.

    John Deere is publicizing this as a diversity/feelgood effort, but its a head-scratcher trying to figure out how John Deere can make any money. The best I can figure is they are trying to get these guys to band together (maybe 30-40 of them) and buy one (1) 35 hp tractor between them on time payments.

    John Deere is publicizing this as a diversity/feelgood effort, but its a head-scratcher trying to figure out how John Deere can make any money.

    Since the 2008 food crisis huge plots of land have been purchased or rented (called a land grab) in several parts of the world by foreign governments, hedge funds, and private businesses. These are the people that John Deere will be selling tractors to. The major players are from Saudi Arabia, India, China, and Europe.

    An informative documentary: http://www.ethiotube.net/video/13930/must-watch-documentary-food-crisis-and-the-global-land-grab-ethiopia

    There is no private ownership of land in Ethiopia. These businessmen from India are renting 1000 square miles of Ethiopian farmland for 150 British pounds a week. They will also receive tax breaks and roads built by the government.

  73. This is one form of African aid I could get behind, free birth control. I think it should go further then that, pay young fertile males to have a vasectomy’s and for females to go on long term forms of birth control. Whatever the market will bear, say a $50 gold coin to sign away there reproductive rights, hey it’s not a right if you can’t sell it.

  74. @Frau Katze
    Eight grandchildren is NOT population replacement.

    Two kids for two parents is replacement. Thus four grandchildren is replacement.

    Sure, but you’re drawing the line in the wrong place. If this guy’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren etc keep having just two kids apiece, our hero will have 1024 descendants in eight more generations; will you characterize that too as continued population growth?

  75. As much as one can generalize about an entire continent with various traditions and religions, it would seem that the issue is that most African nations (especially those where the population boom is expected to have particular impact) are traditional cultures. By this I mean that wealth in actual terms is measured in children and descendants. They don’t have the sort of myriad forms of provisioning for old age that are commonplace in the West – accumulated salable equity in real estate, investment portfolios, 401K, Social Security, pensions, etc. Therefore, in order to avoid being starving and destitute after one is no longer able to produce a subsistence income, it behooves you to have many children and impress upon them respect and reverence for their elders. Even in a poor, backwards economy it stands to reason that your chances to survive in relative comfort and stability in old age are more favorable with twelve or fifteen children than one or two, if only insofar as a fraction of meager surplus from twelve children and their spouses is much greater in the aggregate than that from one or two with spouses. In the West, people have children for emotional rather than practical purposes – which is to say that each child diminishes the surplus income which could be directed into building wealth upon which to subsist in old age. Accordingly, child birth and rearing now is prioritized (among responsible types) to take place only after a certain requisite attainment of a certain level of career success and wealth accumulation. By way of contrast, in traditional cultures the children are your 401K, so having more is better and erring on the side of more rather than less even given one’s limited resources makes sense. You’d undertake even more risk in this are if every now and again when there is a bad harvest do-gooders from Europe and the U.S. arrive deus ex machina with food and medicine.

    Therefore I agree with other commenters who conclude that simply carpet bombing the continent with free birth control would have little appreciable effect. I also agree that the superimposition of Western medicine, hygiene (however poorly practiced), agricultural technologies, charity and aid has probably turbocharged a problem measured in births over deaths.

    Rather, I imagine money would be better spent in creating some sort of rudimentary retirement scheme where an individual’s surplus production could be stored and grow over time. That is to say that rather than having ten or more children and hoping to feed them with uncertain surplus grain or livestock, the surpluses could be sold or banked in exchange for some guaranteed accumulated benefit in one’s old age or disability. Of course a flaw in this is that children often serve as low cost labor (the cost being food and board) which may increase any available surplus in the first place. In any event it would seem that the cultural issue needs to be solved rather than relying upon a material silver bullet solution that is probably bound to fail since it does not align well with the incentives in place in those nations.

  76. To follow on my last comment, this situation seems to mirror (albeit in a larger way) issues with out of wedlock and teenage births in urban areas of the U.S. The fundamental assumption in politics as promulgated by people who utterly fail to understand the worldview and incentives presented to the girls is that they don’t want to get pregnant but fail to use contraception as a function of “lack of sex education” or “access to free or low cost birth control.” So the energy and funds are plowed into educational initiatives and access to birth control without understanding that these girls are often trying to get pregnant or at least open to having a child as a teenager. Simply rehashing the plumbing and offering free condoms and hormonal birth control doesn’t change the outcomes.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Prior to the seventies, teen motherhood was an very, very unpleasant thing. The girl either put the child up for adoption (Patti Smith, Joni Mitchell, and several other famous women did) or married the creep (or some shemp she could convince to marry her). So girls had a big incentive not to get pregnant.

    The very rich and the very poor had their own ways of dealing with the issue-the daughter of a certain performer we have discussed here, and whose mother was in the abortion business herself, is often rumored to have had an abortion at 16: and the very poor just thought babies came from storks, or trees, or whatever: but middle class Middle America modified their amorous behavior substantially.

    Making unwed motherhood unpleasant is itself unpleasant to many, but it's a necessity.
  77. @Wyrd
    And where is our proof these Africans won't just blow up their condoms like balloons? I mean, these are the same people who use mosquito nets to poison their fishing holes because derp!

    These are the same people who smoke their free HIV/AIDS medication ground up with broken glass and rat poison.

  78. @Alec Leamas
    To follow on my last comment, this situation seems to mirror (albeit in a larger way) issues with out of wedlock and teenage births in urban areas of the U.S. The fundamental assumption in politics as promulgated by people who utterly fail to understand the worldview and incentives presented to the girls is that they don't want to get pregnant but fail to use contraception as a function of "lack of sex education" or "access to free or low cost birth control." So the energy and funds are plowed into educational initiatives and access to birth control without understanding that these girls are often trying to get pregnant or at least open to having a child as a teenager. Simply rehashing the plumbing and offering free condoms and hormonal birth control doesn't change the outcomes.

    Prior to the seventies, teen motherhood was an very, very unpleasant thing. The girl either put the child up for adoption (Patti Smith, Joni Mitchell, and several other famous women did) or married the creep (or some shemp she could convince to marry her). So girls had a big incentive not to get pregnant.

    The very rich and the very poor had their own ways of dealing with the issue-the daughter of a certain performer we have discussed here, and whose mother was in the abortion business herself, is often rumored to have had an abortion at 16: and the very poor just thought babies came from storks, or trees, or whatever: but middle class Middle America modified their amorous behavior substantially.

    Making unwed motherhood unpleasant is itself unpleasant to many, but it’s a necessity.

  79. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Knowing 'The Economist' magazine only too well, they are probably already starting to badger dumb-ass politicians eager to 'look clever' in making plans for western nations, particularly Britain, to accept massive, uncontrolled, open ended black African immigration.
    The usual lies and deceit about 'ageing populations' and 'added fiscal receipts form immigrant taxes' will be trotted.
    Rest assured that the dumb, stupid bastards who govern us will fall for Economist lies and trash big time. Just like they always do,.
    You see the desire to appear 'smart' is overwhelming, see for example Merkel or Gorbachev or even Blair, amongst the vain and shallow types who climb to the top of the political tree.

    Wouldn’t take any trickery to get the western politicians to go along with it, they hate whites enough already.
    Beside, don’t you know that we desperately need millions of third worlders to keep our population growing heavily? Otherwise we won’t have enough people to lay off when automation replaces 50% or whatever of jobs in a couple decades!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS