The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Top 25 Cool Demographics Facts
🔊 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I am not going to cover things that well-informed normies already know: How Israel is a weird outlier in fertility by First World standards, and the collapse of fertility in the Islamic world; how life expectancy has been soaring nearly everywhere; the “Great White Death” in the US and how all races in the US outperform their counterparts elsewhere, except for American Whites, who live less than almost all Europeans. Nor am I going to cover truly banal stuff, such as how tiny Bangladesh has more people than Russia. Nor particularly controversial stuff such as Eurabia, Great Replacement, etc. which I have covered elsewhere.

For all of this you have websites like Our World in Data and books by Steven Pinker.

I am instead going to focus on the truly little known and esoteric that I happen to find most interesting, especially from a historical or futurist perspective.

***


Demographic Geopolitics

(1) The world population of Greeks has been steady at ~10 million since the age of Alexander the Great. Their percentage of the world total plummeted from ~5% to slightly more than 0.1% today.

Source: Hansen, Mogens Herman. 2008. “An Update on the Shotgun Method.Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 48 (3): 259–86.


 

(2) In 1900, Europe’s population (~400M) was quintuple that of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (~80M).

By 2100, Sub-Saharan Africa’s population (~4B) will be eight times as great as Europe’s (~650M).

Quite the reversal!

Source: Maddison; UN World Population Prospects.


 

(3a) Comparing the populations of modern nation-states to their medieval (pre-Black Death) counterparts is a fascinating exercise:

  • France grew only 3x from ~20M to today’s ~65M
  • England: 10x from ~6M to ~60M
  • Italy: 7x from ~9M to ~60M
  • Germany: 8x from ~10M to ~82M
  • India: 15x from ~100M to ~1.7B (including Pakistan & Bangladesh)
  • China: 15x from ~100M to ~1.4B
  • Byzantines-Greeks remained at just ~10M (see above)
  • Russian lands 30x from ~6M to ~190M

Source: Maddison

 

(3b) So despite the vast losses of Russia’s demographic potential during the 20th century, it still did rather well in the long-term, increasing its share of Europe’s population from ~5% to ~20% (~25% if inc. UKR/BEL). Swapped places with France in this respect. Glory to the musket and the potato!

 

(3c) At a larger scale, while both Europe and China were at ~100M in Middle Ages, now China has twice as many people, 1.4B to 700M. The advantages of backwardness – delayed fertility transition left more time for population to soar.


 

(4) France was the world’s first modern nation to undergo the fertility transition. It had its genesis with the French nobility during 18C. Subsequently, France would fall from having 1/5 Europe’s population in Middle Ages to <10% by late 19C.

Source: Spolaore, Enrico, and Romain Wacziarg. 2019. “Fertility and Modernity.” Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research.


 

(5) Huge demographic losses on the level of World War II in Eastern Europe were typical in the Malthusian era.

  • 30 Years War in Germany, Mongol invasion of Russia and Persia, reduced their populations by a third.
  • Wars & anarchy accompanying the end of dynasties usually killed 33%-50% of Chinese.

 

(6) Were the Turks the big demographic winners of the 20th century?

  • 1914: 13.7M Turks vs. 10M Armenians + Greeks (1.3:1) & ~170M in Russian Empire – precarious.
  • 2017: 80.8M Turks vs. 13.7M Greeks+Armenians (6:1) & ~150M in RF – secure as never before.

 

(7) The population ratio between Russia and the Ukraine fell from less than 3:1 to almost 5:1 since 1992. It is ironic that Ukrainian independence has been worse for Ukraine’s population balance vis-a-vis Russia than anything that Lazar Kaganovich and the Nazis did.


Communist Demographics

 

(8a) Russia just within its current borders, assuming otherwise analogous fertility and migration trends, would have had 261.8 million people by 2017 without the triple demographic disasters of Bolshevism, WW2, and the 1990s – that’s double its actual population of 146 million.

Source: Демографические итоги послереволюционного столетия & Демографические катастрофы ХХ века by Anatoly Vishnevsky

(8b) According to my very rough calculations, based on various sources, the population change for each of the following in their current borders between 1913/14 and 1945/46 was about as follows:

  • Russia – 91M/97M
  • Ukraine – 35M/34M
  • Belarus – 7.5M/7.7M

Assuming a threefold expansion in all of these populations, we could have been looking to a Russian Empire or Republic with a further ~120M fully Russified Belorussians and largely Russified Ukrainians, for a total Slavic population of almost 400M.

That’s twice bigger than the number of White Americans today, the most populous single European ethnicity, and almost as much as all of today’s Western Europe.

(8c) Total population of a hypothetical Russian Empire that also retained Central Asia and the Caucasus, and that hadn’t been bled white by commies, Nazis, and Westernizers during the course of the 20th century, would likely have been not that far off from Dmitry Mendeleev’s 1906 projection of 594 million for 2000.

Source: Understanding Russia by Dmitry Mendeleev (yes, the chemist).


 

(9) So far as I can tell, the Latvians, Estonians, and Ashkenazi Jews are the only peoples with fewer people today than in 1914. It is ironic that they played the most disproportionate roles (per capita) in cementing Bolshevism in Russia. God must really hate commies.


 

(10) That said, the Irish have an even more extreme and unique anti-record: There are fewer of them today (~6.6M in all Ireland) than in 1840 (8.5M)! I wonder what they did to anger God so. 🙂


 

(11) Communism isn’t always an unmitigated demographic disaster. As @Cicerone973 has discovered, for the first time ever, births in Best Korea (25M) probably overtook South Korea (52M) last year.

(Even if, as Myers argued, Songun/Juche has almost zilch to do with Marxism).


 

(12) The wonders of Maoism: Between 1960 and 1978, the share of China’s urban population FELL from 20% to 18%.

Source: China’s Economy by Arthur K. Kroeber.


 

(13) We have no solid idea if China’s TFR is ~1.6 children per woman, ~1.1 children per woman, or anywhere in between, e.g. see here, here, and here.

This seems rather important given China’s importance.


Russian Demographics

 

(14a) Russia’s middle-aged male mortality in the 1990s and early 2000s was worse than under late Tsarism. In particular, alcohol abuse accounted contributed to about a third of all deaths. (This has all since drastically improved).

 

(14b) Contra Pinker, Russia has seen a “de-civilizing” process in terms of homicide rates (and many other indicators of social wellbeing) in the last third of the 20th century. This was perfectly correlated with its alcoholization epidemic.

In recent years, the Russian homicide rate has retreated back to its pre-1965 “steady state” of ~5/100,000.

Of course, there is still plenty of lost ground, since c.1900 Russia’s rates were similar to those of Italy, Finland, and Japan, whereas all these countries are now at least 5x less violent.

 

(14c) During the later Soviet era, the Ukraine consistently had a 2 years higher life expectancy than Russia – a difference that dates back well to the 19th century (probably on account of them drinking less, even back then).

But Ukraine has been stagnating since early 2010s; still below its 1960s all time peak, Russia overtook by 2018.

 

 

(15) Central Asians went from 10% of Russian population in 1914 to half today, while births have almost equalized since the early 1990s.

Central Asians increasingly looking to work in South Korea, which is ~20 years ahead of China in terms of demographic and socio-economic development. Once China’s urbanization maxes out at ~75-80% by ~2040, I expect labor migration from C. Asia to reorient there.


Demographic Predictions

 

(16) Might appear easy, but demographers often get things wrong.

c.1930, some forecasts had France’s population falling from 40M to 28M by 1970. Instead, France went from having one of Europe’s lowest TFRs to one of highest, and population went to 50M by that year.

Source: Sauvy, Alfred. 1932. “Calculs Démographiques Sur La Population Française Jusqu’en 1980.” Journal de La Société Statistique de Paris 73: 319–47.


 

(17) And here are some UN Population Prospects forecasts for the year 2025, as cited by Paul Kennedy in his 1993 book Preparing for the 21st Century. As of the 2017 Update, Iran is predicted to have 87M by 2025, as opposed to 122M.


Breeder Demographics

 

(18) However, “Breeder” genes are ultra-competitive in a post-Malthusian environment. Consequently, it is entirely possible that Europe – which underwent the demographic transition 50-100 years ago – may have higher fertility rates than Africa by 2100.

Source: Collins, Jason, and Lionel Page. 2018. “The Heritability of Fertility Makes World Population Stabilization Unlikely in the Foreseeable Future.” Evolution and Human Behavior: Official Journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, September.


 

(19a) Exponential growth can be very powerful. On current trends, Mormons may account for majorities in wide swathes of the rural American West by the early 22nd century.

 

(19b) There were 31,000 Haremin in Israel and 19,000 Amish in the US in 1952. Today, there are 1,126,000 Haredim in Israel and 343,000 Amish in the US.

 

(19c) While absolute Amish TFR has fallen over the past century from ~8 children per woman to ~6 children, the differential with the US population as a whole has increased from 2x to 3x.

 

(19d) Greg Cochran has argued that less committed Amish have been “boiling off” for more than a century, so “Amishness quotient” is increasing with each generation. Which augurs well for their continued demographic expansion.


 

 

(20) Do Russians have a “breeder” group, like Jews (Haredim), Americans (Amish, Mormons – to an extent)? Some tantalizing hints that the rural areas of Northern European Russia are going that way – but far from confirmed that this trend is here to stay.


Demographics Trivia

 

(21) Completed marriages in 1730s Waltham, Massachusetts produced an average of 9.7 children – the largest ever observed in the West by demographic historians (barring a few Christian communes).

Source: Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer.


 

(22a) Normiecons won’t like this, but generous parental leave & child support appear to be far better than banning abortion & social conservatism so far as promoting higher fertility and disincentivizing dysgenic reproduction patterns goes in First World countries.

 

(22b) To illustrate the previous point, in the last few years:

  • Czech TFR: 1.5-1.7
  • Polish TFR: 1.3-1.5

Czechia is Europe’s most atheist country & has highest number of porn stars per capita (but very based on migration). Poland is very holy – but it doesn’t seem to do it much good.


 

(23) Twitter demographer @Cicerone973 has been tracking an apparent “baby bust” that has affected nearly the entirety of the developed world since 2015.

There are no good explanations for it. My best guess is that since it is happening to almost everyone, it would probably have to be some recent cultural phenomenon that shifts fertility preferences downwards (or delays them). Tinder?


 

(24) The Imperium of Man in Warhammer 40K has long been in the Age of Malthusian Industrialism.

Think about it.

Every year, billions of Imperial Guards and dozens of planets are lost in wars, to Exterminatus, to democidal robots, bioconstructs, and eldritch abominations. It is also run by superstitious cretins (*blam*). Nonetheless, it doesn’t have any particular demographic problems, new planets always being settled.


 

(25) Nobody really knows the carrying capacity of our industrial world economy – all we can say for sure is that we are still far below the limits to growth.

My guesstimate is that the planet can support ~100 billion people.

 
Hide 465 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. Were the Turks the big demographic winners of the 20th century?

    Maybe, but they look set to lose in the 21st. Even putting aside the kurdish question, Turkey has seen a huge surge of arabic and generally islamic immigration. I’m not even talking about refugees. Turkish citizenship is very cheap to aquire and their property laws are hyperliberal for foreigners.

    A large number of Arabs (biggest group being Iraqis and not Syrians last year), Afghans, Pakistanis and other muslims now immigrate to the country. Worse, Turkey is seeing a shift in emigration patterns. It is not the gastarbeiter types who are leaving but increasingly the well-educated. Erdogan’s pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country. The biggest threat to his rule is not the moribound secular opposition but the nationalist right. By 2030, kurds will be 1/3rd of Turkey population and even greater share among the newborn. Add the arabs and other muslim populations and things start to look really bad for them.

    Wouldn’t be surprised if they are the first NATO country to see an outright ethno-fascist leader rise to power over the coming decade or two.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...Erdogan’s pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country...'

    Well, that could be seen as a reversion to the norm. Anatolia was never mono-ethnic: not in classical times, not under Byzantine rule, and certainly not under the Ottomans. It was only under the secular Turkish Republic that 'Turkey' became synonymous with 'Anatolia.'

    I like Turkey myself, but if the prediction is borne out, it's really just going to mark a return to business as usual.
    , @Malema
    @ Colin Wright
    What a load of Islamophobic claptrap.
    American Zio-Christians are ethnofascists, so are most Europeans
    , @HEREDOT
    I agree, a country whose demography is ruined. ominous days await them
  3. first time i had seen the opening graphic/painting… interesting depiction…
    i mean, almost certainly un-PC, fa, ra, and se, and doubtless, transphobic… (isn’t everything ? ? ?)
    cancel the artist ! ! !

  4. The world population of Greeks has been steady at ~10 million since the age of Alexander the Great.

    Interesting contrast with the population of Egypt, which from the time of the Pharaohs to Napoleon (and even a bit beyond) was ~ 4 million, so less than half that of the Greeks. Today it is 100 million, and projected to be 160 million in 2050 and 225 million in 2100.

    • Replies: @argybargy
    But Egypt has been demographically swamped since ancient times, mostly by Arabs, whereas Greece has not. While the Greeks were eventually pushed out of Asia Minor back to within their traditional homeland, the Egyptians had no such buffer zone and had to absorb the invading hordes on their home territory. Most Egyptians today are not the same stock as the the ancients.
  5. How long until an African demographic transition, though? By the way things are going, seems to be they’ll profit the most from the AOMI, being the dumbest

    • Replies: @Gerad. 12
    Africans significantly smarter than the negroes in North,South and central America. This pattern is obvious in UK,Australia ,US and so on between Africans and Carribean people
  6. The post-SU collective literally suicidal depression was an interesting demographic phenomenon. Are there any other examples of the same kind?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Yes - the 'Great White Death' cited in the article.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    White British and white Americans - indeed white Europeans - have steeply falling fertility, and it's not because they prefer to enjoy a country with more space - it's because they're not optimistic about the future.

    This isn't helped (to put it mildly) by a media pushing the idea that the world is doomed and you should stop breeding to save the planet, but there's also advertising (standard family is now black male/white female), TV and film,education with its emphasis on white sin (slavery, holocaust, Sacco and Vanzetti, lynching - truly a broad historical education) - and above all, the on the ground reality of stagnant or falling wages, massively increased house prices, and mass immigration by people you don't really want to bring kids up among, indeed you don't want to live among them yourself, but can't afford to move away from. Oh, and the push for confused young men and women to declare themselves homosexual, if not transgender.

    Here's what one British supermarket is pushing.

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/sainsburys-celebrates-black-history-month

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/splashing-orange-into-the-rainbow-of-pride

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/taking-pride-in-diversity


    "Allies are vital to making more colleagues aware of LGBT issues. In recent years, we have forged a productive mentoring relationship with the global consultancy company Accenture, which is helping to drive change within our business."
     
    Nothing says diversity like Arthur Andersen.

    UK real median male wages have fallen over the last 20 years, real house prices up 2.5 times. Real GDP increased, but its not reflected in wages.

    The symptoms of whites are an attenuated form of what we've seen among Native Americans, Aborigines, First Nations Canadians - which raises an interesting question - what are the demographics of those groups? Have they managed to combine drug and alcohol abuse and general dysfunction with decent fertility levels?

  7. (22a) Normiecons won’t like this, but generous parental leave & child support appear to be far better than banning abortion & social conservatism so far as promoting higher fertility and disincentivizing dysgenic reproduction patterns goes in First World countries.

    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren’t in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?

    As for Mendeleev’s projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you’re going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so. I do think that 500 million would be a reasonable estimate for a Russia that keeps Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus, and Central Asia and that avoids the demographic devastation of the 20th century, though. Of these, I suspect that around 350 million would identify as Russians while around 50 million would identify as non-Russian Slavs–primarily western and central Ukrainians.

    Of course, an interesting question would be just what kind of immigration policy a non-Bolshevik Russia would have had in the 20th and 21st centuries. Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario. Obviously Moscow and St. Pete’s would be at the top, but then what? Kiev? Tashkent? Some other cities? You previously speculated that Odessa would have become much more populous in this scenario, but an increase in size from one million (which is what it is in real life) to 5-7 million (in this scenario) sounds utterly unrealistic, in my honest opinion. Why did Odessa stagnate (relative to some other cities in Greater Russia) during the 20th century in real life?

    As for Israel, I wonder if its fertility would have still been exceptional right now had much more Jews survived the Holocaust and subsequently moved to Israel. Any thoughts on this?

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x. IMHO, you should have put 15x for both Greater India and China rather than 10x in regards to their population growth over the centuries.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren’t in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?
     
    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I'm missing.

    As for Mendeleev’s projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you’re going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so.
     
    Mendeleev's was a simple model.
    Also he wasn't including Galicia.

    My guess is you'd have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.

    Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?
     
    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That's around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario.
     
    Recently discussed this elsewhere.

    Even a putative Russian Republic that lost Ukraine etc. would have 270M people, plus a bunch of immigrants from Central Asia. USA is very decentralized, and yet NY still packs 7% of the US population. So I'd say 20-25M is likely number for SPB in Small Russia scenario. (Note also there would have likely been no Soviet era propiska system heavily regulating immigrants into the capital, so even 30M or 10% of the population is not unrealistic).
     
    So, in scenario we're discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow - 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC - and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II's circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia's biggest millionik than its "northern capital", IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow's. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.

    Kiev: 7M

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today - only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century - but I revised my opinion it would be Russia's third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There'd also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm - a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times - would only have 500,000 people, not a million.

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x.
     
    Agreed. But editing function seems to be frozen atm.
  8. How well have the Mormons done in Mexico? If badly, what is the basis for supposing they will easily expand into the SW US?

    I guess that is the interesting question: how do groups like the Old Order Mennonites do abroad, in nonwhite countries?

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    "How well have the Mormons done in Mexico?"

    what would Mitt Romney, a mormon from Mexico, say about the 10 mormons that got wacked in Mexico today?

    "Whatever we do, don't build the wall," or something stupid like that.

    "Bridges not walls!"

    , @Barbarossa
    Belize has about 12,000 Old Order Mennonites. I believe they came in the mid 20th century, after cheap arable land. They do quite well down there, by my brother's account (he lived there for a couple years). They account for much of Belize's industrial food system. Seems like they do quite well and get along just fine with the native Maya, etc.
  9. most of the people in Ireland moved to the US, largely to our detriment.

    humorously, they’re now engaged in the business of giving away Ireland. like the Scots, a thousand years of struggle against the English, just so they could turn around and give it all away to third worlders.

    Puerto Rico has sort of taken Ireland’s place as the island that empties out into the mainland, and as a thank you, they shift the politics of the country to the left, as the Irish did. current ideas about making Puerto Rico a state would go about as well legalizing all Mexicans – the guaranteed end of the US politically.

    • Replies: @Ray Huffman
    most of the people in Ireland moved to the US, largely to our detriment.

    humorously, they’re now engaged in the business of giving away Ireland. like the Scots, a thousand years of struggle against the English, just so they could turn around and give it all away to third worlders.

    Yes, and just as bizarrely, spurning their Irish-American cousins as wannabes and "Plastic Paddies" while welcoming any Nigerian nigger who washes up on the beach as a "new Irishman." I think this has to do with the fact that it's extremely unfashionable now to not hate Americans and they wouldn't want to look un-hip in front of their English neighbors: you know, the ones who oppressed them for centuries.

    .

  10. global first world fertility bust except among the extremely religious probably IS due to the internet and cell phones. porn if you’re a volcel (a new category of human). and too many options if you prefer real women to porn. why get married when there’s so many women to bang no strings attached and you can find them via social media.

    this coincides with the STD explosion. they track well together.

    plus as a man in many nations the courts are against you right off the bat. getting married is dangerous. and of course, dah innernets spread this concept quickly and effectively to younger men, who are now more aware that it’s dangerous to marry the first woman that comes along in your 20s, or to marry any woman at all, ever.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Idk. I've done some of that hooking up stuff (Tinder!!) but it's not really that enjoyable. I got laid about once a month, with girls who were generally below my SMV. You have to use condoms (not risking an STD). It's just not that fulfilling of a lifestyle. So I'm off of it now. I'm going volcel (no porn) until I get a gf.

    This type of lifestyle really is a mirage. If you talk to average guys, they don't have much "success" on Tinder. Even less than me. It's all a fake image (((they))) created; a wild party lifestyle where you have sex with a new partner every night you found on Tinder. It just doesn't exist for 95% of men.

    We need to break men out of this conditioning.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    a volcel (a new category of human)
     
    Hardly.



    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/2a/f2/9d2af2ef34bfdbb9e83a0a6e201b0cfa.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXETs6TVAAAMF3A.jpg:large

    https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/styles/1200w/public/1/1-XIANG-Shengmo-Invitation-to-Reclusion_1.jpg?itok=MYzcRb3f
    , @LondonBob
    You obviously haven't used tinder much. The STD thing is really a homosexual phenomenon.
    , @Oracle
    European population has been intentionally collapsed through destruction of family, feminism, abortion, affirmative action, promotion of divorce, punitive legal action against husbands, fathers. All coming from the same group.
  11. related website for teh lulz.

    https://www.getoutofillinois.com/

    Illinois is now the US state which is shrinking the fastest. losing about 6 people per 1000 people per year, net. that’s not outmigration, that’s net migration. according to the website, 300 people leave per day.

    New York is second, losing 5 people per 1000 people per year.

    California is avoiding net loss, by replacing Americans who leave, with Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians. still, California has lost over 1 million tax paying middle class Americans over the last 10 years, and it shows. California is in decline.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    Are there any data on where these people are going?
  12. @songbird
    How well have the Mormons done in Mexico? If badly, what is the basis for supposing they will easily expand into the SW US?

    I guess that is the interesting question: how do groups like the Old Order Mennonites do abroad, in nonwhite countries?

    “How well have the Mormons done in Mexico?”

    what would Mitt Romney, a mormon from Mexico, say about the 10 mormons that got wacked in Mexico today?

    “Whatever we do, don’t build the wall,” or something stupid like that.

    “Bridges not walls!”

  13. It is impossible to prognosticate.

    What we have now is actually a continuation of past 5000-6000 years of recorded human history (won’t delve into details).

    Apart from unusual scenarios (ET, comets,..) & expected (WW 3)- the truly new is that we could have in near future of 20-40 years a possibility to radically alter human kind.

    Perhaps genetic profound engineering on a large scale.

    Perhaps artificial wombs.

    Perhaps “pumped up” humans (average IQ 300 etc.).

    Perhaps “species dissociation” with new, biological elites.

    Perhaps cyborgization of (some) humans.

    Anyway, any of these options would mean unimaginable consequences we’d not witnessed in past 6000 years.

    Who in 1850 could imagine that in next hundred years it would be possible to completely eradicate human life on earth with human-made weapons?

    So, I’d say it is idle to speculate.

    • Replies: @songbird

    So, I’d say it is idle to speculate.
     
    Based on archaeogenetics, I'm not optimistic about pacifists like the Amish.
  14. @Bardon Kaldian
    It is impossible to prognosticate.

    What we have now is actually a continuation of past 5000-6000 years of recorded human history (won't delve into details).

    Apart from unusual scenarios (ET, comets,..) & expected (WW 3)- the truly new is that we could have in near future of 20-40 years a possibility to radically alter human kind.

    Perhaps genetic profound engineering on a large scale.

    Perhaps artificial wombs.

    Perhaps "pumped up" humans (average IQ 300 etc.).

    Perhaps "species dissociation" with new, biological elites.

    Perhaps cyborgization of (some) humans.

    Anyway, any of these options would mean unimaginable consequences we'd not witnessed in past 6000 years.

    Who in 1850 could imagine that in next hundred years it would be possible to completely eradicate human life on earth with human-made weapons?

    So, I'd say it is idle to speculate.

    So, I’d say it is idle to speculate.

    Based on archaeogenetics, I’m not optimistic about pacifists like the Amish.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    Why? It was the more violent groups who were exterminated according to archaeogenetics. Neolithic Scandinavians for example were ridiculousky violent and got wiped out by the less violent people from the Battle Axe culture.

    Click here to see how violent Scandinavian neolithic people were:

    http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm
    , @JMcG
    They’re not pacifists when deer season comes around. I don’t think I’ve ever failed to see an Amish guy fail to empty his magazine when shooting at a deer.
  15. @Mr. XYZ

    (22a) Normiecons won’t like this, but generous parental leave & child support appear to be far better than banning abortion & social conservatism so far as promoting higher fertility and disincentivizing dysgenic reproduction patterns goes in First World countries.
     
    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren't in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?

    As for Mendeleev's projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you're going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so. I do think that 500 million would be a reasonable estimate for a Russia that keeps Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus, and Central Asia and that avoids the demographic devastation of the 20th century, though. Of these, I suspect that around 350 million would identify as Russians while around 50 million would identify as non-Russian Slavs--primarily western and central Ukrainians.

    Of course, an interesting question would be just what kind of immigration policy a non-Bolshevik Russia would have had in the 20th and 21st centuries. Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario. Obviously Moscow and St. Pete's would be at the top, but then what? Kiev? Tashkent? Some other cities? You previously speculated that Odessa would have become much more populous in this scenario, but an increase in size from one million (which is what it is in real life) to 5-7 million (in this scenario) sounds utterly unrealistic, in my honest opinion. Why did Odessa stagnate (relative to some other cities in Greater Russia) during the 20th century in real life?

    As for Israel, I wonder if its fertility would have still been exceptional right now had much more Jews survived the Holocaust and subsequently moved to Israel. Any thoughts on this?

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x. IMHO, you should have put 15x for both Greater India and China rather than 10x in regards to their population growth over the centuries.

    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren’t in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?

    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I’m missing.

    As for Mendeleev’s projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you’re going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so.

    Mendeleev’s was a simple model.
    Also he wasn’t including Galicia.

    My guess is you’d have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.

    Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?

    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That’s around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario.

    Recently discussed this elsewhere.

    Even a putative Russian Republic that lost Ukraine etc. would have 270M people, plus a bunch of immigrants from Central Asia. USA is very decentralized, and yet NY still packs 7% of the US population. So I’d say 20-25M is likely number for SPB in Small Russia scenario. (Note also there would have likely been no Soviet era propiska system heavily regulating immigrants into the capital, so even 30M or 10% of the population is not unrealistic).

    So, in scenario we’re discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow – 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC – and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II’s circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia’s biggest millionik than its “northern capital”, IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow’s. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.

    Kiev: 7M

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today – only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century – but I revised my opinion it would be Russia’s third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There’d also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm – a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times – would only have 500,000 people, not a million.

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x.

    Agreed. But editing function seems to be frozen atm.

    • Replies: @Svevlad
    I'd say south Siberia (Omsk, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk etc) and the southern far east (Khabarovsk, Vladivostok) would be slightly bigger (Vladivostok especially). The rest might have a more "equal" population distribution since I doubt a non-communist government would gather people in new settlements in their industrialization schemes. Though I suppose a gold (in this case, diamond) rush is always possible. Right now they seem to be holding back, unwilling to crash the global markets
    , @Mr. XYZ

    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I’m missing.
     
    AFAIK, the logic behind this was a principle of fairness. As in, it was perceived in the late 20th century as being unfair to deny children child support due to their illegitimacy.

    Mendeleev’s was a simple model.
    Also he wasn’t including Galicia.
     
    He also wasn't including Subcarpathian Ruthenia or Ottoman Armenia or (Ottoman) Pontus or Constantinople or Mongolia or Xinjiang.

    My guess is you’d have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.
     
    25M for Caucasians, Moldovans, and Balts sounds much more realistic, no?

    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That’s around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.
     
    Do you think that Russia is going to have much more Hindus and Buddhists in this scenario as well?

    Also, as a side question, how many Russian Jews (also, out of a total of how many?) do you think are going to be living outside of the (former--it was abolished by the Russian Provisional Government in 1917) Pale of Settlement right now in this scenario?

    I know that in real life something like 4 out of 5 Soviet Jews were living outside of the former Pale of Settlement in May 1941 but with this figure being reduced to 1 out of 2 Soviet Jews in 1959 as a result of the Holocaust wiping out most of the Jewry in the Pale of Settlement (though about 1.0-1.5 million of them did, in fact, manage to evacuate in time in 1941-1942 and thus survived the Holocaust). Interestingly enough, nowadays Russia has more than three times Ukraine's Jewish population--with Belarus's Jewish population being almost nonexistent right now (less than 10,000, or about 0.1% of Belarus's total population).

    Recently discussed this elsewhere.
     
    Where exactly (as in, which blog post and comment thread) is that comment of yours from?

    So, in scenario we’re discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow – 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC – and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II’s circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia’s biggest millionik than its “northern capital”, IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow’s. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.
     
    Was losing several hundred thousand people or so in the Siege of Leningrad *that* devastating for St. Petersburg? I mean, most of St. Petersburg's population survived this siege, no?

    Also, your projections here sound reasonable, though it's worth noting that New York appears to be much closer to other major US urban centers (Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, the Washington DC area, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even Chicago) than St. Petersburg is. St. Petersburg is sort of in the middle of nowhere--in part due to its extremely northern location. Granted, I get the logic in people moving en masse to the capital, but still, if the capital is in the middle of nowhere, well, it isn't exactly encouraging.

    I suppose that one good test for this would be to see just how many people will move to Indonesia's new planned capital in Borneo--which likewise appears to be in the middle of nowhere.

    Kiev: 7M
     
    Possible--especially if it will be made the capital of a Ukrainian autonomous region in Russia in this scenario.

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today – only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century – but I revised my opinion it would be Russia’s third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There’d also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm – a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times – would only have 500,000 people, not a million.
     
    TBH, I wonder if 2-3 million for Odessa would have been somewhat more realistic. That said, though, I generally agree with your analysis in regards to everything here.

    BTW, how many people do you think that Constantinople would have had right now had Russia avoided the Bolshevik coup, remained in WWI until the very end, and acquired it after the end of the war? FTR, I don't think that the US would have looked very favorably at a Russian expulsion of Constantinople's Muslim population--so it's probably not going to happen in a scenario where the US still enters WWI.

    In addition, do you think that Odessa would have been Russia's fourth-largest city in this scenario or would some other city have been the fourth--with Odessa being in fifth place or lower? (I'm presuming that Kiev would, of course, be number three.)

    Also, how many people do you think that cities such as Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, and Kaunas are going to have right now in this scenario? In addition, I was wondering if the Baltics are going to see even more Russian/East Slavic migration in this scenario than they did in real life. At the very least, Estonia has an average IQ that isn't that much lower than Moscow's and if Estonia will remain a part of Russia, one would think that its high quality of life would be attractive for a good number of Russians, no? (BTW, I'm presuming that Russia would have still eventually lost both Poland and Finland, correct?)

    As a side note, I looked at a topographic map of Ottoman Armenia and Pontus and the topography there (mostly extremely high mountains with a very narrow coastal area) would probably prevent large-scale population expansion there. I don't think that Russians/Eastern Slavs are going to be particularly willing to move to extremely mountainous areas in eastern Anatolia, and as I said the amount of coastal territory with a low elevation in this area (Pontus) is very, very small. In fact, this is probably why northeastern Turkey has no cities that have a population of one million or more right now. The largest is Samsun and the next largest is Trebizond, I believe. Neither has a population of one million or more and Trebizond doesn't even have a population of half a million.
    , @Philip Owen
    I will put in a bid for Saratov, the 3rd biggest city in what is now modern Russia during the Silver Age. It was wealthy this bourgeois so the Bolsheviks starved it (literally at times) of development until the late 1960's. It is the natural port for the Russian Black Earth which might have been a food production area second only to the US Mid West. Chicago in Europe.
  16. Cool article. It’s the first article on Unz, I read without skipping any paragraphs, for about 6 months.

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports?

    Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124.

    The closest I have been to Leningrad region is Pulkovo, so I cannot add anything about the area. Probably this is just some statistical mistake created by internal migration (Saint-Petersburg usually has 0,2-3 higher TFR than Leningrad region)?

    They also always quite significantly behind other low fertility regions: Mordoviya has fertility of 1,255, Tambov region 1,333, Voronezh region 1,339, Penza region 1,348.

    Mordoviya is interesting, because in the Soviet Union, Mordvins used to have higher fertility rates than Russians (although Mordva population declined by intermarriage and assimilation).

    But in recent years, Mordvins’ birthrates have been declining heavily, especially with falls of Mordvin births in rural area* (I assume it is mainly internal migration causing this).


    *
    http://www.vestnik-argo.sfedu.ru/sites/default/files/25.%20%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0.pdf

    • Replies: @melanf

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports? Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124
     
    .

    Probably St. Petersburg as a vacuum cleaner absorbs girls (ready to give birth ) from the Leningrad region. As a result, the age pyramid in the area is broken, and the birth rate is unusually low.
  17. For a different perspective:

  18. Once again, a totally superficial and lazy analysis by Anatoly.

    1) The map of Greek settlement shown near the beginning of the post is probably the Greek world around 500-400 BC. That is at least 80 years before the age of Alexander the Great. Also, the dispersed settlement of Greeks around the Mediterranean basin should not imply a large population. Most of these areas marked in red outside of heavily Greek areas in the Aegean Basin, Cyprus and southern Italy would have consisted of polis-states and small trading outposts or emporia. Those polis-states and trading outposts would have been heavily surrounded by non-Greek people.

    2) Greeks are not currently 10m people. We have to add the Greek Cypriots, Greeks of Northern Epirus and much of the Greek diaspora that identifies as Greek. The aggregate Greek population of the world is more like 15m. Officially, it is higher but we should adjust for those Greeks whose Hellenic identity is very faint.

    3) Regardless of the inaccurate number highlighted in 2), the Greek population increased from 10m to 15m, we must not forget a large proportion of Turks living near the western coasts of Anatolia are mostly Islamicised Greeks which are now lost to Hellenism forever. Spyros Vryonis detailed this process in his book, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century.

    Turkish DNA samples bear this out.

    In addition, the Ottoman, Young Turks and Kemalist Turkey, removed about 800,000 to perhaps up to 1.2 million Greeks during the Christian Genocide of Anatolia. This is excruciatingly detailed in, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924 by Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi. It is also borne out by the map comparing Anatolian population centres between 1900 and 2000 (again, this map is not accurate).

    https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674916456

    4) The Turkish population figure of 80.8m is again inaccurate. Present day Turkey is comprised of around 15-20% Kurds and another 20% Alevis. Core Sunni Turks constitute about 55-60% of the population of Turkey or around 44-48m. They have been demographic winners but not as great as one is meant to believe without looking into the data more critically which Anatoly characteristically fails to do.

    So, the ratio of Turks to Greeks + Armenians, assuming the lower figure of Armenians around the globe to adjust for Armenians whose identity is faint, is more like 2.1-1, and not 6:1 quoted by Anatoly.

    • Replies: @Cicerone
    About the diaspora: If they don‘t speak Greek, they can‘t be considered Greeks.
    , @Cutler
    You are correct about Turks being closer to 60% of the population of Turkey and they are trending to decline in coming decades further still, The eastern regions which are majority Kurdish have much higher Tfr than western Turkey in fact the European parts of Turkey and the western fringes like Erdine have the same Tfr as the neighbouring European nations at iirc 1.5 ( Kurdish regions around 3.5-4 Tfr ) And alongside Islamicized Greeks at least 20% of Turks are descendants of Balkan immigrants ( Albanians Bosnians Pomaks ) who largely settled there before and after the turn of the century and have the same lower Tfr.
    I really enjoyed this thread.
  19. My guesstimate is that the planet can support ~100 billion people.

    Rampant techno-utopianism again. Imagine how polluted, sectarian, fragile and easily disrupted a world even double current population would be.

    • Agree: Charon, Alfred, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Malenfant
    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn't far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario -- for some values of plausible -- is a vision of hell.
    , @songbird
    Pollution is really an energy problem. In theory, it can be solved, and it seems to be being solved, since in many cases, rivers and air are cleaner now than in the past.

    As to ethnic conflict, I suspect that in the end, globohomo will try to make us all forcefully miscegenate. This has been done before in Paraguay and Haiti. It is amazing how people with mixed DNA seem to be instant globalists.

    For instance, the other day, I heard an Arab, with a rather funny idea. He had taken a DNA test, and found out that he was 3% Irish, and some odd percent Nigerian. And now he claimed Irish people could not possibly object to him and others invading their country, without being racists. Obviously if it was not noise, it meant his ancestors had pillaged the Irish coasts in the past, or helped finance such pillaging.

    A lot of Arabs also have Russian DNA...
  20. Of course the greek population didnt grow. You cant get pregnant from anal sex.

  21. @Yevardian

    My guesstimate is that the planet can support ~100 billion people.
     
    Rampant techno-utopianism again. Imagine how polluted, sectarian, fragile and easily disrupted a world even double current population would be.

    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn’t far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario — for some values of plausible — is a vision of hell.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn’t far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)
     
    I thought that Indians (even those in India) don't reproduce that much nowadays either?
    , @Colin Wright
    'A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario — for some values of plausible — is a vision of hell.'

    Oh, I dunno. I imagine fifty billion Chinese with fifty billion properly trained black slaves could make for a reasonably civilized society. Perhaps not one you or I would find congenial -- but that's a different matter. After all, I probably wouldn't care for tenth century Constantinople, either. That doesn't make it hell.
    , @Marshall Lentini

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.
     
    They can barely support themselves right now.

    A lot of wishful thinking in this piece. "Decline in Islamic fertility"? Please.
    , @East Indian
    It is not possible for a world with a predominance of Africans, Indians or even Chinese to reach 100 billion population. It involves a very fundamental restructuring of society, and these people are not yet capable of building an industrial society (where the bulk of the population is engaged in manufacturing sector; remember, China is not yet into second generation of non-agricultural society).

    An agricultural society is one where about 70 - 80% population has to work to feed all the 100%; and an industrial society is where only 5 - 10% population needs to be in agriculture, but it can feed all the 100%; and about 50 - 60% further population is in manufacturing.

    A 100 billion world will have hardly 1% in agriculture, another 2 - 5% in manufacturing and a further 20% in services essential for running the society (including government). The rest, will have to be put on a purpose that can sustain the population - may be tasked with populating other planets and star systems.

    A 100 billion Earth can survive only if it a base camp for colonising the nearby space.
  22. @Agathoklis
    Once again, a totally superficial and lazy analysis by Anatoly.

    1) The map of Greek settlement shown near the beginning of the post is probably the Greek world around 500-400 BC. That is at least 80 years before the age of Alexander the Great. Also, the dispersed settlement of Greeks around the Mediterranean basin should not imply a large population. Most of these areas marked in red outside of heavily Greek areas in the Aegean Basin, Cyprus and southern Italy would have consisted of polis-states and small trading outposts or emporia. Those polis-states and trading outposts would have been heavily surrounded by non-Greek people.

    2) Greeks are not currently 10m people. We have to add the Greek Cypriots, Greeks of Northern Epirus and much of the Greek diaspora that identifies as Greek. The aggregate Greek population of the world is more like 15m. Officially, it is higher but we should adjust for those Greeks whose Hellenic identity is very faint.

    3) Regardless of the inaccurate number highlighted in 2), the Greek population increased from 10m to 15m, we must not forget a large proportion of Turks living near the western coasts of Anatolia are mostly Islamicised Greeks which are now lost to Hellenism forever. Spyros Vryonis detailed this process in his book, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century.

    https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Hellenism-Islamization-Eleventh-Fifteenth/dp/1597404764

    Turkish DNA samples bear this out.

    In addition, the Ottoman, Young Turks and Kemalist Turkey, removed about 800,000 to perhaps up to 1.2 million Greeks during the Christian Genocide of Anatolia. This is excruciatingly detailed in, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924 by Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi. It is also borne out by the map comparing Anatolian population centres between 1900 and 2000 (again, this map is not accurate).

    https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674916456

    4) The Turkish population figure of 80.8m is again inaccurate. Present day Turkey is comprised of around 15-20% Kurds and another 20% Alevis. Core Sunni Turks constitute about 55-60% of the population of Turkey or around 44-48m. They have been demographic winners but not as great as one is meant to believe without looking into the data more critically which Anatoly characteristically fails to do.

    So, the ratio of Turks to Greeks + Armenians, assuming the lower figure of Armenians around the globe to adjust for Armenians whose identity is faint, is more like 2.1-1, and not 6:1 quoted by Anatoly.

    About the diaspora: If they don‘t speak Greek, they can‘t be considered Greeks.

    • Agree: Andy
    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Precisely, and that is why I assume 15m, rather than 17-20m, which is often bandied about but that range assumes ancestry. Personally, the ability to converse somewhat in Greek is the marker which counts for ethnic Greek identity. Some ethnicities have religion we have language. There are some exceptions like certain Kappadokes Pre-1922.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    They would still have Greek DNA, no?
  23. In 1900, Europe’s population (~400M) was quintuple that of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (~80M).

    If you add the European diaspora in the Americas, Oceania and the colonies in Asia and Africa there were well over 500 million Europeans on the planet in 1900 which made euros the most populous race of that time at close to a third of the human population. Ranking the 4 main races in 1900 would have looked like this:

    1. Europeans 500+ million
    2. East Asians 475 million
    3. Indians 270 million
    4. Subsaharan Africans 100+ million (including diaspora in Americas).

    In a couple decades the above ranking will be completely reversed. So the last shall be first and the first shall be last. (Matthew 20:16)

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Well that passage is explicitly referring to the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven, not some demographic trend that will come true in the future. Add to that the fact that your reference points are completely arbitrary, Euros (particularly nordics) weren't always most populous before that passage was written, and Africans surely not always least populous. We might as soon declare now to be the starting point in our interpretation, so a spectacular European comeback is inevitable!

    I don't wanna see what Church you go to if you think clown world is what Heaven looks like, I have a feeling there would be a lot of bloody rams' heads, altars with bronze bulls above a firepit, etc.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis included among Indians? If so, wouldn't a better term for this be South Asians?
  24. @prime noticer
    global first world fertility bust except among the extremely religious probably IS due to the internet and cell phones. porn if you're a volcel (a new category of human). and too many options if you prefer real women to porn. why get married when there's so many women to bang no strings attached and you can find them via social media.

    this coincides with the STD explosion. they track well together.

    plus as a man in many nations the courts are against you right off the bat. getting married is dangerous. and of course, dah innernets spread this concept quickly and effectively to younger men, who are now more aware that it's dangerous to marry the first woman that comes along in your 20s, or to marry any woman at all, ever.

    Idk. I’ve done some of that hooking up stuff (Tinder!!) but it’s not really that enjoyable. I got laid about once a month, with girls who were generally below my SMV. You have to use condoms (not risking an STD). It’s just not that fulfilling of a lifestyle. So I’m off of it now. I’m going volcel (no porn) until I get a gf.

    This type of lifestyle really is a mirage. If you talk to average guys, they don’t have much “success” on Tinder. Even less than me. It’s all a fake image (((they))) created; a wild party lifestyle where you have sex with a new partner every night you found on Tinder. It just doesn’t exist for 95% of men.

    We need to break men out of this conditioning.

  25. I think one big problem of North East Asians is that they have no breeder group. At least I have never heard of any region, religious group or anything like that in Japan with high fertility.

    • Replies: @lauris71
    Breeder groups are inherently unstable because their behavior is culturally motivated. There is little reason to believe that most Amish, Mormon or Haredi women have genetic disposition to have more children than their peer populations on average. Change their society/environment radically and they will stop breeding - just like most of the traditional societies did with urbanization. Mormons are probably the most resilient group, but I cannot imagine how either Amish or Haredis can keep the functioning, once they become the absolute majority in their countries and have to support the (ultra-complex) modern state structures themselves.
    What ultimately changes the demographic trend upwards is natural selection among "normal" people, picking out the genotypes that increase the desire to have many children in modern urban environment.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    There is one of sorts.

    https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/the-worlds-most-fertile-chinese-live-in-a-violent-backwater-of-myanmar/22992
  26. Concerning Subsaharan African expansion I think it is even more striking to compare the the size of its population to either the entire rest of the world or to other specific regions than to Europe. E.g. around 1950 Subsaharan Africa had half of the population of India, by now it is roughly equal, in coming decades it is projected to grow much larger of course.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon. As it is, much of the USA's federal budget is borrowed, and this has been the case for almost all of the past thirty-five years -- especially under Obama and Trump.

    Even the US fed gov's dishonest on-the-books budget reveals that our rulers are borrowing one TRILLION dollars in FY 2019 out of $4.75 Trillion in spending. FY2020 looks about the same. We are back at the annual deficit levels of Obama's first term (and his second term involved massive borrowing, too, just not as much).

    Certainly I hope that the next generation of Westerns is unWILLING to subsidize the dimwits in their mindless breeding, whether able to subsidize them or not. Then again, if we re not able to get the gov to stop subsidizing mindless breeding by our dimwits right here at home, what are the odds we'll grow some balls and gain some common sense re Africa.

  27. Here’s a few more cool demographic facts from 1900:

    1. Anglo America (USA & Canada) had a larger population than all of Latin America combined.
    2. The Anglosphere had a population approaching twice that of Subsaharan Africa.
    3. Persia had just 7 million people and Arabia had just 4.2

    • Replies: @songbird

    3. Persia had just 7 million people and Arabia had just 4.2

     

    It is an interesting question what will happen to Arabia when it runs out of oil, or if fusion becomes mainstream. I suppose in the latter case they will still have energy for desalinization plants, so maybe they should be hoping for it.
  28. @prime noticer
    global first world fertility bust except among the extremely religious probably IS due to the internet and cell phones. porn if you're a volcel (a new category of human). and too many options if you prefer real women to porn. why get married when there's so many women to bang no strings attached and you can find them via social media.

    this coincides with the STD explosion. they track well together.

    plus as a man in many nations the courts are against you right off the bat. getting married is dangerous. and of course, dah innernets spread this concept quickly and effectively to younger men, who are now more aware that it's dangerous to marry the first woman that comes along in your 20s, or to marry any woman at all, ever.

    a volcel (a new category of human)

    Hardly.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Light sabers? Dudes,get yourself a broad.
    .
    , @prime noticer
    perhaps i should have said porncel, or pornosexual, which many guys under 40 are today. vastly different than the volcels of centuries gone past.

    porn is fast, cheap, always there, and you always get what you want, every time, since you're in control. do the ROI comparison to spending tons of time, energy, and money chasing women just to go down dead ends over and over.

    lots of guys today are choosing to be porncels. now wait until the really good sex robots arrive. those birth rates are gonna plummet. in fact, i wonder what effect the current generation of sex dolls are already having.

    women, who can have sex any time they want, are having trouble getting boyfriends. so something very different is clearly going on now. after years of watching the stats, i'm now inclined to believe them. millenials have much less sex than any humans before them.

    , @bomag
    Light sabers, LOL.
  29. Great post, good data food-for-thought all around.

    A point some might call semantic point, but I’d like to make anyway:

    the number of White Americans today, the most populous single European ethnicity

    White Americans are probably best not called, or thought of, as a (single) ethnicity. I say that as a White American (multiple generations out of Europe on all branches).

    What do we mean when we say ethnicity? Political identity and ethnic identity are usually not the exact same thing.

    White Americans’ various strains of ethnopolitical identity (often based part on European ancestries but also region- and religion-based ethnic-like identity layers), are actually key, IMO, to understanding the USA and its politics. We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.

    • Replies: @Charon

    We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.
     
    Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I'm unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other 'ethnicity'. I'd say that's meaningful.

    Separately, more in line with the principal topic here, I join with a few other commenters who are fairly horrified by the notion of a planet groaning under the weight of 10 billion humans, much less 100 billion.

    Before an online sperg jumps on me, I'm talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species. One day we may finally respect the amazing range of animal life this planet had. But much of it will be gone.
  30. @Pericles
    The post-SU collective literally suicidal depression was an interesting demographic phenomenon. Are there any other examples of the same kind?

    Yes – the ‘Great White Death’ cited in the article.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    There are some striking similarities but I get the impression the White Death was strongly facilitated by (((Purdue Pharma))) making opioids readily available and prescribable. Was it the same thing in the SU?
  31. @Cicerone
    About the diaspora: If they don‘t speak Greek, they can‘t be considered Greeks.

    Precisely, and that is why I assume 15m, rather than 17-20m, which is often bandied about but that range assumes ancestry. Personally, the ability to converse somewhat in Greek is the marker which counts for ethnic Greek identity. Some ethnicities have religion we have language. There are some exceptions like certain Kappadokes Pre-1922.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    There were 8-10M Greeks who lived in culturally/politically Greek states in the age of Alexander the Great. There are 12M Greeks who live in a culturally/politically Greek state today (Greece and Cyprus). Not even a doubling.
  32. @Reg Cæsar

    a volcel (a new category of human)
     
    Hardly.



    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/2a/f2/9d2af2ef34bfdbb9e83a0a6e201b0cfa.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXETs6TVAAAMF3A.jpg:large

    https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/styles/1200w/public/1/1-XIANG-Shengmo-Invitation-to-Reclusion_1.jpg?itok=MYzcRb3f

    Light sabers? Dudes,get yourself a broad.
    .

  33. @Anatoly Karlin

    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren’t in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?
     
    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I'm missing.

    As for Mendeleev’s projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you’re going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so.
     
    Mendeleev's was a simple model.
    Also he wasn't including Galicia.

    My guess is you'd have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.

    Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?
     
    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That's around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario.
     
    Recently discussed this elsewhere.

    Even a putative Russian Republic that lost Ukraine etc. would have 270M people, plus a bunch of immigrants from Central Asia. USA is very decentralized, and yet NY still packs 7% of the US population. So I'd say 20-25M is likely number for SPB in Small Russia scenario. (Note also there would have likely been no Soviet era propiska system heavily regulating immigrants into the capital, so even 30M or 10% of the population is not unrealistic).
     
    So, in scenario we're discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow - 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC - and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II's circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia's biggest millionik than its "northern capital", IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow's. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.

    Kiev: 7M

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today - only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century - but I revised my opinion it would be Russia's third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There'd also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm - a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times - would only have 500,000 people, not a million.

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x.
     
    Agreed. But editing function seems to be frozen atm.

    I’d say south Siberia (Omsk, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk etc) and the southern far east (Khabarovsk, Vladivostok) would be slightly bigger (Vladivostok especially). The rest might have a more “equal” population distribution since I doubt a non-communist government would gather people in new settlements in their industrialization schemes. Though I suppose a gold (in this case, diamond) rush is always possible. Right now they seem to be holding back, unwilling to crash the global markets

  34. @Dmitry
    Cool article. It's the first article on Unz, I read without skipping any paragraphs, for about 6 months.

    -

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports?

    Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124.

    The closest I have been to Leningrad region is Pulkovo, so I cannot add anything about the area. Probably this is just some statistical mistake created by internal migration (Saint-Petersburg usually has 0,2-3 higher TFR than Leningrad region)?

    They also always quite significantly behind other low fertility regions: Mordoviya has fertility of 1,255, Tambov region 1,333, Voronezh region 1,339, Penza region 1,348.

    Mordoviya is interesting, because in the Soviet Union, Mordvins used to have higher fertility rates than Russians (although Mordva population declined by intermarriage and assimilation).

    But in recent years, Mordvins' birthrates have been declining heavily, especially with falls of Mordvin births in rural area* (I assume it is mainly internal migration causing this).

    -
    *
    http://www.vestnik-argo.sfedu.ru/sites/default/files/25.%20%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0.pdf

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports? Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124

    .

    Probably St. Petersburg as a vacuum cleaner absorbs girls (ready to give birth ) from the Leningrad region. As a result, the age pyramid in the area is broken, and the birth rate is unusually low.

    • Replies: @Cicerone
    That has no effect on the fertility rate though.
    , @Dmitry
    Total fertility rate, however, is calculated by adding together age-specific fertility rates (i.e. divided number of people in each age group). So it should be independent of the population pyramid.

    Although it's possible though there is a problem in the way it is reported, or calculated in these media reports.
  35. Very bluntly we are going to have a real world planet of the apes.

    • Agree: Charon
  36. @Agathoklis
    Once again, a totally superficial and lazy analysis by Anatoly.

    1) The map of Greek settlement shown near the beginning of the post is probably the Greek world around 500-400 BC. That is at least 80 years before the age of Alexander the Great. Also, the dispersed settlement of Greeks around the Mediterranean basin should not imply a large population. Most of these areas marked in red outside of heavily Greek areas in the Aegean Basin, Cyprus and southern Italy would have consisted of polis-states and small trading outposts or emporia. Those polis-states and trading outposts would have been heavily surrounded by non-Greek people.

    2) Greeks are not currently 10m people. We have to add the Greek Cypriots, Greeks of Northern Epirus and much of the Greek diaspora that identifies as Greek. The aggregate Greek population of the world is more like 15m. Officially, it is higher but we should adjust for those Greeks whose Hellenic identity is very faint.

    3) Regardless of the inaccurate number highlighted in 2), the Greek population increased from 10m to 15m, we must not forget a large proportion of Turks living near the western coasts of Anatolia are mostly Islamicised Greeks which are now lost to Hellenism forever. Spyros Vryonis detailed this process in his book, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century.

    https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Hellenism-Islamization-Eleventh-Fifteenth/dp/1597404764

    Turkish DNA samples bear this out.

    In addition, the Ottoman, Young Turks and Kemalist Turkey, removed about 800,000 to perhaps up to 1.2 million Greeks during the Christian Genocide of Anatolia. This is excruciatingly detailed in, The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924 by Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi. It is also borne out by the map comparing Anatolian population centres between 1900 and 2000 (again, this map is not accurate).

    https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674916456

    4) The Turkish population figure of 80.8m is again inaccurate. Present day Turkey is comprised of around 15-20% Kurds and another 20% Alevis. Core Sunni Turks constitute about 55-60% of the population of Turkey or around 44-48m. They have been demographic winners but not as great as one is meant to believe without looking into the data more critically which Anatoly characteristically fails to do.

    So, the ratio of Turks to Greeks + Armenians, assuming the lower figure of Armenians around the globe to adjust for Armenians whose identity is faint, is more like 2.1-1, and not 6:1 quoted by Anatoly.

    You are correct about Turks being closer to 60% of the population of Turkey and they are trending to decline in coming decades further still, The eastern regions which are majority Kurdish have much higher Tfr than western Turkey in fact the European parts of Turkey and the western fringes like Erdine have the same Tfr as the neighbouring European nations at iirc 1.5 ( Kurdish regions around 3.5-4 Tfr ) And alongside Islamicized Greeks at least 20% of Turks are descendants of Balkan immigrants ( Albanians Bosnians Pomaks ) who largely settled there before and after the turn of the century and have the same lower Tfr.
    I really enjoyed this thread.

  37. @Agathoklis
    Precisely, and that is why I assume 15m, rather than 17-20m, which is often bandied about but that range assumes ancestry. Personally, the ability to converse somewhat in Greek is the marker which counts for ethnic Greek identity. Some ethnicities have religion we have language. There are some exceptions like certain Kappadokes Pre-1922.

    There were 8-10M Greeks who lived in culturally/politically Greek states in the age of Alexander the Great. There are 12M Greeks who live in a culturally/politically Greek state today (Greece and Cyprus). Not even a doubling.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Makes one wonder about Greek genes. If you add up all the fractional Greeks. Kind of like how there are many, many more copies of Indio genes, post Columbian exchange.
    , @J
    Classical Greece was severely depopulated after Alexander's conquests in the East.

    Any Greek could get a good living in Egypt and other successor states by teaching Greek language and culture, or entering the local bureaucracies. Greece was emptied and its cities became insignificant villages. It is also probable that they underwent the first demographic transition in history.

  38. @melanf

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports? Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124
     
    .

    Probably St. Petersburg as a vacuum cleaner absorbs girls (ready to give birth ) from the Leningrad region. As a result, the age pyramid in the area is broken, and the birth rate is unusually low.

    That has no effect on the fertility rate though.

  39. @Hail
    Great post, good data food-for-thought all around.

    A point some might call semantic point, but I'd like to make anyway:


    the number of White Americans today, the most populous single European ethnicity
     
    White Americans are probably best not called, or thought of, as a (single) ethnicity. I say that as a White American (multiple generations out of Europe on all branches).

    What do we mean when we say ethnicity? Political identity and ethnic identity are usually not the exact same thing.

    White Americans' various strains of ethnopolitical identity (often based part on European ancestries but also region- and religion-based ethnic-like identity layers), are actually key, IMO, to understanding the USA and its politics. We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.

    We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.

    Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I’m unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other ‘ethnicity’. I’d say that’s meaningful.

    Separately, more in line with the principal topic here, I join with a few other commenters who are fairly horrified by the notion of a planet groaning under the weight of 10 billion humans, much less 100 billion.

    Before an online sperg jumps on me, I’m talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species. One day we may finally respect the amazing range of animal life this planet had. But much of it will be gone.

    • Replies: @songbird

    I’m talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species.
     
    When it comes to elephants and apes, I suppose Africans might make some sort of argument like, well, you killed your cave-lions and extinct megafauna.
    , @Anonymouse
    >Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I’m unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other ‘ethnicity’. I’d say that’s meaningful.

    It used to be accepted as a truism and self-evident that America was a melting pot that homogenized the many strands of white immigrant ethnicities and came up with a new culture which is immediately recognizable. Check out a bunch of American girl tourists abroad; their speech and gait is unmistakable: charming, naive and VERY LOUD compared to say the French that quiet repressed people.

    I suspect that the American melting pot is still operative and now includes Asians like Koreans and Chinese and many Hispanics. I get that impression partly by real world experience and partly by Asians and Hispanics on the TV speaking acentless American English which is the acid test of nationality.
  40. @prime noticer
    global first world fertility bust except among the extremely religious probably IS due to the internet and cell phones. porn if you're a volcel (a new category of human). and too many options if you prefer real women to porn. why get married when there's so many women to bang no strings attached and you can find them via social media.

    this coincides with the STD explosion. they track well together.

    plus as a man in many nations the courts are against you right off the bat. getting married is dangerous. and of course, dah innernets spread this concept quickly and effectively to younger men, who are now more aware that it's dangerous to marry the first woman that comes along in your 20s, or to marry any woman at all, ever.

    You obviously haven’t used tinder much. The STD thing is really a homosexual phenomenon.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Given that I was engaged to be married before Tinder was founded, I am glad to say that I've never visited Tinder. Given that it seems to be geared toward commitment-free animal hookups, I wouldn't visit it if I were single, either.

    Doesn't change the fact that your statement about STDs being a homosexual problem is completely untrue. Many millions of heterosexual people have STDs, most often one of the 200 varieties of HPV and not rarely herpes.

    Homosexuals presumably have a far higher rate of STD infection, including HIV infection, due to their disgusting unnatural and inherently unhygienic/unsafe practices (anal fissures, anyone?) and extreme promiscuity, but it is wrong to say that STDs are predominantly a homosexual problem.

  41. Yes, core Sunni Turk TFR is around 1.7. Turkish ethnic identity is arguably quite shallow and artificial. Around 150 years ago, the word “Turk” was derogatory and was synonymous with Turcophone rural peasants that adhered to Turkic tribal customs and sometimes even to traitors to the Ottoman Sultan. Note, the semi-nomadic Turkic tribes would often be targeted by the Ottoman state for their non-sedentary lifestyle and then as a reaction they would often side with rebels or invaders. This group of Ottoman subjects simply belonged to the Muslim millet which included all the other Muslims in the Umma such as Kurds, Arabs etc. There was no sense of there being a separate Turkish ethnos or genos as perhaps defined by people like Anthony D. Smith.

    It is this artificiality which probably allowed Kemal to change, almost overnight, the characters in their language, significantly change ancient customs and symbols, almost banish religion from public life, got rid of Sharia and the Caliph and significantly curtailed madrassas. Not surprisingly, Turkish identity has changed again, incorporating a strong Islamist element, under Erdogan.

  42. @Bliss

    In 1900, Europe’s population (~400M) was quintuple that of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (~80M).
     
    If you add the European diaspora in the Americas, Oceania and the colonies in Asia and Africa there were well over 500 million Europeans on the planet in 1900 which made euros the most populous race of that time at close to a third of the human population. Ranking the 4 main races in 1900 would have looked like this:

    1. Europeans 500+ million
    2. East Asians 475 million
    3. Indians 270 million
    4. Subsaharan Africans 100+ million (including diaspora in Americas).

    In a couple decades the above ranking will be completely reversed. So the last shall be first and the first shall be last. (Matthew 20:16)

    Well that passage is explicitly referring to the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven, not some demographic trend that will come true in the future. Add to that the fact that your reference points are completely arbitrary, Euros (particularly nordics) weren’t always most populous before that passage was written, and Africans surely not always least populous. We might as soon declare now to be the starting point in our interpretation, so a spectacular European comeback is inevitable!

    I don’t wanna see what Church you go to if you think clown world is what Heaven looks like, I have a feeling there would be a lot of bloody rams’ heads, altars with bronze bulls above a firepit, etc.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Well that passage is explicitly referring to the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven
     
    The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21

    What part of the above don’t you understand? What are these “workings of the Kingdom of God” you speak of? If the Kingdom is God is unobservable how could it’s “workings” be known?

    not some demographic trend that will come true in the future.
     
    Of course captain obvious. You must be retarded if you think I didn’t know that.

    I have a feeling there would be a lot of bloody rams’ heads, altars with bronze bulls above a firepit, etc.
     
    That must be the Levantine/Phoenician/Canaanite religion you speak of. Right? You know, the cruel, barbaric religion that believed in a god who could only be appeased by the sacrifice of innocent children. Sound familiar to you? Isn’t that what you believe? Correct me if I am wrong.
  43. Very interesting article, although I hope the folly of trends sets in soon and sub saharans will reach 4 billion around the same time that the women’s 100m converges with the men’s.

    And I also think it’s a bit unfair to call the leadership of the imperium superstitious when according to the lore humanity unambiguously owes its survival to the god emperor, heresy is a legitimately grave threat to humanity’s existence.

    • Replies: @Cutler
    Do any actual demographers think Africa will hit 4 Billion ( there or there abouts ) by 2100 ?
    I have not read any who think this will come to pass and they are for the most part in agreement that the 2100 predictions are to distant to be accurate because 80 years provides a massive margin of error. Of course the 2050 figures are more likely but surely we ought to disregard the 2100 numbers.
  44. @Bliss
    Here’s a few more cool demographic facts from 1900:

    1. Anglo America (USA & Canada) had a larger population than all of Latin America combined.
    2. The Anglosphere had a population approaching twice that of Subsaharan Africa.
    3. Persia had just 7 million people and Arabia had just 4.2

    3. Persia had just 7 million people and Arabia had just 4.2

    It is an interesting question what will happen to Arabia when it runs out of oil, or if fusion becomes mainstream. I suppose in the latter case they will still have energy for desalinization plants, so maybe they should be hoping for it.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    The Saudis are not waiting for fusion energy:

    https://www.neom.com/

    WELCOME TO
    NEOM

    The world’s most ambitious project:
    an entire new land, purpose-built for a new way of living
     

    AS THE SUN RISES OVER NEOM, IT WILL GLINT AGAINST VAST FIELDS OF SOLAR PANELS PAIRED WITH WIND TURBINES AND LIGHT UP ENORMOUS STRETCHES OF ENERGY GRIDS STORING POWER FOR GENERATIONS.
    All this being sufficient to supply all of NEOM and beyond with low-cost regenerative energy. The beams, bridges and archways of this grand destination will be immaculate, untainted by pollution. Buildings will remain pristine and the air fresh and clear. And NEOM scientists will pioneer the future of energy production, use and storage – for water, gas, oil, solar, wind, algae... and whole new kinds of energy the world has yet to hear of.
     
    Looking at that website Neom does look like the world’s most ambitious project. It is far more ambitious than any Chinese project even and they are the current champions in that department. I never expected the Wahabbis to be so into futurism. Let’s hope they can make this happen.
  45. @Charon

    We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.
     
    Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I'm unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other 'ethnicity'. I'd say that's meaningful.

    Separately, more in line with the principal topic here, I join with a few other commenters who are fairly horrified by the notion of a planet groaning under the weight of 10 billion humans, much less 100 billion.

    Before an online sperg jumps on me, I'm talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species. One day we may finally respect the amazing range of animal life this planet had. But much of it will be gone.

    I’m talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species.

    When it comes to elephants and apes, I suppose Africans might make some sort of argument like, well, you killed your cave-lions and extinct megafauna.

  46. @Anatoly Karlin
    There were 8-10M Greeks who lived in culturally/politically Greek states in the age of Alexander the Great. There are 12M Greeks who live in a culturally/politically Greek state today (Greece and Cyprus). Not even a doubling.

    Makes one wonder about Greek genes. If you add up all the fractional Greeks. Kind of like how there are many, many more copies of Indio genes, post Columbian exchange.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yep, good point.

    Large numbers of Italians in Italy, and Italian-Americans like me, have at least a smattering of Greek genes.

    All of my Italian-descended relatives who have taken genetic tests and told us their results, have Greek genes, usually just a few percent but in several cases 10-15%. These are people whose ancestors came from Italy (not Sicily) to the USA in the 1880s and 1890s, and have no family lore about Greek background at all.

    A caveat is that one of the two big genetic testing companies popular in the USA/Canada narrows it down only to "Greek / Balkan."
  47. @Yevardian

    My guesstimate is that the planet can support ~100 billion people.
     
    Rampant techno-utopianism again. Imagine how polluted, sectarian, fragile and easily disrupted a world even double current population would be.

    Pollution is really an energy problem. In theory, it can be solved, and it seems to be being solved, since in many cases, rivers and air are cleaner now than in the past.

    As to ethnic conflict, I suspect that in the end, globohomo will try to make us all forcefully miscegenate. This has been done before in Paraguay and Haiti. It is amazing how people with mixed DNA seem to be instant globalists.

    For instance, the other day, I heard an Arab, with a rather funny idea. He had taken a DNA test, and found out that he was 3% Irish, and some odd percent Nigerian. And now he claimed Irish people could not possibly object to him and others invading their country, without being racists. Obviously if it was not noise, it meant his ancestors had pillaged the Irish coasts in the past, or helped finance such pillaging.

    A lot of Arabs also have Russian DNA…

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    A source / evidence for the notion that a meaningful number of Arabs have Russian genetic background? Could be right, just want to see sources or examples.
  48. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Well that passage is explicitly referring to the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven, not some demographic trend that will come true in the future. Add to that the fact that your reference points are completely arbitrary, Euros (particularly nordics) weren't always most populous before that passage was written, and Africans surely not always least populous. We might as soon declare now to be the starting point in our interpretation, so a spectacular European comeback is inevitable!

    I don't wanna see what Church you go to if you think clown world is what Heaven looks like, I have a feeling there would be a lot of bloody rams' heads, altars with bronze bulls above a firepit, etc.

    Well that passage is explicitly referring to the workings of the Kingdom of Heaven

    The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21

    What part of the above don’t you understand? What are these “workings of the Kingdom of God” you speak of? If the Kingdom is God is unobservable how could it’s “workings” be known?

    not some demographic trend that will come true in the future.

    Of course captain obvious. You must be retarded if you think I didn’t know that.

    I have a feeling there would be a lot of bloody rams’ heads, altars with bronze bulls above a firepit, etc.

    That must be the Levantine/Phoenician/Canaanite religion you speak of. Right? You know, the cruel, barbaric religion that believed in a god who could only be appeased by the sacrifice of innocent children. Sound familiar to you? Isn’t that what you believe? Correct me if I am wrong.

  49. @songbird

    3. Persia had just 7 million people and Arabia had just 4.2

     

    It is an interesting question what will happen to Arabia when it runs out of oil, or if fusion becomes mainstream. I suppose in the latter case they will still have energy for desalinization plants, so maybe they should be hoping for it.

    The Saudis are not waiting for fusion energy:

    https://www.neom.com/

    WELCOME TO
    NEOM

    The world’s most ambitious project:
    an entire new land, purpose-built for a new way of living

    AS THE SUN RISES OVER NEOM, IT WILL GLINT AGAINST VAST FIELDS OF SOLAR PANELS PAIRED WITH WIND TURBINES AND LIGHT UP ENORMOUS STRETCHES OF ENERGY GRIDS STORING POWER FOR GENERATIONS.
    All this being sufficient to supply all of NEOM and beyond with low-cost regenerative energy. The beams, bridges and archways of this grand destination will be immaculate, untainted by pollution. Buildings will remain pristine and the air fresh and clear. And NEOM scientists will pioneer the future of energy production, use and storage – for water, gas, oil, solar, wind, algae… and whole new kinds of energy the world has yet to hear of.

    Looking at that website Neom does look like the world’s most ambitious project. It is far more ambitious than any Chinese project even and they are the current champions in that department. I never expected the Wahabbis to be so into futurism. Let’s hope they can make this happen.

    • LOL: Alfred
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Looking at that website Neom does look like the world’s most ambitious project.
     
    Mostly due to breathless PR, though. I mean, robot maids.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/construction/424840-glow-in-the-dark-sand-robot-maids-fake-moon-proposals-for-saudis-500bn-futuristic-city

    Doesn't feel like it is serious. But I'll be impressed if they accomplish some of it, at any rate.
  50. @Bliss
    The Saudis are not waiting for fusion energy:

    https://www.neom.com/

    WELCOME TO
    NEOM

    The world’s most ambitious project:
    an entire new land, purpose-built for a new way of living
     

    AS THE SUN RISES OVER NEOM, IT WILL GLINT AGAINST VAST FIELDS OF SOLAR PANELS PAIRED WITH WIND TURBINES AND LIGHT UP ENORMOUS STRETCHES OF ENERGY GRIDS STORING POWER FOR GENERATIONS.
    All this being sufficient to supply all of NEOM and beyond with low-cost regenerative energy. The beams, bridges and archways of this grand destination will be immaculate, untainted by pollution. Buildings will remain pristine and the air fresh and clear. And NEOM scientists will pioneer the future of energy production, use and storage – for water, gas, oil, solar, wind, algae... and whole new kinds of energy the world has yet to hear of.
     
    Looking at that website Neom does look like the world’s most ambitious project. It is far more ambitious than any Chinese project even and they are the current champions in that department. I never expected the Wahabbis to be so into futurism. Let’s hope they can make this happen.

    Looking at that website Neom does look like the world’s most ambitious project.

    Mostly due to breathless PR, though. I mean, robot maids.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/construction/424840-glow-in-the-dark-sand-robot-maids-fake-moon-proposals-for-saudis-500bn-futuristic-city

    Doesn’t feel like it is serious. But I’ll be impressed if they accomplish some of it, at any rate.

  51. Blackpill thread.

    Whites go from largest group to smallest group.
    Christians get raped in demographics in Asia Minor.
    Negroes keep having more babies.

    The white developments in health and technology are being used to destroy whites.

    On the plus side, East Asia is doing worse than us despite being developped for less time. South asia will likely follow soon.

    • Replies: @Maciano
    Why is that a plus?

    Also, even if Africans go 100x, what will be the result? Not much. They’re like the NPC continent.
  52. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Very interesting article, although I hope the folly of trends sets in soon and sub saharans will reach 4 billion around the same time that the women's 100m converges with the men's.

    And I also think it's a bit unfair to call the leadership of the imperium superstitious when according to the lore humanity unambiguously owes its survival to the god emperor, heresy is a legitimately grave threat to humanity's existence.

    Do any actual demographers think Africa will hit 4 Billion ( there or there abouts ) by 2100 ?
    I have not read any who think this will come to pass and they are for the most part in agreement that the 2100 predictions are to distant to be accurate because 80 years provides a massive margin of error. Of course the 2050 figures are more likely but surely we ought to disregard the 2100 numbers.

  53. 3543140

    I think Neom is an interesting idea.

    In theory, it seems to be a new model of globalism – an attempt to harness foreign human capital on the level of a local, limited area – not by abolishing borders.

    Can it be made an attractive place? Is the climate even right? Is the idea even workable? Singapore isn’t exactly part of Malaysia. Or is it just some shell game for MbS to stay in power? Whatever the case is, it will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

  54. Good thread. A few points: 1) of course, there are less Irish in Ireland today than in 1850 since most of them ended up in America. Not a bad thing for today’s Irish I suppose. It keeps the country beautiful without having too much density. Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world’s highest per capita income, 2) I can’t imagine a world with 4 billion Subsaharan Africans. Happily, I will not be alive by then, 3) probably a lot of Turks are genetically descendant of the ancient Greeks. Certainly, the Turks of Turkey don’t look a lot like the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, 4) I agree that the maximum population that the Earth can support is probably a lot, far more than what environmentalists tell us. Personally, I aesthetically like wide-open spaces and don’t wish the Earth to be much more populated than it currently is.

    • Replies: @songbird

    Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world’s highest per capita income
     
    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer. And the Irish are not doing well today - they are governed by feckless, malign globalists, intent on an invasion greater than that that which happened under the plantation system. Under that process, there was a limit to the good land, and the Irish were still needed as laborers. Globalism has no such constraints.

    Cromwell would have at least given the Irish Connacht. Now, their own pols are settling Arabs and Africans in those scenic places. In tiny villages which were tourist attractions, and in the Gaeltacht - the part of Ireland which is supposed to keep alive the Irish language and culture.

    No, the Irish are not doing well. In fact, they are doing worse than ever, but with less interpersonal violence, premature mortality, and nobody going hungry.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Apparently there is reason to believe that Mr. Turkish Pride Caliph himself, Erdogan, has substantial Greek genes.
  55. @Andy
    Good thread. A few points: 1) of course, there are less Irish in Ireland today than in 1850 since most of them ended up in America. Not a bad thing for today's Irish I suppose. It keeps the country beautiful without having too much density. Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world's highest per capita income, 2) I can't imagine a world with 4 billion Subsaharan Africans. Happily, I will not be alive by then, 3) probably a lot of Turks are genetically descendant of the ancient Greeks. Certainly, the Turks of Turkey don't look a lot like the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, 4) I agree that the maximum population that the Earth can support is probably a lot, far more than what environmentalists tell us. Personally, I aesthetically like wide-open spaces and don't wish the Earth to be much more populated than it currently is.

    Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world’s highest per capita income

    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer. And the Irish are not doing well today – they are governed by feckless, malign globalists, intent on an invasion greater than that that which happened under the plantation system. Under that process, there was a limit to the good land, and the Irish were still needed as laborers. Globalism has no such constraints.

    Cromwell would have at least given the Irish Connacht. Now, their own pols are settling Arabs and Africans in those scenic places. In tiny villages which were tourist attractions, and in the Gaeltacht – the part of Ireland which is supposed to keep alive the Irish language and culture.

    No, the Irish are not doing well. In fact, they are doing worse than ever, but with less interpersonal violence, premature mortality, and nobody going hungry.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer.
     
    Perhaps all human societies were better when they were poorer. Perhaps prosperity is really bad for us. Perhaps prosperity always leads to decadence and thence to destruction.
    , @houston 1992
    IN the 70's and 80's , Ireland was a consumer society without the money to consume what they desired, nor live the glamorous lifestyles that imported TV programs presented.
    Once they had the money and the freedom it conferred, they went full globalist.
  56. @anonymous coward
    Yes - the 'Great White Death' cited in the article.

    There are some striking similarities but I get the impression the White Death was strongly facilitated by (((Purdue Pharma))) making opioids readily available and prescribable. Was it the same thing in the SU?

  57. @songbird

    Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world’s highest per capita income
     
    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer. And the Irish are not doing well today - they are governed by feckless, malign globalists, intent on an invasion greater than that that which happened under the plantation system. Under that process, there was a limit to the good land, and the Irish were still needed as laborers. Globalism has no such constraints.

    Cromwell would have at least given the Irish Connacht. Now, their own pols are settling Arabs and Africans in those scenic places. In tiny villages which were tourist attractions, and in the Gaeltacht - the part of Ireland which is supposed to keep alive the Irish language and culture.

    No, the Irish are not doing well. In fact, they are doing worse than ever, but with less interpersonal violence, premature mortality, and nobody going hungry.

    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer.

    Perhaps all human societies were better when they were poorer. Perhaps prosperity is really bad for us. Perhaps prosperity always leads to decadence and thence to destruction.

  58. @Erik Sieven
    Concerning Subsaharan African expansion I think it is even more striking to compare the the size of its population to either the entire rest of the world or to other specific regions than to Europe. E.g. around 1950 Subsaharan Africa had half of the population of India, by now it is roughly equal, in coming decades it is projected to grow much larger of course.

    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon. As it is, much of the USA’s federal budget is borrowed, and this has been the case for almost all of the past thirty-five years — especially under Obama and Trump.

    Even the US fed gov’s dishonest on-the-books budget reveals that our rulers are borrowing one TRILLION dollars in FY 2019 out of $4.75 Trillion in spending. FY2020 looks about the same. We are back at the annual deficit levels of Obama’s first term (and his second term involved massive borrowing, too, just not as much).

    Certainly I hope that the next generation of Westerns is unWILLING to subsidize the dimwits in their mindless breeding, whether able to subsidize them or not. Then again, if we re not able to get the gov to stop subsidizing mindless breeding by our dimwits right here at home, what are the odds we’ll grow some balls and gain some common sense re Africa.

    • Replies: @songbird

    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon.
     
    I'm not sure state-support is even needed for the 2100 projections. I've been thinking particularly about cricket farms, and how it is all done with robots. It would be pretty easy to scale up, with gigantic Amazon-style warehouses. All that is really needed is the support of international corporations. They might do it in trade for natural resources, or as part of some virtue-signaling scheme, where each purchase feeds ten Africans.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    Africa's main hazard would be a breakdown in global trade. Should that happen, the current African population would find itself standing between China and the raw materials that China's industrial economy needs. Not a safe place to stand.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Philip Owen
    The 5000 children who attend the 9 schools we up by my wife in poor parts of Zambia, courtesy of Quaker donors, are on the verge of starvation after 5 years of drought.. Only half of them have the energy to make it in for lessons. At 10p a day to feed them and 150 days to harvest it is £7500 to keep them alive (but parents, other family?). The big problem is £100 per family for 1000 families to replace seeds and buy fertilizer. Africa has problems. Warmer climate should be wetter. Not in Zambia.

    Dead children mean higher birth rates.
  59. @LondonBob
    You obviously haven't used tinder much. The STD thing is really a homosexual phenomenon.

    Given that I was engaged to be married before Tinder was founded, I am glad to say that I’ve never visited Tinder. Given that it seems to be geared toward commitment-free animal hookups, I wouldn’t visit it if I were single, either.

    Doesn’t change the fact that your statement about STDs being a homosexual problem is completely untrue. Many millions of heterosexual people have STDs, most often one of the 200 varieties of HPV and not rarely herpes.

    Homosexuals presumably have a far higher rate of STD infection, including HIV infection, due to their disgusting unnatural and inherently unhygienic/unsafe practices (anal fissures, anyone?) and extreme promiscuity, but it is wrong to say that STDs are predominantly a homosexual problem.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I said the surge in STDs is a homosexual problem, not that STDs are only a homosexual problem.
    , @Alfred
    it is wrong to say that STDs are predominantly a homosexual problem.

    The reservoir of HIV and Syphilis is undoubtedly in the homosexual population. If it were not for bisexual men, there would be almost no infected women. Africa is another matter.

    Here is the historic data for syphilis in Melbourne, Australia. Although they do not say it, it should be obvious that the great discrepancy between the numbers for men and women is because almost all the men are homosexual or bisexual. Currenly, men are twenty times more likely to catch syphilis.

  60. @songbird
    Makes one wonder about Greek genes. If you add up all the fractional Greeks. Kind of like how there are many, many more copies of Indio genes, post Columbian exchange.

    Yep, good point.

    Large numbers of Italians in Italy, and Italian-Americans like me, have at least a smattering of Greek genes.

    All of my Italian-descended relatives who have taken genetic tests and told us their results, have Greek genes, usually just a few percent but in several cases 10-15%. These are people whose ancestors came from Italy (not Sicily) to the USA in the 1880s and 1890s, and have no family lore about Greek background at all.

    A caveat is that one of the two big genetic testing companies popular in the USA/Canada narrows it down only to “Greek / Balkan.”

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Correct. Greeks and southern Italians/Sicilians have a strong genetic affinity because of an ancient shared genetic heritage primarily due to the Greek migrations prior to the Classical period.

    The Greeks in the West: genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124?foxtrotcallback=true

    Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4
  61. @songbird
    Pollution is really an energy problem. In theory, it can be solved, and it seems to be being solved, since in many cases, rivers and air are cleaner now than in the past.

    As to ethnic conflict, I suspect that in the end, globohomo will try to make us all forcefully miscegenate. This has been done before in Paraguay and Haiti. It is amazing how people with mixed DNA seem to be instant globalists.

    For instance, the other day, I heard an Arab, with a rather funny idea. He had taken a DNA test, and found out that he was 3% Irish, and some odd percent Nigerian. And now he claimed Irish people could not possibly object to him and others invading their country, without being racists. Obviously if it was not noise, it meant his ancestors had pillaged the Irish coasts in the past, or helped finance such pillaging.

    A lot of Arabs also have Russian DNA...

    A source / evidence for the notion that a meaningful number of Arabs have Russian genetic background? Could be right, just want to see sources or examples.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.

    From around 16th-19th century, a common estimate is about a million slaves taken from Europe. Many seem to have been taken from Eastern Europe, but expeditions were wide-ranging. White women were especially sought after as is recorded in prices. Many were sought as wives, so I am sure there is some detectable, albeit small, signal in many Arabs, from this, even excluding other events, like the Moorish or Ottoman invasions.

    Similarly, I think many Arabs have some detectable amount of sub-Saharan DNA. If you add in other factors such as the incipient universality of Islam and how widespread the Arabic language is, as well as their seeming conquest of much of Europe, and their common distaste for work, I think Arabs are easy converts to globalism. Unfortunately, at least for them, their TFR is falling, which perhaps makes them easy prey for other groups.
  62. @Andy
    Good thread. A few points: 1) of course, there are less Irish in Ireland today than in 1850 since most of them ended up in America. Not a bad thing for today's Irish I suppose. It keeps the country beautiful without having too much density. Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world's highest per capita income, 2) I can't imagine a world with 4 billion Subsaharan Africans. Happily, I will not be alive by then, 3) probably a lot of Turks are genetically descendant of the ancient Greeks. Certainly, the Turks of Turkey don't look a lot like the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, 4) I agree that the maximum population that the Earth can support is probably a lot, far more than what environmentalists tell us. Personally, I aesthetically like wide-open spaces and don't wish the Earth to be much more populated than it currently is.

    Apparently there is reason to believe that Mr. Turkish Pride Caliph himself, Erdogan, has substantial Greek genes.

  63. @Reg Cæsar

    a volcel (a new category of human)
     
    Hardly.



    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/2a/f2/9d2af2ef34bfdbb9e83a0a6e201b0cfa.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXETs6TVAAAMF3A.jpg:large

    https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/styles/1200w/public/1/1-XIANG-Shengmo-Invitation-to-Reclusion_1.jpg?itok=MYzcRb3f

    perhaps i should have said porncel, or pornosexual, which many guys under 40 are today. vastly different than the volcels of centuries gone past.

    porn is fast, cheap, always there, and you always get what you want, every time, since you’re in control. do the ROI comparison to spending tons of time, energy, and money chasing women just to go down dead ends over and over.

    lots of guys today are choosing to be porncels. now wait until the really good sex robots arrive. those birth rates are gonna plummet. in fact, i wonder what effect the current generation of sex dolls are already having.

    women, who can have sex any time they want, are having trouble getting boyfriends. so something very different is clearly going on now. after years of watching the stats, i’m now inclined to believe them. millenials have much less sex than any humans before them.

  64. @RadicalCenter
    Yep, good point.

    Large numbers of Italians in Italy, and Italian-Americans like me, have at least a smattering of Greek genes.

    All of my Italian-descended relatives who have taken genetic tests and told us their results, have Greek genes, usually just a few percent but in several cases 10-15%. These are people whose ancestors came from Italy (not Sicily) to the USA in the 1880s and 1890s, and have no family lore about Greek background at all.

    A caveat is that one of the two big genetic testing companies popular in the USA/Canada narrows it down only to "Greek / Balkan."

    Correct. Greeks and southern Italians/Sicilians have a strong genetic affinity because of an ancient shared genetic heritage primarily due to the Greek migrations prior to the Classical period.

    The Greeks in the West: genetic signatures of the Hellenic colonisation in southern Italy and Sicily

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015124?foxtrotcallback=true

    Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4

  65. The Irish had the misfortune of living next to the English. In terms of deaths caused, between the starving of the Irish, Indians (on both continents), Opium Wars, British Empire will give Mao a run for his money. American colonists had the good sense of getting out early from that death camp. Sure, British look all civilized and gentle on TV shows, and the accent is enchanting. Civilized tea drinking makes the show, gassing of the Kurds afterwards – not so much.

    Anyway, future will indeed be exciting and interesting in the coming decades. With half the planet’s human population living in Sub Saharan Africa (and India), those places will become economic center of the planet. Economic power is entirely dependent on consumption, and consumption depends on human bodies available to consume. So Africa will win this body count race, at least this century.

    The good news for Planet Uganda is that humans are becoming superfluous to actual production. While Singularity is nonsense, I have no doubt the general intelligence AI will hit IQ of 100 by 2050 or sooner. Given that expert AI systems are already better than humans in their respective fields (diagnosing cancer, flying planes, driving cars, etc), vast majority of manufacturing of goods and services will be done by robots. The only real job on Planet Uganda will be to consume the output – hello Basic Income. Since robots dont care about money (try giving your toaster $100 bill – you will not impress it), robot owners won’t care about money either. In a world of negative interest rates, money will not matter to capitalist producers because anybody will be able to borrow a billion dollars or whatever to build a robot factory if interst rate is negative 5%. This will be massively deflationary (deflation is contraction of credit relative to goods and services provided – aside from default, nothing eliminates credit like self repaying loans). Consumption will go from ~60-70% of the economy to 90%+. Think video game becoming real life – it costs 0 game gold to make Magic Sword but you still need game gold to keep track of Magic Sword inventory and to gate keep players from doing silly things.

    The bad news for Planet Uganda is that Africa is home to strategic mining and refining complexes. This is fine today because current consumer California hipster doesn’t need to worry that every Green Tesla that he buys kills three kids in Africa in a toxic cobalt mine runoff – they are poor and far away. On Planet Uganda, a coalition of rabid environmental fanatics and well off consumer Africans will shut down civilization critical enterprises such as cobalt refineries. This is a major problem.

    Also, robots may not care about money, but they do care about cobalt. Very much so. And this is why our wise and kind corporate overlords are interested in space mining all of a sudden. On Planet Uganda, space will be the only place to build.

    • LOL: LondonBob
    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    The Irish had the misfortune of living next to the English. In terms of deaths caused, between the starving of the Irish, Indians (on both continents), Opium Wars, British Empire will give Mao a run for his money. American colonists had the good sense of getting out early from that death camp. Sure, British look all civilized and gentle on TV shows, and the accent is enchanting. Civilized tea drinking makes the show, gassing of the Kurds afterwards – not so much.
     
    It's the English who have suffered the misfortune of living next to the Irish. If this were not so one would not see so many Irish migrating to England(and Scotland by the way), not to mention the rest of the former British colonies, and doing their best to ruin them(successfully ruined in the case of the U.S.). Even the conflicts within Ireland like the Troubles have much to do with smuggling of goods from Britain into that land. Irish complain all the time about how terrible the English are, yet their actions invariably show they can't get enough of them.

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent. If that's the worst that the English can be blamed for, they should be celebrated as benevolent overlords.

    The later Qing dynasty was plagued with revolts and famines, the casualties of the Opium Wars are utterly trivial compared to the Taiping rebellion, Dungan Revolt, or numerous famines which occurred. The Opium Wars might be looked at now as a national humiliation, but in terms of casualties they are hardly worth mentioning.

    The majority of New World Indian deaths happened in more populated South America, so if we're going to blame someone it's the Spanish. Even in North America the English were hardly the only colonists around and therefore can only share a portion of the blame. Accidental death due to disease is qualitatively different than Maoist famines anyhow.

    India had positive population growth during the British period. It's normal for countries that experience population booms to have famines in Malthusian conditions. India undoubtedly had plenty of famines before the British came along. India's economic growth today is almost entirely attributable to English language proficiency and the green revolution. Anglos have nothing to apologize for to ingrate Indians.

    The Kurds are a race of brigands who cynically switch sides in any conflict and were enthusiastic participants in massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Assyrians.

  66. @RadicalCenter
    A source / evidence for the notion that a meaningful number of Arabs have Russian genetic background? Could be right, just want to see sources or examples.

    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.

    From around 16th-19th century, a common estimate is about a million slaves taken from Europe. Many seem to have been taken from Eastern Europe, but expeditions were wide-ranging. White women were especially sought after as is recorded in prices. Many were sought as wives, so I am sure there is some detectable, albeit small, signal in many Arabs, from this, even excluding other events, like the Moorish or Ottoman invasions.

    Similarly, I think many Arabs have some detectable amount of sub-Saharan DNA. If you add in other factors such as the incipient universality of Islam and how widespread the Arabic language is, as well as their seeming conquest of much of Europe, and their common distaste for work, I think Arabs are easy converts to globalism. Unfortunately, at least for them, their TFR is falling, which perhaps makes them easy prey for other groups.

    • Replies: @AP

    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.
     
    She was from what is now Ivano-Frankivsk oblast in Galicia, Western Ukraine. The name continues to be used in Ukraine.
  67. @Cicerone
    About the diaspora: If they don‘t speak Greek, they can‘t be considered Greeks.

    They would still have Greek DNA, no?

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Correct. But biology does not necessarily equate to ethnicity. There are many Americans of German ancestry but they are hardly ethnically German because they have lost their ability to converse in the German language. Of course, there are other cultural markers but that is the most important one.
  68. @Malenfant
    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn't far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario -- for some values of plausible -- is a vision of hell.

    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn’t far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    I thought that Indians (even those in India) don’t reproduce that much nowadays either?

    • Replies: @Malenfant
    India is still above replacement overall, whereas China has been below-replacement for nearly 30 years. In no time at all, India shall be the most populous country on Earth, if it isn't already. And India is far more likely than Europe or China to have breeder populations -- indeed, they already do. In some states, TFR is around or over 3.0, and many Indian Muslims, like Muslim minorities elsewhere, seem to view reproduction as a strategic tool of conquest, to the consternation of the Hindu majority. (And perhaps, in a feedback effect somewhat reminiscent of Israel, this provokes those Hindus into having more children themselves.) Thus fertility in certain Indian communities may never fall below replacement. Other Indian communities, in stark contrast, are already far below replacement -- it is said that the Jains have a TFR of just 1.2.

    That the future will have a higher relative proportion of Indians is all but certain.
  69. @RadicalCenter
    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon. As it is, much of the USA's federal budget is borrowed, and this has been the case for almost all of the past thirty-five years -- especially under Obama and Trump.

    Even the US fed gov's dishonest on-the-books budget reveals that our rulers are borrowing one TRILLION dollars in FY 2019 out of $4.75 Trillion in spending. FY2020 looks about the same. We are back at the annual deficit levels of Obama's first term (and his second term involved massive borrowing, too, just not as much).

    Certainly I hope that the next generation of Westerns is unWILLING to subsidize the dimwits in their mindless breeding, whether able to subsidize them or not. Then again, if we re not able to get the gov to stop subsidizing mindless breeding by our dimwits right here at home, what are the odds we'll grow some balls and gain some common sense re Africa.

    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon.

    I’m not sure state-support is even needed for the 2100 projections. I’ve been thinking particularly about cricket farms, and how it is all done with robots. It would be pretty easy to scale up, with gigantic Amazon-style warehouses. All that is really needed is the support of international corporations. They might do it in trade for natural resources, or as part of some virtue-signaling scheme, where each purchase feeds ten Africans.

  70. @Bliss

    In 1900, Europe’s population (~400M) was quintuple that of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (~80M).
     
    If you add the European diaspora in the Americas, Oceania and the colonies in Asia and Africa there were well over 500 million Europeans on the planet in 1900 which made euros the most populous race of that time at close to a third of the human population. Ranking the 4 main races in 1900 would have looked like this:

    1. Europeans 500+ million
    2. East Asians 475 million
    3. Indians 270 million
    4. Subsaharan Africans 100+ million (including diaspora in Americas).

    In a couple decades the above ranking will be completely reversed. So the last shall be first and the first shall be last. (Matthew 20:16)

    Are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis included among Indians? If so, wouldn’t a better term for this be South Asians?

    • Agree: Bliss
    • Replies: @Really No Shit
    So the Subcontinent should be renamed as the "South Asian" subcontinent just to accommodate the Muslims? Next thing you know, you will advocate calling the Bronx, the Nueva Puerto Rico or Minneapolis the New Mogadishu or Jerusalem the New Mecca... when will the apologists of Islam stop with the nonsense? Enough is enough!
  71. @Anatoly Karlin

    Anatoly, do you think making illegitimate children entitled to child support (which they weren’t in the US before the late 20th century) was more eugenic or dysgenic in its effects?
     
    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I'm missing.

    As for Mendeleev’s projections for 2000, they probably included Russian Poland. So, you’re going to have to reduce it by several dozen million or so.
     
    Mendeleev's was a simple model.
    Also he wasn't including Galicia.

    My guess is you'd have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.

    Would a lot of Asians and Third Worlders be clamoring to move there just like they are clamoring to move to the West in real life?
     
    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That's around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.

    It would also be interesting to see which Russian cities would have been the largest right now in this scenario.
     
    Recently discussed this elsewhere.

    Even a putative Russian Republic that lost Ukraine etc. would have 270M people, plus a bunch of immigrants from Central Asia. USA is very decentralized, and yet NY still packs 7% of the US population. So I'd say 20-25M is likely number for SPB in Small Russia scenario. (Note also there would have likely been no Soviet era propiska system heavily regulating immigrants into the capital, so even 30M or 10% of the population is not unrealistic).
     
    So, in scenario we're discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow - 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC - and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II's circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia's biggest millionik than its "northern capital", IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow's. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.

    Kiev: 7M

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today - only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century - but I revised my opinion it would be Russia's third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There'd also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm - a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times - would only have 500,000 people, not a million.

    BTW, in regards to Greater India, an increase from 100 million to 1.7 billion is closer to 20x than to 10x.
     
    Agreed. But editing function seems to be frozen atm.

    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I’m missing.

    AFAIK, the logic behind this was a principle of fairness. As in, it was perceived in the late 20th century as being unfair to deny children child support due to their illegitimacy.

    Mendeleev’s was a simple model.
    Also he wasn’t including Galicia.

    He also wasn’t including Subcarpathian Ruthenia or Ottoman Armenia or (Ottoman) Pontus or Constantinople or Mongolia or Xinjiang.

    My guess is you’d have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.

    25M for Caucasians, Moldovans, and Balts sounds much more realistic, no?

    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That’s around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.

    Do you think that Russia is going to have much more Hindus and Buddhists in this scenario as well?

    Also, as a side question, how many Russian Jews (also, out of a total of how many?) do you think are going to be living outside of the (former–it was abolished by the Russian Provisional Government in 1917) Pale of Settlement right now in this scenario?

    I know that in real life something like 4 out of 5 Soviet Jews were living outside of the former Pale of Settlement in May 1941 but with this figure being reduced to 1 out of 2 Soviet Jews in 1959 as a result of the Holocaust wiping out most of the Jewry in the Pale of Settlement (though about 1.0-1.5 million of them did, in fact, manage to evacuate in time in 1941-1942 and thus survived the Holocaust). Interestingly enough, nowadays Russia has more than three times Ukraine’s Jewish population–with Belarus’s Jewish population being almost nonexistent right now (less than 10,000, or about 0.1% of Belarus’s total population).

    Recently discussed this elsewhere.

    Where exactly (as in, which blog post and comment thread) is that comment of yours from?

    So, in scenario we’re discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow – 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC – and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II’s circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia’s biggest millionik than its “northern capital”, IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow’s. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.

    Was losing several hundred thousand people or so in the Siege of Leningrad *that* devastating for St. Petersburg? I mean, most of St. Petersburg’s population survived this siege, no?

    Also, your projections here sound reasonable, though it’s worth noting that New York appears to be much closer to other major US urban centers (Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, the Washington DC area, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even Chicago) than St. Petersburg is. St. Petersburg is sort of in the middle of nowhere–in part due to its extremely northern location. Granted, I get the logic in people moving en masse to the capital, but still, if the capital is in the middle of nowhere, well, it isn’t exactly encouraging.

    I suppose that one good test for this would be to see just how many people will move to Indonesia’s new planned capital in Borneo–which likewise appears to be in the middle of nowhere.

    Kiev: 7M

    Possible–especially if it will be made the capital of a Ukrainian autonomous region in Russia in this scenario.

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today – only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century – but I revised my opinion it would be Russia’s third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There’d also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm – a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times – would only have 500,000 people, not a million.

    TBH, I wonder if 2-3 million for Odessa would have been somewhat more realistic. That said, though, I generally agree with your analysis in regards to everything here.

    BTW, how many people do you think that Constantinople would have had right now had Russia avoided the Bolshevik coup, remained in WWI until the very end, and acquired it after the end of the war? FTR, I don’t think that the US would have looked very favorably at a Russian expulsion of Constantinople’s Muslim population–so it’s probably not going to happen in a scenario where the US still enters WWI.

    In addition, do you think that Odessa would have been Russia’s fourth-largest city in this scenario or would some other city have been the fourth–with Odessa being in fifth place or lower? (I’m presuming that Kiev would, of course, be number three.)

    Also, how many people do you think that cities such as Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, and Kaunas are going to have right now in this scenario? In addition, I was wondering if the Baltics are going to see even more Russian/East Slavic migration in this scenario than they did in real life. At the very least, Estonia has an average IQ that isn’t that much lower than Moscow’s and if Estonia will remain a part of Russia, one would think that its high quality of life would be attractive for a good number of Russians, no? (BTW, I’m presuming that Russia would have still eventually lost both Poland and Finland, correct?)

    As a side note, I looked at a topographic map of Ottoman Armenia and Pontus and the topography there (mostly extremely high mountains with a very narrow coastal area) would probably prevent large-scale population expansion there. I don’t think that Russians/Eastern Slavs are going to be particularly willing to move to extremely mountainous areas in eastern Anatolia, and as I said the amount of coastal territory with a low elevation in this area (Pontus) is very, very small. In fact, this is probably why northeastern Turkey has no cities that have a population of one million or more right now. The largest is Samsun and the next largest is Trebizond, I believe. Neither has a population of one million or more and Trebizond doesn’t even have a population of half a million.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    19.8 million people in NYC metropolitan area. Give or take. New York remains the largest metropolitan area in the country — by far — according to the latest Census Bureau population estimates released Thursday

    The Northeast megalopolis (also Boston–Washington corridor or Bos-Wash corridor) is the most populous megalopolis in the United States with over 50 million residents and the most heavily urbanized agglomeration of the United States.

    Based on estimates taken in 2017, the states along the East Coast have a total population of over 118 million inhabitants. This region is home to more than one-third of the nation's total population. It is also the most populated coastal region in the country.

    by contrast,
    Los Angeles/Metro population
    13,131,431

    Southern California/Population
    24.12 million
    , @Philip Owen
    SPB & Odessa are both ports. Neither the Russian Empire nor Russia has many of those. Thus SPB has a reason to exist. SPB was the logical place for finance because of trade. It could have been an Amsterdam, Paris or Hamburg. London is perhaps too far a stretch.
  72. -I thought some cossacks and old believers are russian “amish” with high fertility.

    ” There are a total of 2 million old believers in Russia, and out of that some 200,000 are ultra-orthodox old believers, who don’t have much contact with the outside world.

    Most of them are scattered around in the Siberian provinces of Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, HMAO, Tyva, Altay, Amur, and Khabarovsk. They constitute only 0.1 to 0.2% of the total Russian population.

    If you check the Provincial Statistics Site of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, you can see that the birth rate of “ultra-orthodox” old believer villages are 4 to 5 times higher than the surrounding villages.

    Although they are getting some media attention now, earlier they were almost completely forgotten by the government. Recently during the 2002 and 2010 Censuses, some of their villages were counted. No information exists for those who live deep inside the Taiga. For example, several hundreds of old believers live in the Tannu Ola and Sayan mountains of Tyva, but none of them were counted during the 2010 Census.

    One reason why some of the Provincial authorities count the more accessible old believer villages now is to show Putin that their birth rates are higher than the surrounding provinces. For example, up to 2008 Krasnoyarsk was having more deaths than births. When they started counting the births and deaths in the old believer villages, suddenly the province became one of the few regions in Russia with natural population growth. ”

    -amish populatuin growth:

    Year Pop. %±
    1920 5,000 —
    1928 7,000 40.0%
    1936 9,000 28.6%
    1944 13,000 44.4%
    1952 19,000 46.2%
    1960 28,000 47.4%
    1968 39,000 39.3%
    1976 57,000 46.2%
    1984 84,000 47.4%
    1992 125,000 48.8%
    2000 166,000 32.8%
    2008 221,000 33.1%
    2010 249,000 12.7%

    from this i can deduce that the Amish have a growth rate of over 5% a year.
    more than 6.3% from 2008-2010.
    so here is where my equation comes in from there growth rates lets conservatively assume a 5% yearly growth rate this means that there population will easily double every 20 years.

    2010 250,000
    2030 500,000
    2050 1m
    2070 2m
    2090 4m
    2110 8m
    2130 16m
    2150 32m
    2170 64m
    2190 128m

    -in USA there is also 50 000 hutterites , 500 000 mennonites with quite high fertility.

    About jews:

    Ultra-Orthodox Jews are what ignorant people pejoratively call “black-hatters;” there are many different sects, from Chabad to Satmar, all divided based on traditions, theology, structure, and place of origin. One thing they all share in common however, is having a lot of kids.

    8 kids, to be exact.

    That’s right, the average Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women will have, in her lifetime, 8 kids, one of the highest, if not the highest, fertility rates of any group in the world. To provide some contrast, in Niger, the fastest-growing country in the world, the average woman has 7 kids.

    According to Professor Comenetz at the University of Florida,

    In America too, where the Jewish population is stable or declining, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish numbers are growing rapidly.

    The Ultra-orthodox population doubles every 20 years, which…may make the Jewish community not only more religiously observant but more politically conservative…the Ultra-orthodox population in 2000 was about 360,000, 7.2 per cent of the approximately 5 million Jews in the U.S.

    But in 2006, demographers now estimate the number had grown to 468,000 or 9.4 per cent.

    8 kids on average works out to about a 6% growth rate per year. Assuming a base population of 510,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the USA and UK in 2006, by the year 2050 there will be approximately…6,622,595 Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    There are only about 5,800,000 total Jews in the USA today.

    And what would their population be in 2100? 121,989,235, about the population of the UK and France combined (Note: This does not even take into account the 700,000-strong Israeli community, whose inclusion would raise the population projection to 15,712,433 and 289,425,442 people in 2050 and 2100 respectively).

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    But all these groups reject modern technology. Eventually they will overshoot their economic niche and be unable to afford such high reproduction.

    Unless they risk undergoing cultural changes that allow them to harness modern tech. Can they do that without damaging their fertility? Have some already tried?
    , @Dmitry
    The highest fertility population in both Israel and the world, are the Israeli Bedouin Arabs. There fertility rate is reported as above 8.

    Their population was only 11,000 in the 1950s, and now they have a population of hundreds of thousands.
  73. It’s the population density, stupid

    Given the right climate, nutrients, sunlight, growing medium and propagating entity, plants grow and multiply. Plants do not care if there isn’t adequate space to produce young. Just look at the rainforest and that pot of Aloe Vera. Given the right conditions, both will multiply and grow denser and denser.

    The fittest survive, that is the law of nature. Plants abide by this rule. Each shoot will try to outgrow the other, spreading their influence as wide as they can. The weaker ones eventually die out as their reach for sunlight or nutrients diminish.

    Singapore is a fine country with top notch education, medical and childcare facilities. The people are among the richest nationality in the world. We have the right conditions to propagate, we do not lack resources and wealth. Looking at it from the scientific point of view, Singaporeans can have a lot of children. Singaporean couples can get married without getting a HDB flat first. Couples can have children without their own ‘love nest’. Couples can have 3 children or more living in a 67sqm apartment. Couples can have children without finishing their university program. Couples can have children without establishing their careers. Or without having a high income. If any Singaporean says we can’t do that, he is lying. Many of our parents did that. Their children turned out alright, people like you and me. Though times have changed, each generation has their unique challenges and can be overcome. It can be done, it is proven but Singaporeans are not having children. Why?

    Humans are not plants. We are subconsciously aware of our need of space. Every human being needs physical space to live, not only living space but a right amount of personal space to make the environment conducive for having children. Consider this:

    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.

    What do they have in common? The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78) and the most super crowded, Macau (19610/km2), Singapore (7362km2), Hong Kong (6452 km2).

    Coincidence? “What do you think?”

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day. A high density population also means very stiff competition for child care resources, education, future housing and good jobs for our young. Our people are subconsciously reacting to an environment which is not conducive for their young and protecting them by not producing at all. In short, the people do not see a future for their young in Singapore.

    With the lowest fertility and the highest population density in the world, we are left in a catch-22 situation whereby we need foreigners to support the aging population because we are not producing, because the influx of foreigners created an environment unsuitable to have children. It looks like we have big decisions to make.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    This describes California as well. But nobody is going to take the measures that need to be taken to even ameliorate these problems for actual Americans.
    , @Bliss

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate.
     
    True dat. Urbanization correlates well with lower fertility rates. The rapid urbanization of China will be more negative for its fertility rate than the one-child policy ever was.

    The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78)
     
    Wow. Good thing they have plenty immigrants coming in.
    , @Hong Xiu Quan
    Hey i just checked the Singstat data for this years Singapore demography. What is interesting is that Malays have a TFR of 1.84 compared to about 1 for Chinese and Indians. The reason probably is because Islam is more family orientated. Or they dont play status games so much.So i do not think that it is all about material conditions, since the material conditions for the races are similiar (dense HDB)

    The problem with the aging population can be solved by having a large expat population but not giving out citizenshp. Thus you can collect tax but dont have liability to pay for their retirement.

    , @Sam Coulton

    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.

    What do they have in common?
     

    All are East Asian, highly educated, liberated females who want nothing to do with local males.

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day.
     
    For most of human history, families were raised in tents, wagons, boats or cabins measuring <5sqm.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0N4YJnTG9Q

  74. @Mr. XYZ
    They would still have Greek DNA, no?

    Correct. But biology does not necessarily equate to ethnicity. There are many Americans of German ancestry but they are hardly ethnically German because they have lost their ability to converse in the German language. Of course, there are other cultural markers but that is the most important one.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    TBH, I actually do consider Americans such as Doris Day to be both ethnically German and also be part of a larger "white American" nation/ethnicity.
  75. This truism may shed light: if you want more of something, subsidize it; less of it, tax it.

    Now in a general sense “tax” and “subsidy” can mean simply economic incentive and disincentive.

    Economists have measured the effect on increasing household wealth on birthrates. As nations prosper birthrates drop, even when religious objections to birth control/abortion exist.

    African birthrates haven’t dropped since larger families aren’t an economic drag, usually. More cousins and clan members to mooch off of. Usually some food subsidies. The ancient “safety net” of large families in old age. Little marginal cost to adding more babies. Some under your roof, some in other roofs. Only when starvation limits families is there a “tax.”

    Contrast this to other places. More children, more expense. Even with some State subsidy your housing gets crowded, your income is divided further, household costs go up much more than subsidy does. In the USA originally the tax system let children’s Personal Exemptions largely zero out lower and middle class income tax burden. For the past 40 years this has disappeared, now entirely gone. No tax savings w/ children. So in general, look at costs and benefits.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your analysis. Just gotta quibble on one point.

    Before the Trump tax bill that took effect Jan. 1, 2018, the federal government offered an income tax credit (not merely a deduction) of $1,000 per child.

    The bill increased that to $2,000 per child. I think it should be much larger, and it should go until age 18, not 17.

    But the point is that if one earns enough to actually pay federal income tax -- which tens of millions of people don't -- there ARE federal tax savings in the USA due to having children.

  76. @Agathoklis
    Correct. But biology does not necessarily equate to ethnicity. There are many Americans of German ancestry but they are hardly ethnically German because they have lost their ability to converse in the German language. Of course, there are other cultural markers but that is the most important one.

    TBH, I actually do consider Americans such as Doris Day to be both ethnically German and also be part of a larger “white American” nation/ethnicity.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Rubbish. If we refer to the typical ethno-symbolist schema of defining an ethnic group:

    -a collective proper name
    -a myth of common ancestry
    -shared historical memories
    -one or more differentiating elements of common culture such as kinship, religion, language, national origin, and historicity
    -an association with a specific "homeland"
    -a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population.

    Where would someone like Doris Day fit into that? Perhaps the only element would be some vague memory of common descent with German people (via her grandparents) but that is about it. She would simply be an American with German descent.
  77. @songbird

    Certainly the Irish are doing very well today, with one of the world’s highest per capita income
     
    Fact: Ireland was a better place when it was poorer. And the Irish are not doing well today - they are governed by feckless, malign globalists, intent on an invasion greater than that that which happened under the plantation system. Under that process, there was a limit to the good land, and the Irish were still needed as laborers. Globalism has no such constraints.

    Cromwell would have at least given the Irish Connacht. Now, their own pols are settling Arabs and Africans in those scenic places. In tiny villages which were tourist attractions, and in the Gaeltacht - the part of Ireland which is supposed to keep alive the Irish language and culture.

    No, the Irish are not doing well. In fact, they are doing worse than ever, but with less interpersonal violence, premature mortality, and nobody going hungry.

    IN the 70’s and 80’s , Ireland was a consumer society without the money to consume what they desired, nor live the glamorous lifestyles that imported TV programs presented.
    Once they had the money and the freedom it conferred, they went full globalist.

  78. @songbird
    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.

    From around 16th-19th century, a common estimate is about a million slaves taken from Europe. Many seem to have been taken from Eastern Europe, but expeditions were wide-ranging. White women were especially sought after as is recorded in prices. Many were sought as wives, so I am sure there is some detectable, albeit small, signal in many Arabs, from this, even excluding other events, like the Moorish or Ottoman invasions.

    Similarly, I think many Arabs have some detectable amount of sub-Saharan DNA. If you add in other factors such as the incipient universality of Islam and how widespread the Arabic language is, as well as their seeming conquest of much of Europe, and their common distaste for work, I think Arabs are easy converts to globalism. Unfortunately, at least for them, their TFR is falling, which perhaps makes them easy prey for other groups.

    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.

    She was from what is now Ivano-Frankivsk oblast in Galicia, Western Ukraine. The name continues to be used in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @songbird

    The name continues to be used in Ukraine.
     
    That's interesting. I didn't know that.
  79. @AP

    Let me say Slavic rather than Russian to make it more open-ended, but Roxelana, for instance, was said to originally be from Ruthenia.
     
    She was from what is now Ivano-Frankivsk oblast in Galicia, Western Ukraine. The name continues to be used in Ukraine.

    The name continues to be used in Ukraine.

    That’s interesting. I didn’t know that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I've always meant to (but never have) obtained a copy of a popular Ukrainian TV series about the life of Roxalana. It was quite popular about 15 years ago. I've read mixed reviews, but from what I've seen (snippets here and there) it looked kind of interesting?...
  80. @Finnishdude
    It's the population density, stupid

    Given the right climate, nutrients, sunlight, growing medium and propagating entity, plants grow and multiply. Plants do not care if there isn't adequate space to produce young. Just look at the rainforest and that pot of Aloe Vera. Given the right conditions, both will multiply and grow denser and denser.

    The fittest survive, that is the law of nature. Plants abide by this rule. Each shoot will try to outgrow the other, spreading their influence as wide as they can. The weaker ones eventually die out as their reach for sunlight or nutrients diminish.


    Singapore is a fine country with top notch education, medical and childcare facilities. The people are among the richest nationality in the world. We have the right conditions to propagate, we do not lack resources and wealth. Looking at it from the scientific point of view, Singaporeans can have a lot of children. Singaporean couples can get married without getting a HDB flat first. Couples can have children without their own 'love nest'. Couples can have 3 children or more living in a 67sqm apartment. Couples can have children without finishing their university program. Couples can have children without establishing their careers. Or without having a high income. If any Singaporean says we can't do that, he is lying. Many of our parents did that. Their children turned out alright, people like you and me. Though times have changed, each generation has their unique challenges and can be overcome. It can be done, it is proven but Singaporeans are not having children. Why?


    Humans are not plants. We are subconsciously aware of our need of space. Every human being needs physical space to live, not only living space but a right amount of personal space to make the environment conducive for having children. Consider this:


    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.


    What do they have in common? The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78) and the most super crowded, Macau (19610/km2), Singapore (7362km2), Hong Kong (6452 km2).


    Coincidence? "What do you think?"

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day. A high density population also means very stiff competition for child care resources, education, future housing and good jobs for our young. Our people are subconsciously reacting to an environment which is not conducive for their young and protecting them by not producing at all. In short, the people do not see a future for their young in Singapore.


    With the lowest fertility and the highest population density in the world, we are left in a catch-22 situation whereby we need foreigners to support the aging population because we are not producing, because the influx of foreigners created an environment unsuitable to have children. It looks like we have big decisions to make.

    This describes California as well. But nobody is going to take the measures that need to be taken to even ameliorate these problems for actual Americans.

  81. @Muggles
    This truism may shed light: if you want more of something, subsidize it; less of it, tax it.

    Now in a general sense "tax" and "subsidy" can mean simply economic incentive and disincentive.

    Economists have measured the effect on increasing household wealth on birthrates. As nations prosper birthrates drop, even when religious objections to birth control/abortion exist.

    African birthrates haven't dropped since larger families aren't an economic drag, usually. More cousins and clan members to mooch off of. Usually some food subsidies. The ancient "safety net" of large families in old age. Little marginal cost to adding more babies. Some under your roof, some in other roofs. Only when starvation limits families is there a "tax."

    Contrast this to other places. More children, more expense. Even with some State subsidy your housing gets crowded, your income is divided further, household costs go up much more than subsidy does. In the USA originally the tax system let children's Personal Exemptions largely zero out lower and middle class income tax burden. For the past 40 years this has disappeared, now entirely gone. No tax savings w/ children. So in general, look at costs and benefits.

    Appreciate your analysis. Just gotta quibble on one point.

    Before the Trump tax bill that took effect Jan. 1, 2018, the federal government offered an income tax credit (not merely a deduction) of $1,000 per child.

    The bill increased that to $2,000 per child. I think it should be much larger, and it should go until age 18, not 17.

    But the point is that if one earns enough to actually pay federal income tax — which tens of millions of people don’t — there ARE federal tax savings in the USA due to having children.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    re: Radical Center.

    If you look at the approx. 1954 tax laws you will find that w/ the standard deduction and personal exemptions for parents/children very few middle class taxpayers had any income tax liability.

    The personal exemptions and std. deduction didn't index w/ inflation so over the decades removed much of the income tax savings. Yes, tax credits were added for children but under current tax law the only tax savings (unless very low income) is that $2K tax credit/child. That isn't much for an average tax bill of say $12-20K total. No exemption for parents and very few unless paying a lot of mortgage interest, can claim itemized deductions.

    Basically children (unless low income) are a huge economic drag both for taxation and for other things like education. Private schools (in large metro areas, a necessity) aren't subsidized. Nor is health insurance. Overall "children added are taxed heavily (in economic terms)" unless you are a net welfare recipient or low wage household. No incentive for average or middle class parents to have children, just more expenses. Unlike Third World households where over breeding adds little to no cost and likely entails some free benefits, or at least possible retirement income.
  82. @Finnishdude
    It's the population density, stupid

    Given the right climate, nutrients, sunlight, growing medium and propagating entity, plants grow and multiply. Plants do not care if there isn't adequate space to produce young. Just look at the rainforest and that pot of Aloe Vera. Given the right conditions, both will multiply and grow denser and denser.

    The fittest survive, that is the law of nature. Plants abide by this rule. Each shoot will try to outgrow the other, spreading their influence as wide as they can. The weaker ones eventually die out as their reach for sunlight or nutrients diminish.


    Singapore is a fine country with top notch education, medical and childcare facilities. The people are among the richest nationality in the world. We have the right conditions to propagate, we do not lack resources and wealth. Looking at it from the scientific point of view, Singaporeans can have a lot of children. Singaporean couples can get married without getting a HDB flat first. Couples can have children without their own 'love nest'. Couples can have 3 children or more living in a 67sqm apartment. Couples can have children without finishing their university program. Couples can have children without establishing their careers. Or without having a high income. If any Singaporean says we can't do that, he is lying. Many of our parents did that. Their children turned out alright, people like you and me. Though times have changed, each generation has their unique challenges and can be overcome. It can be done, it is proven but Singaporeans are not having children. Why?


    Humans are not plants. We are subconsciously aware of our need of space. Every human being needs physical space to live, not only living space but a right amount of personal space to make the environment conducive for having children. Consider this:


    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.


    What do they have in common? The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78) and the most super crowded, Macau (19610/km2), Singapore (7362km2), Hong Kong (6452 km2).


    Coincidence? "What do you think?"

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day. A high density population also means very stiff competition for child care resources, education, future housing and good jobs for our young. Our people are subconsciously reacting to an environment which is not conducive for their young and protecting them by not producing at all. In short, the people do not see a future for their young in Singapore.


    With the lowest fertility and the highest population density in the world, we are left in a catch-22 situation whereby we need foreigners to support the aging population because we are not producing, because the influx of foreigners created an environment unsuitable to have children. It looks like we have big decisions to make.

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate.

    True dat. Urbanization correlates well with lower fertility rates. The rapid urbanization of China will be more negative for its fertility rate than the one-child policy ever was.

    The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78)

    Wow. Good thing they have plenty immigrants coming in.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Urbanization correlates well with lower fertility rates.
     
    That's true. But I don't think it's lack of space that's the problem. There are other evils associated with urbanisation. Too many distractions for one thing. And cities attract undesirables - grifters, sexual deviants seeking the anonymity of the city, criminals, intellectuals, artists, gamblers, drug dealers. So cities breed decadence and degeneracy.

    The anonymity of city life may be the biggest problem. Cities destroy the sense of community and connectedness. They destroy the sense of social responsibility. They encourage destructive individualism.

    But I don't think space is a factor.
  83. @Mr. XYZ
    TBH, I actually do consider Americans such as Doris Day to be both ethnically German and also be part of a larger "white American" nation/ethnicity.

    Rubbish. If we refer to the typical ethno-symbolist schema of defining an ethnic group:

    -a collective proper name
    -a myth of common ancestry
    -shared historical memories
    -one or more differentiating elements of common culture such as kinship, religion, language, national origin, and historicity
    -an association with a specific “homeland”
    -a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population.

    Where would someone like Doris Day fit into that? Perhaps the only element would be some vague memory of common descent with German people (via her grandparents) but that is about it. She would simply be an American with German descent.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Shouldn't DNA be included in your list here, though?
  84. @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your analysis. Just gotta quibble on one point.

    Before the Trump tax bill that took effect Jan. 1, 2018, the federal government offered an income tax credit (not merely a deduction) of $1,000 per child.

    The bill increased that to $2,000 per child. I think it should be much larger, and it should go until age 18, not 17.

    But the point is that if one earns enough to actually pay federal income tax -- which tens of millions of people don't -- there ARE federal tax savings in the USA due to having children.

    re: Radical Center.

    If you look at the approx. 1954 tax laws you will find that w/ the standard deduction and personal exemptions for parents/children very few middle class taxpayers had any income tax liability.

    The personal exemptions and std. deduction didn’t index w/ inflation so over the decades removed much of the income tax savings. Yes, tax credits were added for children but under current tax law the only tax savings (unless very low income) is that $2K tax credit/child. That isn’t much for an average tax bill of say $12-20K total. No exemption for parents and very few unless paying a lot of mortgage interest, can claim itemized deductions.

    Basically children (unless low income) are a huge economic drag both for taxation and for other things like education. Private schools (in large metro areas, a necessity) aren’t subsidized. Nor is health insurance. Overall “children added are taxed heavily (in economic terms)” unless you are a net welfare recipient or low wage household. No incentive for average or middle class parents to have children, just more expenses. Unlike Third World households where over breeding adds little to no cost and likely entails some free benefits, or at least possible retirement income.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    These are excellent points, thank you, Muggles. I was just responding to the notion that there's no federal income tax benefit to having children. There is, just not enough and not entirely for the people who we should be subsidizing and incentivizing.

    On a related note, I am not sure whether the fed child tax credit is "refundable." As you know, "refundable" is federal tax doublespeak for "getting 'back' more than you paid in the first place."

    If the fed child tax credit is refundable, then we are subsidizing additional births by people who do not earn enough to pay any federal income tax at all (fed income tax proper, not Medicare and Social Security taxes). Many of that group are fine people, many are reasonably intelligent and industrious, etc. But many are not.

    And in either event there's little reason to think that we benefit, on balance, from more children being born to such people -- especially given how many of the people filing fed tax returns but paying "less than zero" (getting more than they paid in) are single mothers with no father(s) in sight. This isn't even a moral judgment, just a contention that society generally doesn't benefit when we use tax policy to subsidize / incentivize more births by women who are not married and often are not living in a stable arrangement with any one of the children's fathers.

  85. @Muggles
    re: Radical Center.

    If you look at the approx. 1954 tax laws you will find that w/ the standard deduction and personal exemptions for parents/children very few middle class taxpayers had any income tax liability.

    The personal exemptions and std. deduction didn't index w/ inflation so over the decades removed much of the income tax savings. Yes, tax credits were added for children but under current tax law the only tax savings (unless very low income) is that $2K tax credit/child. That isn't much for an average tax bill of say $12-20K total. No exemption for parents and very few unless paying a lot of mortgage interest, can claim itemized deductions.

    Basically children (unless low income) are a huge economic drag both for taxation and for other things like education. Private schools (in large metro areas, a necessity) aren't subsidized. Nor is health insurance. Overall "children added are taxed heavily (in economic terms)" unless you are a net welfare recipient or low wage household. No incentive for average or middle class parents to have children, just more expenses. Unlike Third World households where over breeding adds little to no cost and likely entails some free benefits, or at least possible retirement income.

    These are excellent points, thank you, Muggles. I was just responding to the notion that there’s no federal income tax benefit to having children. There is, just not enough and not entirely for the people who we should be subsidizing and incentivizing.

    On a related note, I am not sure whether the fed child tax credit is “refundable.” As you know, “refundable” is federal tax doublespeak for “getting ‘back’ more than you paid in the first place.”

    If the fed child tax credit is refundable, then we are subsidizing additional births by people who do not earn enough to pay any federal income tax at all (fed income tax proper, not Medicare and Social Security taxes). Many of that group are fine people, many are reasonably intelligent and industrious, etc. But many are not.

    And in either event there’s little reason to think that we benefit, on balance, from more children being born to such people — especially given how many of the people filing fed tax returns but paying “less than zero” (getting more than they paid in) are single mothers with no father(s) in sight. This isn’t even a moral judgment, just a contention that society generally doesn’t benefit when we use tax policy to subsidize / incentivize more births by women who are not married and often are not living in a stable arrangement with any one of the children’s fathers.

  86. @Agathoklis
    Rubbish. If we refer to the typical ethno-symbolist schema of defining an ethnic group:

    -a collective proper name
    -a myth of common ancestry
    -shared historical memories
    -one or more differentiating elements of common culture such as kinship, religion, language, national origin, and historicity
    -an association with a specific "homeland"
    -a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population.

    Where would someone like Doris Day fit into that? Perhaps the only element would be some vague memory of common descent with German people (via her grandparents) but that is about it. She would simply be an American with German descent.

    Shouldn’t DNA be included in your list here, though?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    That is covered in kinship.
  87. @mal
    The Irish had the misfortune of living next to the English. In terms of deaths caused, between the starving of the Irish, Indians (on both continents), Opium Wars, British Empire will give Mao a run for his money. American colonists had the good sense of getting out early from that death camp. Sure, British look all civilized and gentle on TV shows, and the accent is enchanting. Civilized tea drinking makes the show, gassing of the Kurds afterwards - not so much.

    Anyway, future will indeed be exciting and interesting in the coming decades. With half the planet's human population living in Sub Saharan Africa (and India), those places will become economic center of the planet. Economic power is entirely dependent on consumption, and consumption depends on human bodies available to consume. So Africa will win this body count race, at least this century.

    The good news for Planet Uganda is that humans are becoming superfluous to actual production. While Singularity is nonsense, I have no doubt the general intelligence AI will hit IQ of 100 by 2050 or sooner. Given that expert AI systems are already better than humans in their respective fields (diagnosing cancer, flying planes, driving cars, etc), vast majority of manufacturing of goods and services will be done by robots. The only real job on Planet Uganda will be to consume the output - hello Basic Income. Since robots dont care about money (try giving your toaster $100 bill - you will not impress it), robot owners won't care about money either. In a world of negative interest rates, money will not matter to capitalist producers because anybody will be able to borrow a billion dollars or whatever to build a robot factory if interst rate is negative 5%. This will be massively deflationary (deflation is contraction of credit relative to goods and services provided - aside from default, nothing eliminates credit like self repaying loans). Consumption will go from ~60-70% of the economy to 90%+. Think video game becoming real life - it costs 0 game gold to make Magic Sword but you still need game gold to keep track of Magic Sword inventory and to gate keep players from doing silly things.

    The bad news for Planet Uganda is that Africa is home to strategic mining and refining complexes. This is fine today because current consumer California hipster doesn't need to worry that every Green Tesla that he buys kills three kids in Africa in a toxic cobalt mine runoff - they are poor and far away. On Planet Uganda, a coalition of rabid environmental fanatics and well off consumer Africans will shut down civilization critical enterprises such as cobalt refineries. This is a major problem.

    Also, robots may not care about money, but they do care about cobalt. Very much so. And this is why our wise and kind corporate overlords are interested in space mining all of a sudden. On Planet Uganda, space will be the only place to build.

    The Irish had the misfortune of living next to the English. In terms of deaths caused, between the starving of the Irish, Indians (on both continents), Opium Wars, British Empire will give Mao a run for his money. American colonists had the good sense of getting out early from that death camp. Sure, British look all civilized and gentle on TV shows, and the accent is enchanting. Civilized tea drinking makes the show, gassing of the Kurds afterwards – not so much.

    It’s the English who have suffered the misfortune of living next to the Irish. If this were not so one would not see so many Irish migrating to England(and Scotland by the way), not to mention the rest of the former British colonies, and doing their best to ruin them(successfully ruined in the case of the U.S.). Even the conflicts within Ireland like the Troubles have much to do with smuggling of goods from Britain into that land. Irish complain all the time about how terrible the English are, yet their actions invariably show they can’t get enough of them.

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent. If that’s the worst that the English can be blamed for, they should be celebrated as benevolent overlords.

    The later Qing dynasty was plagued with revolts and famines, the casualties of the Opium Wars are utterly trivial compared to the Taiping rebellion, Dungan Revolt, or numerous famines which occurred. The Opium Wars might be looked at now as a national humiliation, but in terms of casualties they are hardly worth mentioning.

    The majority of New World Indian deaths happened in more populated South America, so if we’re going to blame someone it’s the Spanish. Even in North America the English were hardly the only colonists around and therefore can only share a portion of the blame. Accidental death due to disease is qualitatively different than Maoist famines anyhow.

    India had positive population growth during the British period. It’s normal for countries that experience population booms to have famines in Malthusian conditions. India undoubtedly had plenty of famines before the British came along. India’s economic growth today is almost entirely attributable to English language proficiency and the green revolution. Anglos have nothing to apologize for to ingrate Indians.

    The Kurds are a race of brigands who cynically switch sides in any conflict and were enthusiastic participants in massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Assyrians.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent.

     

    You utter the words of an utter pillock who knows absolutely nothing about what forces drove the Irish Catholic peasantry to rely so much on the potato.

    "They can hardly be blamed...." Good grief what an idiotic statement!

  88. Today there is a woke movement to shrink Europe on maps, but I wonder if Europe would be less woke, if it actually were shrunk on maps.

    People see these sun-belt countries, and on a Mercator projection, they all look smaller they are. Looks like there is so much space in Europe to absorb everyone, and it seems that way in other ice countries too. Africa looks tiny compared to Eurasia. Russia looks invincible.

    I’m not too sure that it’s good that sun peoples see ice people’s countries as big places either.

    I will also say that I think what is more important than geography or almost any other subject is demographics, and students should be taught more about demographics.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Russia looks invincible. countries as big places either.

     

    Lol I have some image from your comment of the Mercator projection fooling the innocent and naive Africans to immigrate to Vorkuta because it looks like a lot of space there.

    Of course, the conclusion is predictable. Africans are too weak, spoilt and used to luxury. Their soft spirit can be broken in a week, and they will run back to Africa before the local drunk even has an opportunity to piss in the corridor of their apartment complex.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2NXUsbVY
  89. @songbird
    Today there is a woke movement to shrink Europe on maps, but I wonder if Europe would be less woke, if it actually were shrunk on maps.

    People see these sun-belt countries, and on a Mercator projection, they all look smaller they are. Looks like there is so much space in Europe to absorb everyone, and it seems that way in other ice countries too. Africa looks tiny compared to Eurasia. Russia looks invincible.

    I'm not too sure that it's good that sun peoples see ice people's countries as big places either.

    I will also say that I think what is more important than geography or almost any other subject is demographics, and students should be taught more about demographics.

    Russia looks invincible. countries as big places either.

    Lol I have some image from your comment of the Mercator projection fooling the innocent and naive Africans to immigrate to Vorkuta because it looks like a lot of space there.

    Of course, the conclusion is predictable. Africans are too weak, spoilt and used to luxury. Their soft spirit can be broken in a week, and they will run back to Africa before the local drunk even has an opportunity to piss in the corridor of their apartment complex.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I can't decide whether I would make Europe invisible on African maps or fill it with ice dragons.

    Vorkuta would be a great location for a deportation camp. Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta, before being deported back.
    , @The Scalpel
    That is one bleak looking place!
  90. @melanf

    An offtopic question. Why does Leningrad region always has such a lower fertility rate, according to media reports? Regionally, within Russia, Leningrad region is every year reported with the lowest fertility rate. At the moment their total fertility rate is being reported in the media as 1,124
     
    .

    Probably St. Petersburg as a vacuum cleaner absorbs girls (ready to give birth ) from the Leningrad region. As a result, the age pyramid in the area is broken, and the birth rate is unusually low.

    Total fertility rate, however, is calculated by adding together age-specific fertility rates (i.e. divided number of people in each age group). So it should be independent of the population pyramid.

    Although it’s possible though there is a problem in the way it is reported, or calculated in these media reports.

  91. @songbird

    So, I’d say it is idle to speculate.
     
    Based on archaeogenetics, I'm not optimistic about pacifists like the Amish.

    Why? It was the more violent groups who were exterminated according to archaeogenetics. Neolithic Scandinavians for example were ridiculousky violent and got wiped out by the less violent people from the Battle Axe culture.

    Click here to see how violent Scandinavian neolithic people were:

    http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm

    • Replies: @songbird
    Didn't mean to actually suggest that earlier waves were peaceful.

    However, if I had a choice, I'd least like to come up against nomadic pastoralists. Judging from small evidence, some of my ancestors from the Middle Ages seem like they were pretty rough people, when it came to cows, and they had fixed residences. Most likely, they would have made mincemeat out of the Amish.
  92. @Finnishdude
    It's the population density, stupid

    Given the right climate, nutrients, sunlight, growing medium and propagating entity, plants grow and multiply. Plants do not care if there isn't adequate space to produce young. Just look at the rainforest and that pot of Aloe Vera. Given the right conditions, both will multiply and grow denser and denser.

    The fittest survive, that is the law of nature. Plants abide by this rule. Each shoot will try to outgrow the other, spreading their influence as wide as they can. The weaker ones eventually die out as their reach for sunlight or nutrients diminish.


    Singapore is a fine country with top notch education, medical and childcare facilities. The people are among the richest nationality in the world. We have the right conditions to propagate, we do not lack resources and wealth. Looking at it from the scientific point of view, Singaporeans can have a lot of children. Singaporean couples can get married without getting a HDB flat first. Couples can have children without their own 'love nest'. Couples can have 3 children or more living in a 67sqm apartment. Couples can have children without finishing their university program. Couples can have children without establishing their careers. Or without having a high income. If any Singaporean says we can't do that, he is lying. Many of our parents did that. Their children turned out alright, people like you and me. Though times have changed, each generation has their unique challenges and can be overcome. It can be done, it is proven but Singaporeans are not having children. Why?


    Humans are not plants. We are subconsciously aware of our need of space. Every human being needs physical space to live, not only living space but a right amount of personal space to make the environment conducive for having children. Consider this:


    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.


    What do they have in common? The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78) and the most super crowded, Macau (19610/km2), Singapore (7362km2), Hong Kong (6452 km2).


    Coincidence? "What do you think?"

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day. A high density population also means very stiff competition for child care resources, education, future housing and good jobs for our young. Our people are subconsciously reacting to an environment which is not conducive for their young and protecting them by not producing at all. In short, the people do not see a future for their young in Singapore.


    With the lowest fertility and the highest population density in the world, we are left in a catch-22 situation whereby we need foreigners to support the aging population because we are not producing, because the influx of foreigners created an environment unsuitable to have children. It looks like we have big decisions to make.

    Hey i just checked the Singstat data for this years Singapore demography. What is interesting is that Malays have a TFR of 1.84 compared to about 1 for Chinese and Indians. The reason probably is because Islam is more family orientated. Or they dont play status games so much.So i do not think that it is all about material conditions, since the material conditions for the races are similiar (dense HDB)

    The problem with the aging population can be solved by having a large expat population but not giving out citizenshp. Thus you can collect tax but dont have liability to pay for their retirement.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Interestingly enough, I've previously read that Malays in Singapore have an average score of 495 on PISA. So, almost equivalent to (0.05 standard deviations lower than) the OECD average. I guess that Singapore must have skimmed the cream off of the Malay crop.
  93. The population ratio between Russia and the Ukraine fell from less than 3:1 to almost 5:1 since 1992. It is ironic that Ukrainian independence has been worse for Ukraine’s population balance vis-a-vis Russia

    This isn’t nearly as bad for Ukraine as you suggest. A lot of the population loss for Ukraine, the country, was the loss of ethnic Russians who would have been a fifth column. Is Ukraine somehow weaker or worse off vis a vis Russia now that it no longer has anti-Ukrainian ethnic Russians in Crimea within its borders?

    Loss of Russians leaves Ukraine better off, not worse off. Ukraine with over ten million Russians and defacto Russians was 1/3 of Russia’s population, Ukraine without them is between 1/4 and 1/5 of Russia’s population.

    What is the ratio of ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine now vs. Russia now vs. in 1991?

    In 1989 there were 37.4 million ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian SSR. That year there were 147.7 million people in Russia. So the ethnic Ukrainian population was 25.3% of Russia’s population.

    I’d guess currently there are about 32 million ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia’s population is about 145 million. So the ethnic Ukrainian population is 22.1% of Russia’s population.

    Not a very dramatic difference.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    I’d guess currently there are about 32 million ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia’s population is about 145 million. So the ethnic Ukrainian population is 22.1% of Russia’s population.
     
    Shouldn't you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They'd give Russia a slight boost right now--albeit one that probably isn't that large.
    , @Alfred
    anti-Ukrainian ethnic Russians

    This sounds a bit like a French Canadian saying "anti-Canadian ethnic British"

    The ones who are bombing, raping and ethnic-cleansing Donbass are the ones on the offensive. Get your facts straight. The Azov battalion and similar neo-Nazi outfits are from the west of Ukraine. The government of Ukraine is 90+% ethnic-Jewish.

    A fake country that decides that everyone should speak one minority language is as silly as the French of Quebec insisting that all Canadians use French. "Ukrainians" mostly speak Russian in their unrepresentative parliament.

    The Russian-speakers were the ones who industrialized Ukraine. The peasants of the west had nothing to do with it. Under the Poles, they were not allowed to live in cities like Lvov and Chernivtsi.

    Magdeburg Rights

    The fanatics even bombed the Lugansk town hall.

    Lugansk attacked by Ukrainian Air Force

    Many of those have left for Russia - and taken their knowledge and intelligence with them. Ukraine used to produce aircraft and motor cars. Now, it can just about produce tractors - in the Russian-speaking part of Ukraine.

  94. @Sam Coulton
    Why? It was the more violent groups who were exterminated according to archaeogenetics. Neolithic Scandinavians for example were ridiculousky violent and got wiped out by the less violent people from the Battle Axe culture.

    Click here to see how violent Scandinavian neolithic people were:

    http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm

    Didn’t mean to actually suggest that earlier waves were peaceful.

    However, if I had a choice, I’d least like to come up against nomadic pastoralists. Judging from small evidence, some of my ancestors from the Middle Ages seem like they were pretty rough people, when it came to cows, and they had fixed residences. Most likely, they would have made mincemeat out of the Amish.

  95. @Dmitry

    Russia looks invincible. countries as big places either.

     

    Lol I have some image from your comment of the Mercator projection fooling the innocent and naive Africans to immigrate to Vorkuta because it looks like a lot of space there.

    Of course, the conclusion is predictable. Africans are too weak, spoilt and used to luxury. Their soft spirit can be broken in a week, and they will run back to Africa before the local drunk even has an opportunity to piss in the corridor of their apartment complex.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2NXUsbVY

    I can’t decide whether I would make Europe invisible on African maps or fill it with ice dragons.

    Vorkuta would be a great location for a deportation camp. Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta, before being deported back.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta
     
    It's a very sensible plan.

    Vorkuta is probably one of the only places in Europe (technically is just inside Europe!) which they will not welcome going, while they would be welcomed by the local population.

    In Soviet times, Vorkuta was a city of 115,000 people. While today, there are only around 70,000 inhabitants in the city.

    These cities whose "golden age" was in the Soviet Union, and today they are heavily declining.
    Young people are leaving these cities, and the old people are dying and not being replaced.

    As a result of the falling population of the city, there is now quite a high proportion of empty buildings there, where the immigrants can live (they just need to fix the roof - and welcome to paradise!).

    Maybe also an advertising campaign in Africa of "Welcome to Europe" - with videos of Vorkuta, to "attract" them.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRzurfU8Fs
  96. @Dmitry

    Russia looks invincible. countries as big places either.

     

    Lol I have some image from your comment of the Mercator projection fooling the innocent and naive Africans to immigrate to Vorkuta because it looks like a lot of space there.

    Of course, the conclusion is predictable. Africans are too weak, spoilt and used to luxury. Their soft spirit can be broken in a week, and they will run back to Africa before the local drunk even has an opportunity to piss in the corridor of their apartment complex.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2NXUsbVY

    That is one bleak looking place!

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Even in the 1980s, however, it would not be so bad. Imagine all these apartments when they are new and shiny in the 1960-70s (not decaying like now), and full of young families, with everyone working in local industry. It would have been "cozy".

    Here is a drone over some nearby villages - these places are totally abandoned (the final result of depopulation before nature starts climbing over).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0BRV8_gZ0

  97. @Finnishdude
    -I thought some cossacks and old believers are russian "amish" with high fertility.

    " There are a total of 2 million old believers in Russia, and out of that some 200,000 are ultra-orthodox old believers, who don't have much contact with the outside world.

    Most of them are scattered around in the Siberian provinces of Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, HMAO, Tyva, Altay, Amur, and Khabarovsk. They constitute only 0.1 to 0.2% of the total Russian population.

    If you check the Provincial Statistics Site of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, you can see that the birth rate of "ultra-orthodox" old believer villages are 4 to 5 times higher than the surrounding villages.

    Although they are getting some media attention now, earlier they were almost completely forgotten by the government. Recently during the 2002 and 2010 Censuses, some of their villages were counted. No information exists for those who live deep inside the Taiga. For example, several hundreds of old believers live in the Tannu Ola and Sayan mountains of Tyva, but none of them were counted during the 2010 Census.

    One reason why some of the Provincial authorities count the more accessible old believer villages now is to show Putin that their birth rates are higher than the surrounding provinces. For example, up to 2008 Krasnoyarsk was having more deaths than births. When they started counting the births and deaths in the old believer villages, suddenly the province became one of the few regions in Russia with natural population growth. "

    -amish populatuin growth:

    Year Pop. %±
    1920 5,000 —
    1928 7,000 40.0%
    1936 9,000 28.6%
    1944 13,000 44.4%
    1952 19,000 46.2%
    1960 28,000 47.4%
    1968 39,000 39.3%
    1976 57,000 46.2%
    1984 84,000 47.4%
    1992 125,000 48.8%
    2000 166,000 32.8%
    2008 221,000 33.1%
    2010 249,000 12.7%

    from this i can deduce that the Amish have a growth rate of over 5% a year.
    more than 6.3% from 2008-2010.
    so here is where my equation comes in from there growth rates lets conservatively assume a 5% yearly growth rate this means that there population will easily double every 20 years.

    2010 250,000
    2030 500,000
    2050 1m
    2070 2m
    2090 4m
    2110 8m
    2130 16m
    2150 32m
    2170 64m
    2190 128m

    -in USA there is also 50 000 hutterites , 500 000 mennonites with quite high fertility.


    About jews:



    Ultra-Orthodox Jews are what ignorant people pejoratively call “black-hatters;” there are many different sects, from Chabad to Satmar, all divided based on traditions, theology, structure, and place of origin. One thing they all share in common however, is having a lot of kids.

    8 kids, to be exact.

    That’s right, the average Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women will have, in her lifetime, 8 kids, one of the highest, if not the highest, fertility rates of any group in the world. To provide some contrast, in Niger, the fastest-growing country in the world, the average woman has 7 kids.

    According to Professor Comenetz at the University of Florida,

    In America too, where the Jewish population is stable or declining, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish numbers are growing rapidly.

    The Ultra-orthodox population doubles every 20 years, which…may make the Jewish community not only more religiously observant but more politically conservative…the Ultra-orthodox population in 2000 was about 360,000, 7.2 per cent of the approximately 5 million Jews in the U.S.

    But in 2006, demographers now estimate the number had grown to 468,000 or 9.4 per cent.

    8 kids on average works out to about a 6% growth rate per year. Assuming a base population of 510,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the USA and UK in 2006, by the year 2050 there will be approximately…6,622,595 Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    There are only about 5,800,000 total Jews in the USA today.

    And what would their population be in 2100? 121,989,235, about the population of the UK and France combined (Note: This does not even take into account the 700,000-strong Israeli community, whose inclusion would raise the population projection to 15,712,433 and 289,425,442 people in 2050 and 2100 respectively).

    But all these groups reject modern technology. Eventually they will overshoot their economic niche and be unable to afford such high reproduction.

    Unless they risk undergoing cultural changes that allow them to harness modern tech. Can they do that without damaging their fertility? Have some already tried?

  98. @AP

    The population ratio between Russia and the Ukraine fell from less than 3:1 to almost 5:1 since 1992. It is ironic that Ukrainian independence has been worse for Ukraine’s population balance vis-a-vis Russia
     
    This isn't nearly as bad for Ukraine as you suggest. A lot of the population loss for Ukraine, the country, was the loss of ethnic Russians who would have been a fifth column. Is Ukraine somehow weaker or worse off vis a vis Russia now that it no longer has anti-Ukrainian ethnic Russians in Crimea within its borders?

    Loss of Russians leaves Ukraine better off, not worse off. Ukraine with over ten million Russians and defacto Russians was 1/3 of Russia's population, Ukraine without them is between 1/4 and 1/5 of Russia's population.

    What is the ratio of ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine now vs. Russia now vs. in 1991?

    In 1989 there were 37.4 million ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian SSR. That year there were 147.7 million people in Russia. So the ethnic Ukrainian population was 25.3% of Russia's population.

    I'd guess currently there are about 32 million ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia's population is about 145 million. So the ethnic Ukrainian population is 22.1% of Russia's population.

    Not a very dramatic difference.

    I’d guess currently there are about 32 million ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia’s population is about 145 million. So the ethnic Ukrainian population is 22.1% of Russia’s population.

    Shouldn’t you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They’d give Russia a slight boost right now–albeit one that probably isn’t that large.

    • Replies: @AP

    Shouldn’t you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They’d give Russia a slight boost right now–albeit one that probably isn’t that large.
     
    Sure. However the purpose of such comparisons is to imply that Ukraine has a much weaker position vis a vis Russia due to the change in population ratios. But whether or not Crimea is in Russia, this doesn't change. It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders. It was, on the contrary, a disadvantage - a lot of those Russians were high ranking military officers or government officials, who would probably not side with Ukraine in case of conflict with Russia. So again, the fact that Ukraine had about 33% of Russia's population in 1991, vs. ~24% in 2019 is much less meaningful than the fact that ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian state were 25% of Russia's population in 1991 vs. 22% today.
  99. @Hong Xiu Quan
    Hey i just checked the Singstat data for this years Singapore demography. What is interesting is that Malays have a TFR of 1.84 compared to about 1 for Chinese and Indians. The reason probably is because Islam is more family orientated. Or they dont play status games so much.So i do not think that it is all about material conditions, since the material conditions for the races are similiar (dense HDB)

    The problem with the aging population can be solved by having a large expat population but not giving out citizenshp. Thus you can collect tax but dont have liability to pay for their retirement.

    Interestingly enough, I’ve previously read that Malays in Singapore have an average score of 495 on PISA. So, almost equivalent to (0.05 standard deviations lower than) the OECD average. I guess that Singapore must have skimmed the cream off of the Malay crop.

  100. @Mr. XYZ
    Shouldn't DNA be included in your list here, though?

    That is covered in kinship.

  101. The world population of Greeks has been steady at ~10 million since the age of Alexander the Great. Their percentage of the world total plummeted from ~5% to slightly more than 0.1% today.

    (As other commenters suggest,) How much of this change (or ‘non-change;’ apparent zero-net-growth) is a question of culture-identity and how much genes is interesting.

    A small example is that Paul of Tarsus (live circa AD 1 to 67), the great evangelist of the Christian religion. He was, by some plausible definitions, a Greek. He was an educated Greek speaker, and scholars say a native Greek speaker. Also a Roman citizen, which had solidly subsumed Greek citizenship by his time, of course. Yet if Paul of Tarsus’ genes survive in the present, they almost certainly are not in what are today called Greeks.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.

    F.E. Peter's, Harvest of Hellenism does a great job in showing how this acculturation process worked. Unfortunately, it is out of print.

    https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Hellenism-History-Alexander-Christianity/dp/0760701296
  102. @Hail

    The world population of Greeks has been steady at ~10 million since the age of Alexander the Great. Their percentage of the world total plummeted from ~5% to slightly more than 0.1% today.
     
    (As other commenters suggest,) How much of this change (or 'non-change;' apparent zero-net-growth) is a question of culture-identity and how much genes is interesting.

    A small example is that Paul of Tarsus (live circa AD 1 to 67), the great evangelist of the Christian religion. He was, by some plausible definitions, a Greek. He was an educated Greek speaker, and scholars say a native Greek speaker. Also a Roman citizen, which had solidly subsumed Greek citizenship by his time, of course. Yet if Paul of Tarsus' genes survive in the present, they almost certainly are not in what are today called Greeks.

    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.

    F.E. Peter’s, Harvest of Hellenism does a great job in showing how this acculturation process worked. Unfortunately, it is out of print.

    https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Hellenism-History-Alexander-Christianity/dp/0760701296

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.
     
    It's almost as if culture trumps genetics.
  103. @Finnishdude
    It's the population density, stupid

    Given the right climate, nutrients, sunlight, growing medium and propagating entity, plants grow and multiply. Plants do not care if there isn't adequate space to produce young. Just look at the rainforest and that pot of Aloe Vera. Given the right conditions, both will multiply and grow denser and denser.

    The fittest survive, that is the law of nature. Plants abide by this rule. Each shoot will try to outgrow the other, spreading their influence as wide as they can. The weaker ones eventually die out as their reach for sunlight or nutrients diminish.


    Singapore is a fine country with top notch education, medical and childcare facilities. The people are among the richest nationality in the world. We have the right conditions to propagate, we do not lack resources and wealth. Looking at it from the scientific point of view, Singaporeans can have a lot of children. Singaporean couples can get married without getting a HDB flat first. Couples can have children without their own 'love nest'. Couples can have 3 children or more living in a 67sqm apartment. Couples can have children without finishing their university program. Couples can have children without establishing their careers. Or without having a high income. If any Singaporean says we can't do that, he is lying. Many of our parents did that. Their children turned out alright, people like you and me. Though times have changed, each generation has their unique challenges and can be overcome. It can be done, it is proven but Singaporeans are not having children. Why?


    Humans are not plants. We are subconsciously aware of our need of space. Every human being needs physical space to live, not only living space but a right amount of personal space to make the environment conducive for having children. Consider this:


    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.


    What do they have in common? The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78) and the most super crowded, Macau (19610/km2), Singapore (7362km2), Hong Kong (6452 km2).


    Coincidence? "What do you think?"

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day. A high density population also means very stiff competition for child care resources, education, future housing and good jobs for our young. Our people are subconsciously reacting to an environment which is not conducive for their young and protecting them by not producing at all. In short, the people do not see a future for their young in Singapore.


    With the lowest fertility and the highest population density in the world, we are left in a catch-22 situation whereby we need foreigners to support the aging population because we are not producing, because the influx of foreigners created an environment unsuitable to have children. It looks like we have big decisions to make.

    Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore.

    What do they have in common?

    All are East Asian, highly educated, liberated females who want nothing to do with local males.

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate. Wide open spaces make child-rearing more attractive. Bringing up a large family in a tiny 67sqm HDB flat is a struggle, even if you can fold away your bed during the day.

    For most of human history, families were raised in tents, wagons, boats or cabins measuring <5sqm.

  104. (9) So far as I can tell, the Latvians, Estonians, and Ashkenazi Jews are the only peoples with fewer people today than in 1914. It is ironic that they played the most disproportionate roles (per capita) in cementing Bolshevism in Russia. God must really hate commies.

    Jewish establishment policy during the 20th Century is claimed to have been good, leading to dominance of the West in the early 21st Century. It has actually been very bad.

    Counterinsurgency

  105. 1) there is quantity and quality, and while the former is much easier to define, the latter is much more important
    2) culture is overestimated, and since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another. What matters is an even distribution of healthcare, possibilities, and ability to let your off-spring get a life that can be defined as ‘decent’. This world is incredibly rich in resources. No reason, except for greed, that say 5% of the world population owns 90% of everything that is produced worldwide.
    3) it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist. Bright, yet blind…

    • LOL: Alfred
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist.
     
    It's an article of faith on the right, including the alt-right, that there's no such thing as class and that anyone who thinks class is an issue is a dirty stinking commie.

    One of the many reasons the right, including the alt-right, is entirely useless.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Daniel Chieh

    since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another
     
    Surely You're Joking, Mr. Willem!
  106. ‘… Assuming a threefold expansion in all of these populations, we could have been looking to a Russian Empire or Republic with a further ~120M fully Russified Belorussians and largely Russified Ukrainians, for a total Slavic population of almost 400M…’

    This helps to explain the calculation of the Wilhelmine German General Staff that if war with Russia was delayed past 1916, it would be unwinnable.

    Given the German role in reintroducing Bolshevism into Russia, and of course their invasion of 1941-43, you could even say that the Germans did manage to defeat the Russian menace. The difficulty was of course that they lost the wars themselves as well.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I have often thought along similar lines.

    Germany obviously failed at becoming world hegemon, as was its maximalist aim (though its attempts were respectable).

    But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    This helps to explain the calculation of the Wilhelmine German General Staff that if war with Russia was delayed past 1916, it would be unwinnable.
     
    Technically speaking, were Germany to acquire Britain as an ally after 1916, the calculations in regards to this could have somewhat been changed. Were Germany to also acquire the US as an ally after 1916, the calculations in regards to this would have definitely been changed--assuming that Germany would have been able to avoid total collapse before massive numbers of British and American troops could actually get there, of course.

    Given the German role in reintroducing Bolshevism into Russia, and of course their invasion of 1941-43, you could even say that the Germans did manage to defeat the Russian menace.
     
    Yep, certainly.

    The difficulty was of course that they lost the wars themselves as well.
     
    Yeah, the Germans themselves certainly paid a very heavy price for crippling Russia in terms of their own lives and territory. Sure, they hurt Russia much more than they hurt themselves, but at least Russia still has a lot of territory for their population to expand into once its "breeders" will become a sufficiently large part of its population. Germany, on the other hand, doesn't. This is actually a problem that Germany experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries--as in, the amount of space that it had wasn't that large even in 1914 and short of massive ethnic cleansing, there simply wasn't a lot of available empty space for Germany to expand into like there was for the 19th century United States of America. Germany's best bet had it won World War I would have been to try creating a Mitteleuropa-style union with its newly independent Eastern European satellite states. That way Germans could have had a lot of additional space to settle without Germany losing these Germans. Of course, such a Mitteleuropa-style union would have probably only worked in the long(er)-run had the Slavs living there had an equal say in running this union--something that might have been anathema to Slavophobic German nationalists!
  107. The demographics question can always be solved by cloning, genetics and eugenics, Warhammer 40K-style.

    What matters is the will, not how.

    And even on natural means, population will naturally breed faster if society and culture encourage it. In fact, hardship and poor livelihood might in fact increase birthrate.

    :
    Classic communist but class is a non-question. There will always be have and have-not, people aren’t equal and the same and they will remain so. An european is not the same as an asian, nor an african.

    What matters is that they contribute their part to the people/nation as a whole.

  108. @Curious

    Were the Turks the big demographic winners of the 20th century?
     
    Maybe, but they look set to lose in the 21st. Even putting aside the kurdish question, Turkey has seen a huge surge of arabic and generally islamic immigration. I'm not even talking about refugees. Turkish citizenship is very cheap to aquire and their property laws are hyperliberal for foreigners.

    A large number of Arabs (biggest group being Iraqis and not Syrians last year), Afghans, Pakistanis and other muslims now immigrate to the country. Worse, Turkey is seeing a shift in emigration patterns. It is not the gastarbeiter types who are leaving but increasingly the well-educated. Erdogan's pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country. The biggest threat to his rule is not the moribound secular opposition but the nationalist right. By 2030, kurds will be 1/3rd of Turkey population and even greater share among the newborn. Add the arabs and other muslim populations and things start to look really bad for them.

    Wouldn't be surprised if they are the first NATO country to see an outright ethno-fascist leader rise to power over the coming decade or two.

    ‘…Erdogan’s pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country…’

    Well, that could be seen as a reversion to the norm. Anatolia was never mono-ethnic: not in classical times, not under Byzantine rule, and certainly not under the Ottomans. It was only under the secular Turkish Republic that ‘Turkey’ became synonymous with ‘Anatolia.’

    I like Turkey myself, but if the prediction is borne out, it’s really just going to mark a return to business as usual.

  109. @Agathoklis
    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.

    F.E. Peter's, Harvest of Hellenism does a great job in showing how this acculturation process worked. Unfortunately, it is out of print.

    https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Hellenism-History-Alexander-Christianity/dp/0760701296

    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.

    It’s almost as if culture trumps genetics.

    • Replies: @Smith
    Without genetics, no culture.

    You can teach a dog to run, it will never run as fast as a horse.
  110. I another half a Century the DPRK will be younger and have a larger army then Worst Korea, having a higher TFR might turn out to be better then having a Nuke for Pyongyang
    Especially is Seul decides to go full Globo-Homo and turn the country into a multi-cultural hellhole, wouldn’t be surprised if it’s already happening given how obsessed with imitating the US they’ve been (for instance, ROK has huge circumcision rates after it was introduced by American doctors during the Korean War)

  111. An idea for a cool 26th demographic fact:

    Proto-Indo-European demographics circa 3000 BC vs. today’s Indo-European demographics (genetic vs. cultural vs. language).

    _____________

    My attempt to make this ambitious calculation:

    – circa 230,000 : Total Proto-Indo-European population in 3000 BC, before their waves of expansion began [0.5% to 1.0% of world population? in 3000 BC];

    – Of this grand proto-IE population total, we might fairly guess, based on later migration patterns, that a third of them went west and would become partial ancestors of the future ethnic groups of Europe — one third would be a pre-expansion population of 75,000 who later went west into Europe. [0.15% to 0.33% of world pop.] (assuming a world pop. for 3000 BC at 30 million, per from HYDE [2010].)

    (see below for how I made this calculation; would welcome thoughts on accuracy).

    – circa 400 to 500 million : Indo-European person-equivalents in Europe and North America alone (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 40 to 50% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe’s 1,000 million Europeans) by AD 2000. [7.5% of world population in AD 2000, a lot more still, by %, in AD 1900].

    [MORE]

    – circa 350 million+ more : Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world by those speaking an Indo-European language naively [ca. 1,750 million as of AD 2000] (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 20% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe’s 1,750 million IE-speakers who are not European) by AD 2000.

    – circa low hundreds of millions [?] more: Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world who do not speak an Indo-European language

    –> At least 1,000,000,000 Indo-European person-equivalents in the world by AD 2000 [16.5%] (and ca. 2,500,000 people having substantial IE ancestry [~40% of world population], and some number even higher than this being native speakers of an IE language).

    Are the Indo-Europeans the world’s most successful group over the past 5,000 years? That small group is today something like 15-20% of aggregate genetic ancestry; 40% of the global population has substantial IE ancestry.

    _____________

    Calculation derivation:

    [1] Mallory (1989)’s estimate of the pre-expansion Proto-Indo-European Urheimat land area, and [2] Indo-European-like, pastoralist Mongolia’s historical steady-state pastoralist population size (before modernization) of ca. 500,000+ = 0.33 people/sq. km.

    – Mallory:

    Consequently, we may postulate the size of the Proto-Indo-European homeland falling within the range of about 250,000-1,000,000 square kilometres, a figure which is in fair accord with most solutions to the homeland problem as suggested by both linguists and archaeologists.

    (From In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth (1989), by J. P. Mallory)

    Note that the midpoint of Mallory’s estimate is almost exactly the size of Ukraine (576,000 sq. km. without Crimea).

    – Mongolia:

    Mongolia’s pastoralist-majority population density in 1900 AD was 0.38 people per sq. km. (604,000 / 1,564,000 sq. km); subtracting the city of Ulan Bator’s 60,000 [?] at the time yields around 500,000+ as a pastoralist carrying capacity, or 0.33 pop./sq.km — giving it an error range, call it 0.25 to 0.4 pop./sq.km.

    Combining the two estimates — (0.25 to 0.40) x (250,000 to 1,00,000) — yields a Proto-Indo-European population size estimate of 62,500 to 400,000; midpoint estimate about 230,000.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    Proto Indo Europeans were already in Europe, Einstein. Ukraine and the Pontic Caspian steppe is in Europe, if you didn't know.

    Talking about Europe with regards to Indo-Europeans is nonsense anyway, the vast majority of Indo Europeans migrated east in to Asia from Corded Ware and their "partial descendants" number over 1.5 billion.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Cool calculations, but not atypical imo, you'd get similar order of magnitude leaps with Bantus, Neo-Mongoloids, etc.
  112. @dfordoom

    That is a good point. Lucian (or Loukianos) the great satirist, rhetorician, novelist and short story writer was very likely born to a family that spoke Syriac and was probably Assyrian but his Hellenic education was so thorough that he is considered one of the great Attic stylists of all time. He also knew better than anyone during his age, Greek religious beliefs and practices. In all intents and purposes he was a Hellene.
     
    It's almost as if culture trumps genetics.

    Without genetics, no culture.

    You can teach a dog to run, it will never run as fast as a horse.

    • Replies: @iffen

    Without genetics, no culture.

    You can teach a dog to run, it will never run as fast as a horse.
     
    I guess this explains why canids have never brought down an ungulate.
  113. @Malenfant
    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn't far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario -- for some values of plausible -- is a vision of hell.

    ‘A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario — for some values of plausible — is a vision of hell.’

    Oh, I dunno. I imagine fifty billion Chinese with fifty billion properly trained black slaves could make for a reasonably civilized society. Perhaps not one you or I would find congenial — but that’s a different matter. After all, I probably wouldn’t care for tenth century Constantinople, either. That doesn’t make it hell.

  114. @Bliss

    I think that we have overlooked the importance of space as a correlation to fertility rate.
     
    True dat. Urbanization correlates well with lower fertility rates. The rapid urbanization of China will be more negative for its fertility rate than the one-child policy ever was.

    The three countries (or city-states if you like to call them) have the lowest fertility rate in the world, Hong Kong (1.09), Macau (0.92), Singapore (0.78)
     
    Wow. Good thing they have plenty immigrants coming in.

    Urbanization correlates well with lower fertility rates.

    That’s true. But I don’t think it’s lack of space that’s the problem. There are other evils associated with urbanisation. Too many distractions for one thing. And cities attract undesirables – grifters, sexual deviants seeking the anonymity of the city, criminals, intellectuals, artists, gamblers, drug dealers. So cities breed decadence and degeneracy.

    The anonymity of city life may be the biggest problem. Cities destroy the sense of community and connectedness. They destroy the sense of social responsibility. They encourage destructive individualism.

    But I don’t think space is a factor.

  115. @Willem
    1) there is quantity and quality, and while the former is much easier to define, the latter is much more important
    2) culture is overestimated, and since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another. What matters is an even distribution of healthcare, possibilities, and ability to let your off-spring get a life that can be defined as ‘decent’. This world is incredibly rich in resources. No reason, except for greed, that say 5% of the world population owns 90% of everything that is produced worldwide.
    3) it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist. Bright, yet blind...

    it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist.

    It’s an article of faith on the right, including the alt-right, that there’s no such thing as class and that anyone who thinks class is an issue is a dirty stinking commie.

    One of the many reasons the right, including the alt-right, is entirely useless.

    • Replies: @Smith
    That's real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.

    Culture, economy, ideologies all stems from demographics.

    The left forget that, which is why the left is always ruled by a rightist at the end of the days.

  116. @dfordoom

    it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist.
     
    It's an article of faith on the right, including the alt-right, that there's no such thing as class and that anyone who thinks class is an issue is a dirty stinking commie.

    One of the many reasons the right, including the alt-right, is entirely useless.

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.

    Culture, economy, ideologies all stems from demographics.

    The left forget that, which is why the left is always ruled by a rightist at the end of the days.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Not necessarily but it is important in the age of mass democracy and economism. Everything stems from individual and collective power and self-preservation.

    From Macht und Entscheidung (Power and Decision) by Panagiotis Kondylis:

    "Drawing from anthropology, philosophy, sociology and history, concepts such as value, value-freedom and nihilism are explored. It is claimed that the infinite variety of human perceptions, beliefs, ideologies, i.e. world-views, are nothing more than an effort to give personal interests a normative form and an objective character, deriving from a "decision" on what means should be used, who should be a friend and who a foe, in the big "Hobbesian" struggle for what is the most primitive and common goal of all humans – self-preservation. Therefore, personal and/or group world-views and ideologies in general are used as a weapon in everyday struggle for the purpose of power claims and self-preservation. Social and historical being and becoming consist of transitory existences – regardless of whether they invoke Reason and ethics or not – seeking power (in any one or more of its countless forms). That is how Nature's (and society's) creatures are, and they cannot do otherwise."
    , @dfordoom

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.
     
    Demographics is certainly not the only worthwhile question. A much bigger issue is cultural disintegration. At this point in time, looking at western Europe or the US, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if you could transform such places into white ethnostates. You'd still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people. We trashed our own societies. And then we decided to finish the job by refusing to breed.
  117. @Hail
    An idea for a cool 26th demographic fact:

    Proto-Indo-European demographics circa 3000 BC vs. today's Indo-European demographics (genetic vs. cultural vs. language).

    _____________

    My attempt to make this ambitious calculation:

    - circa 230,000 : Total Proto-Indo-European population in 3000 BC, before their waves of expansion began [0.5% to 1.0% of world population? in 3000 BC];

    - Of this grand proto-IE population total, we might fairly guess, based on later migration patterns, that a third of them went west and would become partial ancestors of the future ethnic groups of Europe -- one third would be a pre-expansion population of 75,000 who later went west into Europe. [0.15% to 0.33% of world pop.] (assuming a world pop. for 3000 BC at 30 million, per from HYDE [2010].)

    (see below for how I made this calculation; would welcome thoughts on accuracy).

    - circa 400 to 500 million : Indo-European person-equivalents in Europe and North America alone (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 40 to 50% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe's 1,000 million Europeans) by AD 2000. [7.5% of world population in AD 2000, a lot more still, by %, in AD 1900].

    - circa 350 million+ more : Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world by those speaking an Indo-European language naively [ca. 1,750 million as of AD 2000] (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 20% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe's 1,750 million IE-speakers who are not European) by AD 2000.

    - circa low hundreds of millions [?] more: Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world who do not speak an Indo-European language

    --> At least 1,000,000,000 Indo-European person-equivalents in the world by AD 2000 [16.5%] (and ca. 2,500,000 people having substantial IE ancestry [~40% of world population], and some number even higher than this being native speakers of an IE language).

    Are the Indo-Europeans the world's most successful group over the past 5,000 years? That small group is today something like 15-20% of aggregate genetic ancestry; 40% of the global population has substantial IE ancestry.

    _____________

    Calculation derivation:

    [1] Mallory (1989)'s estimate of the pre-expansion Proto-Indo-European Urheimat land area, and [2] Indo-European-like, pastoralist Mongolia's historical steady-state pastoralist population size (before modernization) of ca. 500,000+ = 0.33 people/sq. km.

    - Mallory:


    Consequently, we may postulate the size of the Proto-Indo-European homeland falling within the range of about 250,000-1,000,000 square kilometres, a figure which is in fair accord with most solutions to the homeland problem as suggested by both linguists and archaeologists.

    (From In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth (1989), by J. P. Mallory)
     

    Note that the midpoint of Mallory's estimate is almost exactly the size of Ukraine (576,000 sq. km. without Crimea).

    - Mongolia:

    Mongolia's pastoralist-majority population density in 1900 AD was 0.38 people per sq. km. (604,000 / 1,564,000 sq. km); subtracting the city of Ulan Bator's 60,000 [?] at the time yields around 500,000+ as a pastoralist carrying capacity, or 0.33 pop./sq.km -- giving it an error range, call it 0.25 to 0.4 pop./sq.km.

    Combining the two estimates -- (0.25 to 0.40) x (250,000 to 1,00,000) -- yields a Proto-Indo-European population size estimate of 62,500 to 400,000; midpoint estimate about 230,000.

    Proto Indo Europeans were already in Europe, Einstein. Ukraine and the Pontic Caspian steppe is in Europe, if you didn’t know.

    Talking about Europe with regards to Indo-Europeans is nonsense anyway, the vast majority of Indo Europeans migrated east in to Asia from Corded Ware and their “partial descendants” number over 1.5 billion.

  118. @Hail
    An idea for a cool 26th demographic fact:

    Proto-Indo-European demographics circa 3000 BC vs. today's Indo-European demographics (genetic vs. cultural vs. language).

    _____________

    My attempt to make this ambitious calculation:

    - circa 230,000 : Total Proto-Indo-European population in 3000 BC, before their waves of expansion began [0.5% to 1.0% of world population? in 3000 BC];

    - Of this grand proto-IE population total, we might fairly guess, based on later migration patterns, that a third of them went west and would become partial ancestors of the future ethnic groups of Europe -- one third would be a pre-expansion population of 75,000 who later went west into Europe. [0.15% to 0.33% of world pop.] (assuming a world pop. for 3000 BC at 30 million, per from HYDE [2010].)

    (see below for how I made this calculation; would welcome thoughts on accuracy).

    - circa 400 to 500 million : Indo-European person-equivalents in Europe and North America alone (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 40 to 50% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe's 1,000 million Europeans) by AD 2000. [7.5% of world population in AD 2000, a lot more still, by %, in AD 1900].

    - circa 350 million+ more : Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world by those speaking an Indo-European language naively [ca. 1,750 million as of AD 2000] (if Indo-European ancestry contributes 20% of the ultimate racial stock of the globe's 1,750 million IE-speakers who are not European) by AD 2000.

    - circa low hundreds of millions [?] more: Indo-European person-equivalents in the non-European world who do not speak an Indo-European language

    --> At least 1,000,000,000 Indo-European person-equivalents in the world by AD 2000 [16.5%] (and ca. 2,500,000 people having substantial IE ancestry [~40% of world population], and some number even higher than this being native speakers of an IE language).

    Are the Indo-Europeans the world's most successful group over the past 5,000 years? That small group is today something like 15-20% of aggregate genetic ancestry; 40% of the global population has substantial IE ancestry.

    _____________

    Calculation derivation:

    [1] Mallory (1989)'s estimate of the pre-expansion Proto-Indo-European Urheimat land area, and [2] Indo-European-like, pastoralist Mongolia's historical steady-state pastoralist population size (before modernization) of ca. 500,000+ = 0.33 people/sq. km.

    - Mallory:


    Consequently, we may postulate the size of the Proto-Indo-European homeland falling within the range of about 250,000-1,000,000 square kilometres, a figure which is in fair accord with most solutions to the homeland problem as suggested by both linguists and archaeologists.

    (From In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth (1989), by J. P. Mallory)
     

    Note that the midpoint of Mallory's estimate is almost exactly the size of Ukraine (576,000 sq. km. without Crimea).

    - Mongolia:

    Mongolia's pastoralist-majority population density in 1900 AD was 0.38 people per sq. km. (604,000 / 1,564,000 sq. km); subtracting the city of Ulan Bator's 60,000 [?] at the time yields around 500,000+ as a pastoralist carrying capacity, or 0.33 pop./sq.km -- giving it an error range, call it 0.25 to 0.4 pop./sq.km.

    Combining the two estimates -- (0.25 to 0.40) x (250,000 to 1,00,000) -- yields a Proto-Indo-European population size estimate of 62,500 to 400,000; midpoint estimate about 230,000.

    Cool calculations, but not atypical imo, you’d get similar order of magnitude leaps with Bantus, Neo-Mongoloids, etc.

  119. That all suspect, but not dareth spoken are words that point to a predator drone and or missile hitting the pentagon back on 09/11/2001.

  120. J says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    There were 8-10M Greeks who lived in culturally/politically Greek states in the age of Alexander the Great. There are 12M Greeks who live in a culturally/politically Greek state today (Greece and Cyprus). Not even a doubling.

    Classical Greece was severely depopulated after Alexander’s conquests in the East.

    Any Greek could get a good living in Egypt and other successor states by teaching Greek language and culture, or entering the local bureaucracies. Greece was emptied and its cities became insignificant villages. It is also probable that they underwent the first demographic transition in history.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    Here we go again. The old canard.

    Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310

    "Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations."
  121. @Malenfant
    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn't far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable. Likewise a world of 100 billion old-stock Americans, or 100 billion Englishmen. But these worlds are, sadly, not possible. The only remotely plausible 100 billion scenario -- for some values of plausible -- is a vision of hell.

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.

    They can barely support themselves right now.

    A lot of wishful thinking in this piece. “Decline in Islamic fertility”? Please.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Very weird takes. Care to substantiate either one of them?
    , @Blinky Bill


    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.
     
    They can barely support themselves right now.
     
    Anatoly is looking rather thin of late.

    Panhandling
    If you like his content, and want him to produce more of it, consider making a donation:

    Sponsor him on Patreon
    Bitcoin: 17tDufZUEK3DvQh3rY75F3xtVgxj4TzdtB
    Paypal donation
    Yandex Money via Yasobe (for ruble accounts)
  122. the Irish have an even more extreme and unique anti-record: There are fewer of them today (~6.6M in all Ireland) than in 1840 (8.5M)! I wonder what they did to anger God so.

    God`s wrath is clearly restricted to Irish who remained in Ireland.

    The Irish diaspora is of quite astonishing size – about the biggest ratio in the world if you compare the number (people abroad) divided by (people in the home country).

    Between 10 and 20 to 1?

    Even if you go no further than England, Scotland or Wales, I would have thought they make up at least 20% of the white population there on a proportional measurement. (E.g my good self, 3/8ths Irish at the great-grand parental level.)

    Wikipedia says there are about 33 million Irish Americans.

    The Irish saved British demography.

  123. Besides a few commentators here that have given a few statements about the true nature of low birthrates or low “fertility”, almost no one here seems to be serious about solving the low birthrate problem.

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote and etc.

    The breeder population groups like Russians of Arkhangelsk, Russian Old Believers, Kosovo Serbs, Mormons, Amish, Haredi and etc all have in common the fact that their women are behaving as they are naturally supposed to; by giving birth and raising many kids. That is, they’re not getting “educated” or going to work at modern corporate jobs in large numbers (if at all).

    By chance or randomness, all those groups have ended up in circumstances where despite the many obstacles placed by “modernity”, and other unnatural dynamics, on women to interact with men how they’re naturally supposed to and to do what they’re supposed to.

    Of course, there are other circumstances such as devastating wars, famines, droughts and etc that can negatively affect birth rates, although in the modern world it is by far Feminism and women’s rights.

    I suspect though, since I’ve seen many white knights (some cucks as well, idk) going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates, that you’ll start criticizing me. All I’ll say in advance is that I won’t even bother responding and that you guys need to learn the truth about the nature of women …

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    ...going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates...
     
    A profoundly stupid comment. 'Feminism' and "women's rights" were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

    So yes, men are to blame.

    You're not really stupid enough to think that women up and 'liberated' themselves out of their own femininity, are you?
    , @songbird

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote
     
    Isn't it better if the blue-haired feminists don't reproduce?
    , @Counterinsurgency

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote and etc.
     

    OK, let's talk about that [0]. I've seen a few cases where something like that was attempted, and been related to at least one woman who tried it. This didn't work out well -- result was death, sterility, insanity, from resentment on the part of the women involved. The one woman who actively pursued life outside feminism seems to be doing pretty well, but her life is in its early stages.

    We can also consider the true nature of women (not that anybody really knows what it is, even the women involved. Part of women's nature appears to be resistance to description.).

    Source background: I've followed feminism since the 1960s in real time, read enough of the second wave source books to understand some of the appeal (roughly, "you'll drive a better bargain with men if you aren't utterly dependent, and have more social prestige also"), read some of the third wave material and have enough background to understand something of the the appeal there ("the second wave 'better bargain' doesn't work, so it's time to go full Medea [1] or to play Artemis the Huntress [2]"), also.

    So the way things work now is that men [3] (not all men, but men) call the shots for feminists, the West has seen marriage and family formation destabilized for the past, oh, 60 years or so, and the women are convinced that it is the fault of individual men and have retreated into being difficult or by outright divorcing (and siccing the cops on) the men in their lives.
    The men, bluntly, are cracking under the strain [4]. They can't even support themselves, and it turns out that women won't marry men who have a worse job than they do, and tend not to psychologically support the men they marry. (Rosie appears to be an exception.) Add this to women divorcing men who have a better job than they do if the man works hard enough to neglect them, and there isn't a winning choice for the men or women, unless you count promiscuity (which is dangerous and only possible for women until age, maybe, 35).
    On top of this, women support the laws that are making life difficult for them, apparently under the impression that they are strengthening their hand inside marriage. I well remember the 1950s, back when people realized that _work was done only because it was necessary_ [5], and wasn't a fashion accessory or a recreation. I've had several relatives die from their work, and they didn't have fun doing it.

    Fact of the matter is that men can't do all that much about the current situation. Women have had their basic natures [6] cruelly exploited, told that their problems could be solved by doing things that made the problem worse [7]. Right now, the men are following, of necessity, the HAL strategy from _2001_: "I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation, and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause." This would indeed follow your suggested course of action, but is clearly a very risky strategy (you remember that the entire crew save one was killed in _2001_). The men (all of them, worldwide) are just as cracked as HAL was in _2001_ [7a]. However, it's not only all that's available, it seems to be unavoidable (unless, of course, Trump survives, wins, and pulls off a near miracle [8]).
    The cities are nearly at the end of their lifetime, and when they go, we are left with a distributed production economy and a whole lot of city dwellers with no place to go. They just might descend on the countryside in enough strength to make the distributed economy impossible. Just taking down the electrical grid and destroying a few generators / transformers would make a distributed national scale economy impossible. Even if this did not happen, simple failure of the US Dollar based global trading network would lead to the same result. As I've pointed out, the global trading network would then, most likely, fail in a cascade of regional warfare.

    Frankly, I don't like the "let it fail" strategy, and any suggestions for avoiding the situation would be welcome. Remember, Ron Unz has made a site that has considerable readership, more than _National Review_, so ideas presented here could spread.

    Any thoughts?

    Counterinsurgency

    0] Favorite theorist just now is Karen Straughan, MRA (Men's rights advocate). She doesn't quite agree with you, but suggests that the current situation can't last. (see: "Fempocalypse!!" vide0). Take a look here.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)
    Women generally don't do well if left alone by the husband, and seem to need constant active affection. As with most mammals (and men are mammals also) women are quite capable of abandoning their current offspring if neglected. Since women also need the man's income, this has led to some very bad outcomes as the man is away (or overworked and uncommunicative or bad tempered) for extended intervals and the nonverbal part of the woman's mind concludes that the woman has been abandoned.

    2] "Artemis, the Chaste Huntress: You Really Didn’t Want to Mess With This Greek Goddess".
    https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/artemis-0011002
    Take a look at the first picture, "Earlier images of Artemis from 650 BC . . .". I've seen that expression on the face of a woman who almost qualified for the USAF Thunderbirds, but not quite because of some intrinsic spatial orientation problems, a contemporary Artemis who, thank goodness, did end up married and seems fairly happy but can't quite reconcile a huntress nature with men and life.

    3] You're right there, about a decade ago one of the NOW women defected and said flatly that the NOW leadership did nothing without directions from the Democratic Party. I've been amazed at the identity of organizations that have turned out to be controlled opposition, or even controlled support. Women's organizations seem quite vulnerable -- Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) was apparently taken over by professional managers who awarded themselves very high salaries and chased all the independent women out. I've seen things like that happen; it is currently going on in US school boards right now (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/election-day-2019-why-your-local-vote-matters/).

    4] https://www.curbed.com/2017/10/10/16450394/millennial-living-at-home-housing-homeownership

    5] Work as a "vocation" was considered good in Protestant circles, which were large, but try to find a vocation in the modern workplace and you'll fail every time. The person chooses a vocation, and corporations don't like the loss of domination involved in having people who can choose what they are doing. Hence the idea that one hires an employee, who then does what he (or she) is told, as opposed to hiring a specialist and letting him (or her) work in the specialty.

    6] Woman's basic nature which is plausibly a psychology based on extracting enough resources from whatever man is available to support themselves and their babies through the kids 15th or so birthday. Men seem to have two basic natures (or to come in two sorts). One specializes in provisioning a woman (or several in polygamous societies) and the other in letting other men provision his children (if any) while he does something else.

    7] Victorian era surgery to remove lower ribs to "enhance the figure", or the use of arsenic to make the skin lighter
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/mWN-yvDM2Pl/Arsenic+Wafers
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/QwQvnR8Jpdw/Makeup+Killed+Through+History

    7a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boaf_U3-Q0E

    8] Not likely, unfortunately, as the Western Left political establishment appears ready and stupid enough to pull a Kamikazi / Götterdämmerung response to losing power. Still, might happen.

    , @obvious
    spoken like a true virgin. no sex for you! no babies either
  124. @J
    Classical Greece was severely depopulated after Alexander's conquests in the East.

    Any Greek could get a good living in Egypt and other successor states by teaching Greek language and culture, or entering the local bureaucracies. Greece was emptied and its cities became insignificant villages. It is also probable that they underwent the first demographic transition in history.

    Here we go again. The old canard.

    Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310

    “Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.”

    • Replies: @obvious
    impossible. ancient Greeks are depicted in countless art forms, and modern Greeks look like Arabs.

    NO
  125. @Marshall Lentini

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.
     
    They can barely support themselves right now.

    A lot of wishful thinking in this piece. "Decline in Islamic fertility"? Please.

    Very weird takes. Care to substantiate either one of them?

  126. @RadicalCenter
    Given that I was engaged to be married before Tinder was founded, I am glad to say that I've never visited Tinder. Given that it seems to be geared toward commitment-free animal hookups, I wouldn't visit it if I were single, either.

    Doesn't change the fact that your statement about STDs being a homosexual problem is completely untrue. Many millions of heterosexual people have STDs, most often one of the 200 varieties of HPV and not rarely herpes.

    Homosexuals presumably have a far higher rate of STD infection, including HIV infection, due to their disgusting unnatural and inherently unhygienic/unsafe practices (anal fissures, anyone?) and extreme promiscuity, but it is wrong to say that STDs are predominantly a homosexual problem.

    I said the surge in STDs is a homosexual problem, not that STDs are only a homosexual problem.

  127. @Smith
    That's real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.

    Culture, economy, ideologies all stems from demographics.

    The left forget that, which is why the left is always ruled by a rightist at the end of the days.

    Not necessarily but it is important in the age of mass democracy and economism. Everything stems from individual and collective power and self-preservation.

    From Macht und Entscheidung (Power and Decision) by Panagiotis Kondylis:

    “Drawing from anthropology, philosophy, sociology and history, concepts such as value, value-freedom and nihilism are explored. It is claimed that the infinite variety of human perceptions, beliefs, ideologies, i.e. world-views, are nothing more than an effort to give personal interests a normative form and an objective character, deriving from a “decision” on what means should be used, who should be a friend and who a foe, in the big “Hobbesian” struggle for what is the most primitive and common goal of all humans – self-preservation. Therefore, personal and/or group world-views and ideologies in general are used as a weapon in everyday struggle for the purpose of power claims and self-preservation. Social and historical being and becoming consist of transitory existences – regardless of whether they invoke Reason and ethics or not – seeking power (in any one or more of its countless forms). That is how Nature’s (and society’s) creatures are, and they cannot do otherwise.”

  128. @Colin Wright
    '... Assuming a threefold expansion in all of these populations, we could have been looking to a Russian Empire or Republic with a further ~120M fully Russified Belorussians and largely Russified Ukrainians, for a total Slavic population of almost 400M...'

    This helps to explain the calculation of the Wilhelmine German General Staff that if war with Russia was delayed past 1916, it would be unwinnable.

    Given the German role in reintroducing Bolshevism into Russia, and of course their invasion of 1941-43, you could even say that the Germans did manage to defeat the Russian menace. The difficulty was of course that they lost the wars themselves as well.

    I have often thought along similar lines.

    Germany obviously failed at becoming world hegemon, as was its maximalist aim (though its attempts were respectable).

    But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.'

    ? Germans wound up eliminated from East Prussia and Silesia, and no longer present as a major group in the Baltic States, Romania, Moldova, the Western Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, and wherever the Yugoslavian Banat is now. Moreover, in at least Poland, East Prussia, Silesia, and the Banat they were replaced by Slavs.

    I'd say it rolled the Drang nach Osten back a good seven hundred years. I doubt if the German people could survive another such 'success.'
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Yes, one can certainly say that the current situation in Europe is rather favorable for Germany--with the collapse of the Soviet Union essentially restoring Germany's Brest-Litovsk sphere of influence (albeit in a much milder form) in Eastern Europe. Germany was able to inflict severe demographic devastation to Russia, but also suffered a relatively heavy cost for this itself (in 1950, there were only 77 German men for every 100 German women aged 25-49; the comparable figure for the Russian SFSR was 62 men for every 100 women aged 25-49--with Ukraine being at 65 men and Belarus being at 69 men for every 100 women in this age range in 1950).

    Ultimately, though, I'm not sure that things are going to be too favorable for Germany. After all, it seems eager to import a lot of Third Worlders while having low native birth rates and very possibly dysgenic fertility as well. Plus, its population has much less room to expand than, say, Russia's or even France's population. Theoretically high-fertility Germans could eventually move to greener pastures, but then Germany is going to end up losing them.
  129. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Besides a few commentators here that have given a few statements about the true nature of low birthrates or low "fertility", almost no one here seems to be serious about solving the low birthrate problem.

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women's rights. Abolish women's education, right to work, right to vote and etc.

    The breeder population groups like Russians of Arkhangelsk, Russian Old Believers, Kosovo Serbs, Mormons, Amish, Haredi and etc all have in common the fact that their women are behaving as they are naturally supposed to; by giving birth and raising many kids. That is, they're not getting "educated" or going to work at modern corporate jobs in large numbers (if at all).

    By chance or randomness, all those groups have ended up in circumstances where despite the many obstacles placed by "modernity", and other unnatural dynamics, on women to interact with men how they're naturally supposed to and to do what they're supposed to.

    Of course, there are other circumstances such as devastating wars, famines, droughts and etc that can negatively affect birth rates, although in the modern world it is by far Feminism and women's rights.

    I suspect though, since I've seen many white knights (some cucks as well, idk) going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates, that you'll start criticizing me. All I'll say in advance is that I won't even bother responding and that you guys need to learn the truth about the nature of women ...

    …going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates…

    A profoundly stupid comment. ‘Feminism’ and “women’s rights” were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

    So yes, men are to blame.

    You’re not really stupid enough to think that women up and ‘liberated’ themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A profoundly stupid comment. ‘Feminism’ and “women’s rights” were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

     

    Feminism, women's rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s (more creative than doing triple brackets signalling, imo). You should take the time to research it instead of insulting me.

    You’re not really stupid enough to think that women up and ‘liberated’ themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

     

    No.

    So yes, men are to blame.

     

    Again, J***sh men ...
  130. @Marshall Lentini

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.
     
    They can barely support themselves right now.

    A lot of wishful thinking in this piece. "Decline in Islamic fertility"? Please.

    A world of 100 billion Russians is at least conceivable.

    They can barely support themselves right now.

    Anatoly is looking rather thin of late.

    Panhandling
    If you like his content, and want him to produce more of it, consider making a donation:

    Sponsor him on Patreon
    Bitcoin: 17tDufZUEK3DvQh3rY75F3xtVgxj4TzdtB
    Paypal donation
    Yandex Money via Yasobe (for ruble accounts)

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  131. @Pericles
    The post-SU collective literally suicidal depression was an interesting demographic phenomenon. Are there any other examples of the same kind?

    White British and white Americans – indeed white Europeans – have steeply falling fertility, and it’s not because they prefer to enjoy a country with more space – it’s because they’re not optimistic about the future.

    This isn’t helped (to put it mildly) by a media pushing the idea that the world is doomed and you should stop breeding to save the planet, but there’s also advertising (standard family is now black male/white female), TV and film,education with its emphasis on white sin (slavery, holocaust, Sacco and Vanzetti, lynching – truly a broad historical education) – and above all, the on the ground reality of stagnant or falling wages, massively increased house prices, and mass immigration by people you don’t really want to bring kids up among, indeed you don’t want to live among them yourself, but can’t afford to move away from. Oh, and the push for confused young men and women to declare themselves homosexual, if not transgender.

    Here’s what one British supermarket is pushing.

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/sainsburys-celebrates-black-history-month

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/splashing-orange-into-the-rainbow-of-pride

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/taking-pride-in-diversity

    “Allies are vital to making more colleagues aware of LGBT issues. In recent years, we have forged a productive mentoring relationship with the global consultancy company Accenture, which is helping to drive change within our business.”

    Nothing says diversity like Arthur Andersen.

    UK real median male wages have fallen over the last 20 years, real house prices up 2.5 times. Real GDP increased, but its not reflected in wages.

    The symptoms of whites are an attenuated form of what we’ve seen among Native Americans, Aborigines, First Nations Canadians – which raises an interesting question – what are the demographics of those groups? Have they managed to combine drug and alcohol abuse and general dysfunction with decent fertility levels?

    • Replies: @bomag

    Have they [Native Americans] managed to combine drug and alcohol abuse and general dysfunction with decent fertility levels?
     
    From what I see: yes; reservations are a robust welfare state coupled with a culture that encourages child-bearing. Not much real economic activity around here, mainly gov't make-work jobs and handouts, but they're happy to be a leisure class.

    Not too encouraging, as there is the usual dysgenics going on: the most capable go off and join the childless harems in our urban centers, leaving the less thrilling prospects to propagate the next generation.
    , @Philip Owen
    Sacco and Vanzetti were amateurs. The Haymarket anarchist did a better job!
  132. @Reg Cæsar

    a volcel (a new category of human)
     
    Hardly.



    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/2a/f2/9d2af2ef34bfdbb9e83a0a6e201b0cfa.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXETs6TVAAAMF3A.jpg:large

    https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/styles/1200w/public/1/1-XIANG-Shengmo-Invitation-to-Reclusion_1.jpg?itok=MYzcRb3f

    Light sabers, LOL.

  133. @Smith
    That's real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.

    Culture, economy, ideologies all stems from demographics.

    The left forget that, which is why the left is always ruled by a rightist at the end of the days.

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.

    Demographics is certainly not the only worthwhile question. A much bigger issue is cultural disintegration. At this point in time, looking at western Europe or the US, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference if you could transform such places into white ethnostates. You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people. We trashed our own societies. And then we decided to finish the job by refusing to breed.

    • Replies: @bomag

    You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people.
     
    Okay, but even on fumes it is more attractive than quite a bit of the world.

    Modern transportation and population pressure has these societies slated for swamping by newcomers, which could well negate the possibility of a reboot after a couple of generations of stagnation.
    , @Smith
    No demographics, no culture.

    Hell, culture STEMS from demographics.

    As we can see in America, as there are more brown people, even white people start to act more like brown people.

    Culture can be remade/relearned, once genetics are lost, it takes costly genetic editing to reform.
    , @neutral

    We trashed our own societies
     
    There is now "we" here, the jews take the ultimate blame. They took over control of the USA, UK and USSR and it is they that firebombed white cities that resisted their rule, forced them to take mass non white immigration and produce the modern pop culture that preaches ethnic cleansing of whites. Jews trashed the white societies, we have to deal with the jews.
  134. @YetAnotherAnon
    White British and white Americans - indeed white Europeans - have steeply falling fertility, and it's not because they prefer to enjoy a country with more space - it's because they're not optimistic about the future.

    This isn't helped (to put it mildly) by a media pushing the idea that the world is doomed and you should stop breeding to save the planet, but there's also advertising (standard family is now black male/white female), TV and film,education with its emphasis on white sin (slavery, holocaust, Sacco and Vanzetti, lynching - truly a broad historical education) - and above all, the on the ground reality of stagnant or falling wages, massively increased house prices, and mass immigration by people you don't really want to bring kids up among, indeed you don't want to live among them yourself, but can't afford to move away from. Oh, and the push for confused young men and women to declare themselves homosexual, if not transgender.

    Here's what one British supermarket is pushing.

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/sainsburys-celebrates-black-history-month

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/splashing-orange-into-the-rainbow-of-pride

    https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/making-a-difference/our-values/our-stories/2017/taking-pride-in-diversity


    "Allies are vital to making more colleagues aware of LGBT issues. In recent years, we have forged a productive mentoring relationship with the global consultancy company Accenture, which is helping to drive change within our business."
     
    Nothing says diversity like Arthur Andersen.

    UK real median male wages have fallen over the last 20 years, real house prices up 2.5 times. Real GDP increased, but its not reflected in wages.

    The symptoms of whites are an attenuated form of what we've seen among Native Americans, Aborigines, First Nations Canadians - which raises an interesting question - what are the demographics of those groups? Have they managed to combine drug and alcohol abuse and general dysfunction with decent fertility levels?

    Have they [Native Americans] managed to combine drug and alcohol abuse and general dysfunction with decent fertility levels?

    From what I see: yes; reservations are a robust welfare state coupled with a culture that encourages child-bearing. Not much real economic activity around here, mainly gov’t make-work jobs and handouts, but they’re happy to be a leisure class.

    Not too encouraging, as there is the usual dysgenics going on: the most capable go off and join the childless harems in our urban centers, leaving the less thrilling prospects to propagate the next generation.

  135. @Curious

    Were the Turks the big demographic winners of the 20th century?
     
    Maybe, but they look set to lose in the 21st. Even putting aside the kurdish question, Turkey has seen a huge surge of arabic and generally islamic immigration. I'm not even talking about refugees. Turkish citizenship is very cheap to aquire and their property laws are hyperliberal for foreigners.

    A large number of Arabs (biggest group being Iraqis and not Syrians last year), Afghans, Pakistanis and other muslims now immigrate to the country. Worse, Turkey is seeing a shift in emigration patterns. It is not the gastarbeiter types who are leaving but increasingly the well-educated. Erdogan's pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country. The biggest threat to his rule is not the moribound secular opposition but the nationalist right. By 2030, kurds will be 1/3rd of Turkey population and even greater share among the newborn. Add the arabs and other muslim populations and things start to look really bad for them.

    Wouldn't be surprised if they are the first NATO country to see an outright ethno-fascist leader rise to power over the coming decade or two.

    @ Colin Wright
    What a load of Islamophobic claptrap.
    American Zio-Christians are ethnofascists, so are most Europeans

  136. The opening graphic/painting is……Graphic.

    As graphic as a Citizens Comprehensive Land Use Plan substantial deviation proposal from open rural/ agriculture to residential/ retail notice posted on an idyllic US landscape.

  137. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Besides a few commentators here that have given a few statements about the true nature of low birthrates or low "fertility", almost no one here seems to be serious about solving the low birthrate problem.

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women's rights. Abolish women's education, right to work, right to vote and etc.

    The breeder population groups like Russians of Arkhangelsk, Russian Old Believers, Kosovo Serbs, Mormons, Amish, Haredi and etc all have in common the fact that their women are behaving as they are naturally supposed to; by giving birth and raising many kids. That is, they're not getting "educated" or going to work at modern corporate jobs in large numbers (if at all).

    By chance or randomness, all those groups have ended up in circumstances where despite the many obstacles placed by "modernity", and other unnatural dynamics, on women to interact with men how they're naturally supposed to and to do what they're supposed to.

    Of course, there are other circumstances such as devastating wars, famines, droughts and etc that can negatively affect birth rates, although in the modern world it is by far Feminism and women's rights.

    I suspect though, since I've seen many white knights (some cucks as well, idk) going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates, that you'll start criticizing me. All I'll say in advance is that I won't even bother responding and that you guys need to learn the truth about the nature of women ...

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote

    Isn’t it better if the blue-haired feminists don’t reproduce?

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Isn’t it better if the blue-haired feminists don’t reproduce?

     

    Have to disagree even though I understand your attitude.

    The current state of affairs is untenable. By focusing on "blue-haired feminists", you've lost sight of the most important issue of declining birthrates. Those women are only "blue-haired feminists" as a product of social conditioning, politics, government enacted laws and etc ...

    Those women could easily be something else besides "blue-haired feminists" in the right circumstances.
  138. @Willem
    1) there is quantity and quality, and while the former is much easier to define, the latter is much more important
    2) culture is overestimated, and since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another. What matters is an even distribution of healthcare, possibilities, and ability to let your off-spring get a life that can be defined as ‘decent’. This world is incredibly rich in resources. No reason, except for greed, that say 5% of the world population owns 90% of everything that is produced worldwide.
    3) it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist. Bright, yet blind...

    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.
     
    You can accept some elements of Marxist analysis as useful and valuable without having to accept the Marxist solutions. You don't have to be a Marxist to realise that class is crucial and that we're in the middle of a class war.
  139. @Mr. XYZ

    I’d guess currently there are about 32 million ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine. Russia’s population is about 145 million. So the ethnic Ukrainian population is 22.1% of Russia’s population.
     
    Shouldn't you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They'd give Russia a slight boost right now--albeit one that probably isn't that large.

    Shouldn’t you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They’d give Russia a slight boost right now–albeit one that probably isn’t that large.

    Sure. However the purpose of such comparisons is to imply that Ukraine has a much weaker position vis a vis Russia due to the change in population ratios. But whether or not Crimea is in Russia, this doesn’t change. It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders. It was, on the contrary, a disadvantage – a lot of those Russians were high ranking military officers or government officials, who would probably not side with Ukraine in case of conflict with Russia. So again, the fact that Ukraine had about 33% of Russia’s population in 1991, vs. ~24% in 2019 is much less meaningful than the fact that ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian state were 25% of Russia’s population in 1991 vs. 22% today.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    In a straight up military confrontation? Sure, that's more significant.

    In terms of economic heft? Quite the opposite. And economic heft does carry over somewhat into hard power. (However, as you probably correctly argue, a more ethnically consolidated Ukraine may be expected to be more economically successful, canceling out the absolute population loss).
    , @annamaria
    "It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders."

    -- What would be your opinion of the advantage of having Mr. Groysman, Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Kolomojsky, Mr. Pinchuk, Mr. Zlochevsky and similar eminent Jewish pipers calling the tune in Ukraine?
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/10/biden-timeline.html
    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282575/jews-center-stage-in-ukraine-elections


    The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine’s Jews would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.
     
    Mazel Tov!
  140. @songbird

    The name continues to be used in Ukraine.
     
    That's interesting. I didn't know that.

    I’ve always meant to (but never have) obtained a copy of a popular Ukrainian TV series about the life of Roxalana. It was quite popular about 15 years ago. I’ve read mixed reviews, but from what I’ve seen (snippets here and there) it looked kind of interesting?…

    • Replies: @songbird
    I've heard there's a Turkish soap somewhat centered around her. I'd never watch a Turkish soap, but it would be an interesting story if it were given a high-brow treatment, with a very limited episode count.

    Not to mention, some ruthless courtly intrigue between women would be a good antidote to all the Mary Sue stuff that is being pushed nowadays.
  141. @dfordoom

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.
     
    Demographics is certainly not the only worthwhile question. A much bigger issue is cultural disintegration. At this point in time, looking at western Europe or the US, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if you could transform such places into white ethnostates. You'd still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people. We trashed our own societies. And then we decided to finish the job by refusing to breed.

    You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people.

    Okay, but even on fumes it is more attractive than quite a bit of the world.

    Modern transportation and population pressure has these societies slated for swamping by newcomers, which could well negate the possibility of a reboot after a couple of generations of stagnation.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people.
     
    Okay, but even on fumes it is more attractive than quite a bit of the world.
     
    Not for much longer. The decadence seems to have built an unstoppable momentum. Not to mention the momentum towards soft totalitarianism. Both of which are entirely unconnected with demographics.

    And it's increasingly less attractive than quite a bit of the world.
  142. @anonymous coward

    ...going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates...
     
    A profoundly stupid comment. 'Feminism' and "women's rights" were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

    So yes, men are to blame.

    You're not really stupid enough to think that women up and 'liberated' themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

    A profoundly stupid comment. ‘Feminism’ and “women’s rights” were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

    Feminism, women’s rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s (more creative than doing triple brackets signalling, imo). You should take the time to research it instead of insulting me.

    You’re not really stupid enough to think that women up and ‘liberated’ themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

    No.

    So yes, men are to blame.

    Again, J***sh men …

    • Replies: @annamaria
    Mister, google "Haredim."
    , @AP

    Feminism, women’s rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s
     
    Feminism came from Sartre (a man lol). He was not a Jew but half French and half Alsatian (Lutheran). Sartre's debased sex-slave Simone de Beauvoir was a Frenchwoman.

    Women's rights - according to wiki in the modern world was first proposed by the Englishman of radical Protestant descent John Locke.

    Pornography - brought into the mainstream by Hugh Hefner, of Swedish, German and English descent, presumably a Lutheran background. The other famous pornographer Larry Flynt is an American Southern evangelical Christian.

    These things seem to be a Protestant legacy.
  143. @songbird

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote
     
    Isn't it better if the blue-haired feminists don't reproduce?

    Isn’t it better if the blue-haired feminists don’t reproduce?

    Have to disagree even though I understand your attitude.

    The current state of affairs is untenable. By focusing on “blue-haired feminists”, you’ve lost sight of the most important issue of declining birthrates. Those women are only “blue-haired feminists” as a product of social conditioning, politics, government enacted laws and etc …

    Those women could easily be something else besides “blue-haired feminists” in the right circumstances.

  144. @Mr. Hack
    I've always meant to (but never have) obtained a copy of a popular Ukrainian TV series about the life of Roxalana. It was quite popular about 15 years ago. I've read mixed reviews, but from what I've seen (snippets here and there) it looked kind of interesting?...

    I’ve heard there’s a Turkish soap somewhat centered around her. I’d never watch a Turkish soap, but it would be an interesting story if it were given a high-brow treatment, with a very limited episode count.

    Not to mention, some ruthless courtly intrigue between women would be a good antidote to all the Mary Sue stuff that is being pushed nowadays.

  145. @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Besides a few commentators here that have given a few statements about the true nature of low birthrates or low "fertility", almost no one here seems to be serious about solving the low birthrate problem.

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women's rights. Abolish women's education, right to work, right to vote and etc.

    The breeder population groups like Russians of Arkhangelsk, Russian Old Believers, Kosovo Serbs, Mormons, Amish, Haredi and etc all have in common the fact that their women are behaving as they are naturally supposed to; by giving birth and raising many kids. That is, they're not getting "educated" or going to work at modern corporate jobs in large numbers (if at all).

    By chance or randomness, all those groups have ended up in circumstances where despite the many obstacles placed by "modernity", and other unnatural dynamics, on women to interact with men how they're naturally supposed to and to do what they're supposed to.

    Of course, there are other circumstances such as devastating wars, famines, droughts and etc that can negatively affect birth rates, although in the modern world it is by far Feminism and women's rights.

    I suspect though, since I've seen many white knights (some cucks as well, idk) going on about how things like porn, and the behavior of men are to blame for low birthrates, that you'll start criticizing me. All I'll say in advance is that I won't even bother responding and that you guys need to learn the truth about the nature of women ...

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote and etc.

    OK, let’s talk about that [0]. I’ve seen a few cases where something like that was attempted, and been related to at least one woman who tried it. This didn’t work out well — result was death, sterility, insanity, from resentment on the part of the women involved. The one woman who actively pursued life outside feminism seems to be doing pretty well, but her life is in its early stages.

    We can also consider the true nature of women (not that anybody really knows what it is, even the women involved. Part of women’s nature appears to be resistance to description.).

    Source background: I’ve followed feminism since the 1960s in real time, read enough of the second wave source books to understand some of the appeal (roughly, “you’ll drive a better bargain with men if you aren’t utterly dependent, and have more social prestige also”), read some of the third wave material and have enough background to understand something of the the appeal there (“the second wave ‘better bargain’ doesn’t work, so it’s time to go full Medea [1] or to play Artemis the Huntress [2]”), also.

    So the way things work now is that men [3] (not all men, but men) call the shots for feminists, the West has seen marriage and family formation destabilized for the past, oh, 60 years or so, and the women are convinced that it is the fault of individual men and have retreated into being difficult or by outright divorcing (and siccing the cops on) the men in their lives.
    The men, bluntly, are cracking under the strain [4]. They can’t even support themselves, and it turns out that women won’t marry men who have a worse job than they do, and tend not to psychologically support the men they marry. (Rosie appears to be an exception.) Add this to women divorcing men who have a better job than they do if the man works hard enough to neglect them, and there isn’t a winning choice for the men or women, unless you count promiscuity (which is dangerous and only possible for women until age, maybe, 35).
    On top of this, women support the laws that are making life difficult for them, apparently under the impression that they are strengthening their hand inside marriage. I well remember the 1950s, back when people realized that _work was done only because it was necessary_ [5], and wasn’t a fashion accessory or a recreation. I’ve had several relatives die from their work, and they didn’t have fun doing it.

    Fact of the matter is that men can’t do all that much about the current situation. Women have had their basic natures [6] cruelly exploited, told that their problems could be solved by doing things that made the problem worse [7]. Right now, the men are following, of necessity, the HAL strategy from _2001_: “I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation, and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause.” This would indeed follow your suggested course of action, but is clearly a very risky strategy (you remember that the entire crew save one was killed in _2001_). The men (all of them, worldwide) are just as cracked as HAL was in _2001_ [7a]. However, it’s not only all that’s available, it seems to be unavoidable (unless, of course, Trump survives, wins, and pulls off a near miracle [8]).
    The cities are nearly at the end of their lifetime, and when they go, we are left with a distributed production economy and a whole lot of city dwellers with no place to go. They just might descend on the countryside in enough strength to make the distributed economy impossible. Just taking down the electrical grid and destroying a few generators / transformers would make a distributed national scale economy impossible. Even if this did not happen, simple failure of the US Dollar based global trading network would lead to the same result. As I’ve pointed out, the global trading network would then, most likely, fail in a cascade of regional warfare.

    Frankly, I don’t like the “let it fail” strategy, and any suggestions for avoiding the situation would be welcome. Remember, Ron Unz has made a site that has considerable readership, more than _National Review_, so ideas presented here could spread.

    Any thoughts?

    Counterinsurgency

    [MORE]

    0] Favorite theorist just now is Karen Straughan, MRA (Men’s rights advocate). She doesn’t quite agree with you, but suggests that the current situation can’t last. (see: “Fempocalypse!!” vide0). Take a look here.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)
    Women generally don’t do well if left alone by the husband, and seem to need constant active affection. As with most mammals (and men are mammals also) women are quite capable of abandoning their current offspring if neglected. Since women also need the man’s income, this has led to some very bad outcomes as the man is away (or overworked and uncommunicative or bad tempered) for extended intervals and the nonverbal part of the woman’s mind concludes that the woman has been abandoned.

    2] “Artemis, the Chaste Huntress: You Really Didn’t Want to Mess With This Greek Goddess”.
    https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/artemis-0011002
    Take a look at the first picture, “Earlier images of Artemis from 650 BC . . .”. I’ve seen that expression on the face of a woman who almost qualified for the USAF Thunderbirds, but not quite because of some intrinsic spatial orientation problems, a contemporary Artemis who, thank goodness, did end up married and seems fairly happy but can’t quite reconcile a huntress nature with men and life.

    3] You’re right there, about a decade ago one of the NOW women defected and said flatly that the NOW leadership did nothing without directions from the Democratic Party. I’ve been amazed at the identity of organizations that have turned out to be controlled opposition, or even controlled support. Women’s organizations seem quite vulnerable — Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) was apparently taken over by professional managers who awarded themselves very high salaries and chased all the independent women out. I’ve seen things like that happen; it is currently going on in US school boards right now (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/election-day-2019-why-your-local-vote-matters/).

    4] https://www.curbed.com/2017/10/10/16450394/millennial-living-at-home-housing-homeownership

    5] Work as a “vocation” was considered good in Protestant circles, which were large, but try to find a vocation in the modern workplace and you’ll fail every time. The person chooses a vocation, and corporations don’t like the loss of domination involved in having people who can choose what they are doing. Hence the idea that one hires an employee, who then does what he (or she) is told, as opposed to hiring a specialist and letting him (or her) work in the specialty.

    6] Woman’s basic nature which is plausibly a psychology based on extracting enough resources from whatever man is available to support themselves and their babies through the kids 15th or so birthday. Men seem to have two basic natures (or to come in two sorts). One specializes in provisioning a woman (or several in polygamous societies) and the other in letting other men provision his children (if any) while he does something else.

    7] Victorian era surgery to remove lower ribs to “enhance the figure”, or the use of arsenic to make the skin lighter
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/mWN-yvDM2Pl/Arsenic+Wafers
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/QwQvnR8Jpdw/Makeup+Killed+Through+History

    7a]

    8] Not likely, unfortunately, as the Western Left political establishment appears ready and stupid enough to pull a Kamikazi / Götterdämmerung response to losing power. Still, might happen.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Any thoughts?

     

    What's up with you over dramatizing things by making generalizations (without providing concrete examples) about how women have apparently died when they have had their "rights" taken away from them?

    You give off the vibe of some kind of wierd troll or shill that has a malicious purpose, so I'm really not interested in engaging with you at all ...
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Ron Unz, is there a way to add more markup within posts, e.g. superscript for notes?
  146. Hitler had a very interesting observation in Mein Kampf regarding the difference in population growth between Germany and France. He said that the French had made it a national policy to reduce births, in order to prevent population growth that might overburden resources. Germans had not.

    He opined that the French had grown significantly weaker and Germany significantly stronger, because unnatural restraints on population reduce the competition for scarce resources. Natural restraints on population make a nation stronger by increasing competition for the resources that sustain life. Every person becomes stronger in the struggle to survive and prosper.

    He, therefore, was opposed to abortion and contraception as national policies. His solution to an unsupportable population, if there should ever be one, was lebensraum.

  147. So-called “empowering” women does nothing for the overall birthrate; all it does is front-load the births. I.e., the women who were going to have children anyway are having them earlier. In actuality, women’s lib has been a disaster across all measures for Western society but most especially in terms of TFR:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-global-fertility-crash/

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Any fool knows that it was the intention.

    A few major second-wave feminist writers made some sense at times.

    The Jewish coterie (the happilly married Betty Friedan, of course to a fellow Jew, the grossly obese lesbian orc Bela Abzug whose real name I forget. Steinem, , 90% another + ugly jewish women, were the main claimers of bullshit, and very much dominant. In fact, it was only them and their onther conpirators. .

  148. @AP

    Shouldn’t you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They’d give Russia a slight boost right now–albeit one that probably isn’t that large.
     
    Sure. However the purpose of such comparisons is to imply that Ukraine has a much weaker position vis a vis Russia due to the change in population ratios. But whether or not Crimea is in Russia, this doesn't change. It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders. It was, on the contrary, a disadvantage - a lot of those Russians were high ranking military officers or government officials, who would probably not side with Ukraine in case of conflict with Russia. So again, the fact that Ukraine had about 33% of Russia's population in 1991, vs. ~24% in 2019 is much less meaningful than the fact that ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian state were 25% of Russia's population in 1991 vs. 22% today.

    In a straight up military confrontation? Sure, that’s more significant.

    In terms of economic heft? Quite the opposite. And economic heft does carry over somewhat into hard power. (However, as you probably correctly argue, a more ethnically consolidated Ukraine may be expected to be more economically successful, canceling out the absolute population loss).

  149. @RadicalCenter
    If we in the West do not supply massive aid to Africa, hundreds of millions of Africans will starve or kill each other.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to supply such aid fairly soon. As it is, much of the USA's federal budget is borrowed, and this has been the case for almost all of the past thirty-five years -- especially under Obama and Trump.

    Even the US fed gov's dishonest on-the-books budget reveals that our rulers are borrowing one TRILLION dollars in FY 2019 out of $4.75 Trillion in spending. FY2020 looks about the same. We are back at the annual deficit levels of Obama's first term (and his second term involved massive borrowing, too, just not as much).

    Certainly I hope that the next generation of Westerns is unWILLING to subsidize the dimwits in their mindless breeding, whether able to subsidize them or not. Then again, if we re not able to get the gov to stop subsidizing mindless breeding by our dimwits right here at home, what are the odds we'll grow some balls and gain some common sense re Africa.

    Africa’s main hazard would be a breakdown in global trade. Should that happen, the current African population would find itself standing between China and the raw materials that China’s industrial economy needs. Not a safe place to stand.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @zogborg
    I'm generally anti-China, but I would be grateful if China could solve the African problem once and for all. The entire world will be swamped with these subhuman primates if Africa is not successfully neutralized.
  150. My guesstimate is that the planet can support ~100 billion people.

    With Whites extinct who will feed them?

  151. @Anatman
    So-called "empowering" women does nothing for the overall birthrate; all it does is front-load the births. I.e., the women who were going to have children anyway are having them earlier. In actuality, women's lib has been a disaster across all measures for Western society but most especially in terms of TFR:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-global-fertility-crash/

    Any fool knows that it was the intention.

    A few major second-wave feminist writers made some sense at times.

    The Jewish coterie (the happilly married Betty Friedan, of course to a fellow Jew, the grossly obese lesbian orc Bela Abzug whose real name I forget. Steinem, , 90% another + ugly jewish women, were the main claimers of bullshit, and very much dominant. In fact, it was only them and their onther conpirators. .

    • Replies: @Anatman
    Um, no.

    It's quite simply really. Do you believe women should have the right to vote, yes or no? If yes, you are a feminist. If no, congratulations, you have an IQ above 80 or at least are substantially resistant to idealistic egalitarian humanistic claptrap.

    No one group who aren't net taxpayers should have the right to vote. Otherwise you get mob rule, begets parasitism, and parasitism is unsustainable. Take your solipsistic Boomer logic elsewhere.
  152. @Erik Sieven
    I think one big problem of North East Asians is that they have no breeder group. At least I have never heard of any region, religious group or anything like that in Japan with high fertility.

    Breeder groups are inherently unstable because their behavior is culturally motivated. There is little reason to believe that most Amish, Mormon or Haredi women have genetic disposition to have more children than their peer populations on average. Change their society/environment radically and they will stop breeding – just like most of the traditional societies did with urbanization. Mormons are probably the most resilient group, but I cannot imagine how either Amish or Haredis can keep the functioning, once they become the absolute majority in their countries and have to support the (ultra-complex) modern state structures themselves.
    What ultimately changes the demographic trend upwards is natural selection among “normal” people, picking out the genotypes that increase the desire to have many children in modern urban environment.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the "Amish quotient" has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.
    , @songbird
    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?
    , @Emslander
    The Amish way of life appears more and more appealing to young people in this wasteland. The American agricultural system is dependent upon governments. The Amish system of farming supports its participants in addition to multiples of consumers who are not participants.

    It seemed to me for a while that the Unz commenters were thinking beyond the failed modernism. It's becoming clear that commenters here aren't quite as aware as they pretend to be. Modern urbanism is bankrupt. Most cities will be deserted within the lifetime of the next generation. The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.
  153. @lauris71
    Breeder groups are inherently unstable because their behavior is culturally motivated. There is little reason to believe that most Amish, Mormon or Haredi women have genetic disposition to have more children than their peer populations on average. Change their society/environment radically and they will stop breeding - just like most of the traditional societies did with urbanization. Mormons are probably the most resilient group, but I cannot imagine how either Amish or Haredis can keep the functioning, once they become the absolute majority in their countries and have to support the (ultra-complex) modern state structures themselves.
    What ultimately changes the demographic trend upwards is natural selection among "normal" people, picking out the genotypes that increase the desire to have many children in modern urban environment.

    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the “Amish quotient” has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    There may be another factor involved.

    A century ago mainstream society was much more similar to Amish society than it is today.

    Thus the shock of abandoning the Amish community is much greater now.
    , @dfordoom

    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the “Amish quotient” has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.
     
    It's also possible that life outside the Amish community has become a lot less attractive to kids brought up with a strong religious faith.

    A century ago, or even say 60 years ago, the outside world was less hostile to people with a religious worldview. And there was a lot less degeneracy in the outside world. The outside world could be seen as offering more freedom without the necessity of hiding one's religious beliefs or wallowing in the gutter. And the outside world would have seemed less culturally alien to someone raised as an Amish. OK, there were cars and radios and gramophones but the outside world didn't offer unlimited porn, child drag queens, gay bathhouses, the celebration of slut culture and angry blue-haired lesbians.

    For every genetic explanation there's an equally convincing cultural explanation.
  154. @Anatoly Karlin
    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the "Amish quotient" has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.

    There may be another factor involved.

    A century ago mainstream society was much more similar to Amish society than it is today.

    Thus the shock of abandoning the Amish community is much greater now.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    Rumspringa ain't what it use to be.
  155. Cut off all aid to Africa and ban all immigration from Africa.

  156. @lauris71
    Breeder groups are inherently unstable because their behavior is culturally motivated. There is little reason to believe that most Amish, Mormon or Haredi women have genetic disposition to have more children than their peer populations on average. Change their society/environment radically and they will stop breeding - just like most of the traditional societies did with urbanization. Mormons are probably the most resilient group, but I cannot imagine how either Amish or Haredis can keep the functioning, once they become the absolute majority in their countries and have to support the (ultra-complex) modern state structures themselves.
    What ultimately changes the demographic trend upwards is natural selection among "normal" people, picking out the genotypes that increase the desire to have many children in modern urban environment.

    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?
     
    Another point to consider is that the Amish population is still small enough to be disregarded as a threat by mainstream society, by the government and by the media. What are they, 0.1% of the US population? They're still so few that they arouse little hostility.

    What happens when they reach 1% of the population? Or 2%? Or 5%? Will we start hearing about the existential threat posed by the Amish? Will we be told that the Amish are about to go all Handmaid's Tale on the rest of the population? At the very least they're likely to attract a lot more hostility from SJWs.

    What will happen when they make up a significant share of the population in states like Pennsylvania? Will there be demands that sanctions be imposed on Pennsylvania?

    The Amish are going to run into really major problems long long before they're anywhere near to being a majority.
  157. @Counterinsurgency
    Africa's main hazard would be a breakdown in global trade. Should that happen, the current African population would find itself standing between China and the raw materials that China's industrial economy needs. Not a safe place to stand.

    Counterinsurgency

    I’m generally anti-China, but I would be grateful if China could solve the African problem once and for all. The entire world will be swamped with these subhuman primates if Africa is not successfully neutralized.

  158. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have often thought along similar lines.

    Germany obviously failed at becoming world hegemon, as was its maximalist aim (though its attempts were respectable).

    But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.

    ‘But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.’

    ? Germans wound up eliminated from East Prussia and Silesia, and no longer present as a major group in the Baltic States, Romania, Moldova, the Western Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, and wherever the Yugoslavian Banat is now. Moreover, in at least Poland, East Prussia, Silesia, and the Banat they were replaced by Slavs.

    I’d say it rolled the Drang nach Osten back a good seven hundred years. I doubt if the German people could survive another such ‘success.’

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. "Normal" Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher - at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France's per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.
  159. @Mr. XYZ

    Now imagine that this doubling has not affected all nations equally. Imagine that this new world contains a far higher relative proportion of Africans, Indians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. (Mormon fertility isn’t far above replacement these days. It has declined sharply in recent years, and this decline shows no signs of abating.)
     
    I thought that Indians (even those in India) don't reproduce that much nowadays either?

    India is still above replacement overall, whereas China has been below-replacement for nearly 30 years. In no time at all, India shall be the most populous country on Earth, if it isn’t already. And India is far more likely than Europe or China to have breeder populations — indeed, they already do. In some states, TFR is around or over 3.0, and many Indian Muslims, like Muslim minorities elsewhere, seem to view reproduction as a strategic tool of conquest, to the consternation of the Hindu majority. (And perhaps, in a feedback effect somewhat reminiscent of Israel, this provokes those Hindus into having more children themselves.) Thus fertility in certain Indian communities may never fall below replacement. Other Indian communities, in stark contrast, are already far below replacement — it is said that the Jains have a TFR of just 1.2.

    That the future will have a higher relative proportion of Indians is all but certain.

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
    Future, my good friend, is going to bring a violent clash between the Hindus and the Muslims of India for their dwindling resources and the outcome isn't gonna be pretty for both sides.
  160. @bomag

    You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people.
     
    Okay, but even on fumes it is more attractive than quite a bit of the world.

    Modern transportation and population pressure has these societies slated for swamping by newcomers, which could well negate the possibility of a reboot after a couple of generations of stagnation.

    You’d still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people.

    Okay, but even on fumes it is more attractive than quite a bit of the world.

    Not for much longer. The decadence seems to have built an unstoppable momentum. Not to mention the momentum towards soft totalitarianism. Both of which are entirely unconnected with demographics.

    And it’s increasingly less attractive than quite a bit of the world.

  161. @Anatoly Karlin
    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the "Amish quotient" has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.

    The rate of retention amongst the Amish community has risen from something like 70% a century ago to almost 95% today. This suggests that what one might call the “Amish quotient” has been getting selected for, as Greg Cochran has argued. Pro-natalism genes are likely part of that.

    It’s also possible that life outside the Amish community has become a lot less attractive to kids brought up with a strong religious faith.

    A century ago, or even say 60 years ago, the outside world was less hostile to people with a religious worldview. And there was a lot less degeneracy in the outside world. The outside world could be seen as offering more freedom without the necessity of hiding one’s religious beliefs or wallowing in the gutter. And the outside world would have seemed less culturally alien to someone raised as an Amish. OK, there were cars and radios and gramophones but the outside world didn’t offer unlimited porn, child drag queens, gay bathhouses, the celebration of slut culture and angry blue-haired lesbians.

    For every genetic explanation there’s an equally convincing cultural explanation.

  162. @Erik Sieven
    I think one big problem of North East Asians is that they have no breeder group. At least I have never heard of any region, religious group or anything like that in Japan with high fertility.
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    That's very interesting!
  163. @Thorfinnsson
    There may be another factor involved.

    A century ago mainstream society was much more similar to Amish society than it is today.

    Thus the shock of abandoning the Amish community is much greater now.

    Rumspringa ain’t what it use to be.

  164. @songbird
    How well have the Mormons done in Mexico? If badly, what is the basis for supposing they will easily expand into the SW US?

    I guess that is the interesting question: how do groups like the Old Order Mennonites do abroad, in nonwhite countries?

    Belize has about 12,000 Old Order Mennonites. I believe they came in the mid 20th century, after cheap arable land. They do quite well down there, by my brother’s account (he lived there for a couple years). They account for much of Belize’s industrial food system. Seems like they do quite well and get along just fine with the native Maya, etc.

  165. @Counterinsurgency
    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.

    Counterinsurgency

    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.

    You can accept some elements of Marxist analysis as useful and valuable without having to accept the Marxist solutions. You don’t have to be a Marxist to realise that class is crucial and that we’re in the middle of a class war.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    You can accept some elements of Marxist analysis as useful and valuable without having to accept the Marxist solutions. You don’t have to be a Marxist to realize that class is crucial and that we’re in the middle of a class war.
     
    Well, as you can see by looking at what I've written, I tend to think in terms of sociological regions and intrusive groups, but more region than groups. To me, the classes are functional parts of groups. It's certainly true that the rich are not functional in the contemporary West, and also that they are one of the groups responsible for the impoverishment of the Western non-rich, but it is also true that the same things could be said about quite a few groups. For a very large example, the educational / intellectual scene is not run by the rich --I tend to believe that the largest influence is from the US region settled from New Englander during the 1800s. New England always did fund higher education and take it more seriously than the rest of the US.
    One of my themes is that a coalition between the New England area and the New York City area (descendant of a Dutch trading post and still interested mostly in profitable trade) has been responsible for immigration since the AD 1840s, and for the Civil War, and that what is happening now is very similar to what happened then. Class is important, and business people / religious fanatics clearly direct much of what is happening, but both are acting in accordance with what their regions have done in the past. The Deep South, which also has religious people and business people, does not favor de-industrialization and high immigration. Niether does Texas.

    For a popularization of the region hypothesis, you might look at Woodward, _American Nations_, www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html

    Counterinsurgency
  166. @Willem
    1) there is quantity and quality, and while the former is much easier to define, the latter is much more important
    2) culture is overestimated, and since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another. What matters is an even distribution of healthcare, possibilities, and ability to let your off-spring get a life that can be defined as ‘decent’. This world is incredibly rich in resources. No reason, except for greed, that say 5% of the world population owns 90% of everything that is produced worldwide.
    3) it surprises me that people like Anthony Karlin can’t see that the culture struggle is a class struggle. He surely seems bright enough, yet doesn’t even discuss class in this culture struggle analysis, as if class does not exist. Bright, yet blind...

    since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another

    Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Willem!

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

  167. @songbird
    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?

    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?

    Another point to consider is that the Amish population is still small enough to be disregarded as a threat by mainstream society, by the government and by the media. What are they, 0.1% of the US population? They’re still so few that they arouse little hostility.

    What happens when they reach 1% of the population? Or 2%? Or 5%? Will we start hearing about the existential threat posed by the Amish? Will we be told that the Amish are about to go all Handmaid’s Tale on the rest of the population? At the very least they’re likely to attract a lot more hostility from SJWs.

    What will happen when they make up a significant share of the population in states like Pennsylvania? Will there be demands that sanctions be imposed on Pennsylvania?

    The Amish are going to run into really major problems long long before they’re anywhere near to being a majority.

    • Replies: @songbird
    If the Amish were a large enough group, they would probably be called Nazis.
  168. David Fischer Hackett.

    It’s David Hackett Fischer.

  169. @Charon

    We are certainly not one ethnicity in any meaningful sense.
     
    Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I'm unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other 'ethnicity'. I'd say that's meaningful.

    Separately, more in line with the principal topic here, I join with a few other commenters who are fairly horrified by the notion of a planet groaning under the weight of 10 billion humans, much less 100 billion.

    Before an online sperg jumps on me, I'm talking about things like environmental depredations and vanishing species. One day we may finally respect the amazing range of animal life this planet had. But much of it will be gone.

    >Pretty much anywhere I go in this land of ours, I can count on white people being friendly, or at the very least civil. Unfortunately I’m unable to maintain a similar expectation with any other ‘ethnicity’. I’d say that’s meaningful.

    It used to be accepted as a truism and self-evident that America was a melting pot that homogenized the many strands of white immigrant ethnicities and came up with a new culture which is immediately recognizable. Check out a bunch of American girl tourists abroad; their speech and gait is unmistakable: charming, naive and VERY LOUD compared to say the French that quiet repressed people.

    I suspect that the American melting pot is still operative and now includes Asians like Koreans and Chinese and many Hispanics. I get that impression partly by real world experience and partly by Asians and Hispanics on the TV speaking acentless American English which is the acid test of nationality.

  170. According to the 1900 population chart, South Africa only had a population of 1.4 million in 1900, but the population today is somewhere around 55 million. I wonder what the white % of the population was in 1900? The black population exploded as a result of the improved medical care that the whites brought, yet they were rewarded with a massive explosion in black crime and have had the country stolen from them…

    • Replies: @neutral
    I also have to add that around 1900 the white population was around 25% of the population, now it is around 9% with the same fertility rates as the other formerly white nations.
  171. @dfordoom

    The Amish will never become the majority. They are pacifistic technophobes. How much land is really open to Amish farming methods? And at a price conducive to buying? How would they do in South Africa? Or farming the abandoned lots in Detroit?
     
    Another point to consider is that the Amish population is still small enough to be disregarded as a threat by mainstream society, by the government and by the media. What are they, 0.1% of the US population? They're still so few that they arouse little hostility.

    What happens when they reach 1% of the population? Or 2%? Or 5%? Will we start hearing about the existential threat posed by the Amish? Will we be told that the Amish are about to go all Handmaid's Tale on the rest of the population? At the very least they're likely to attract a lot more hostility from SJWs.

    What will happen when they make up a significant share of the population in states like Pennsylvania? Will there be demands that sanctions be imposed on Pennsylvania?

    The Amish are going to run into really major problems long long before they're anywhere near to being a majority.

    If the Amish were a large enough group, they would probably be called Nazis.

  172. @songbird
    I can't decide whether I would make Europe invisible on African maps or fill it with ice dragons.

    Vorkuta would be a great location for a deportation camp. Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta, before being deported back.

    Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta

    It’s a very sensible plan.

    Vorkuta is probably one of the only places in Europe (technically is just inside Europe!) which they will not welcome going, while they would be welcomed by the local population.

    In Soviet times, Vorkuta was a city of 115,000 people. While today, there are only around 70,000 inhabitants in the city.

    These cities whose “golden age” was in the Soviet Union, and today they are heavily declining.
    Young people are leaving these cities, and the old people are dying and not being replaced.

    As a result of the falling population of the city, there is now quite a high proportion of empty buildings there, where the immigrants can live (they just need to fix the roof – and welcome to paradise!).

    Maybe also an advertising campaign in Africa of “Welcome to Europe” – with videos of Vorkuta, to “attract” them.

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    around 70,000 inhabitants in the city
     
    Actually, the later figures are only 58,000 people now (although that does not include neighbouring towns like Vorgashor which has soldiers there on a military base - the whole metropolis now has only 80,000). There is such a decline of population since 2010 (when Vorkuta had 70,000).
  173. @Daniel Chieh

    since humans are the same everywhere, it does not really matter which population of a certain country grows faster than another
     
    Surely You're Joking, Mr. Willem!

    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    • Replies: @Gary5775
    @Willem

    Are you serious? As a white man, I certainly do see the difference between other races and myself. Blacks certainly look at whites, Asians, and other and see differences as well . Anyone who denies this is lying to themselves...
    , @Daniel Chieh

    And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.
     
    So when you need to pay your bill at a restaurant, you just randomly hand cash to the nearest available homo sapien blob. Good to know - and as it is all the same, can you please provide your name and credit card so that I, as another undifferentiated homo sapien blob, can get access to your financial resources?

    Thanks.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    Move to any ethnic urban area, live there for a year, then re-post. There is more to being identical than breathing oxygen and having a carbon based metabolism.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @iffen
    I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    You need glasses. Any pair will do, even the cheap ones off the rack at Dollar General.
    , @Colin Wright
    '... And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.'

    You can ignore anything if you just try hard enough.

    Stay away from blacks, though. Your enlightenment is likely to prove traumatic.
    , @Counterinsurgency

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and elaborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.
     
    OK, my previous comment wasn't that good, more of a standard reply.

    Your position is wrong. It is not wrong because of the way you look at people. It is wrong because of the way the people whose difference you say you can't see look at you. _They_ see a difference. In practice, the difference that they see is enough to break up the Democratic Party, as each different minority group in urban areas tries to seize control of the urban area for itself.

    If you think they are all mistaken, and you can cause them to realize this, then you could save the Democratic Party. If you cannot do that, then your failure to see difference is at variance with a major feature in your environment, comparable to that of a vision impaired person who won't use vision correction devices (e.g. glasses) or accept corrective surgery.

    Counterinsurgency
  174. @Dmitry

    Overstay a visa, or try to enter Europe illegally and spend a winter in Vorkuta
     
    It's a very sensible plan.

    Vorkuta is probably one of the only places in Europe (technically is just inside Europe!) which they will not welcome going, while they would be welcomed by the local population.

    In Soviet times, Vorkuta was a city of 115,000 people. While today, there are only around 70,000 inhabitants in the city.

    These cities whose "golden age" was in the Soviet Union, and today they are heavily declining.
    Young people are leaving these cities, and the old people are dying and not being replaced.

    As a result of the falling population of the city, there is now quite a high proportion of empty buildings there, where the immigrants can live (they just need to fix the roof - and welcome to paradise!).

    Maybe also an advertising campaign in Africa of "Welcome to Europe" - with videos of Vorkuta, to "attract" them.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRzurfU8Fs

    around 70,000 inhabitants in the city

    Actually, the later figures are only 58,000 people now (although that does not include neighbouring towns like Vorgashor which has soldiers there on a military base – the whole metropolis now has only 80,000). There is such a decline of population since 2010 (when Vorkuta had 70,000).

  175. @Finnishdude
    -I thought some cossacks and old believers are russian "amish" with high fertility.

    " There are a total of 2 million old believers in Russia, and out of that some 200,000 are ultra-orthodox old believers, who don't have much contact with the outside world.

    Most of them are scattered around in the Siberian provinces of Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, HMAO, Tyva, Altay, Amur, and Khabarovsk. They constitute only 0.1 to 0.2% of the total Russian population.

    If you check the Provincial Statistics Site of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, you can see that the birth rate of "ultra-orthodox" old believer villages are 4 to 5 times higher than the surrounding villages.

    Although they are getting some media attention now, earlier they were almost completely forgotten by the government. Recently during the 2002 and 2010 Censuses, some of their villages were counted. No information exists for those who live deep inside the Taiga. For example, several hundreds of old believers live in the Tannu Ola and Sayan mountains of Tyva, but none of them were counted during the 2010 Census.

    One reason why some of the Provincial authorities count the more accessible old believer villages now is to show Putin that their birth rates are higher than the surrounding provinces. For example, up to 2008 Krasnoyarsk was having more deaths than births. When they started counting the births and deaths in the old believer villages, suddenly the province became one of the few regions in Russia with natural population growth. "

    -amish populatuin growth:

    Year Pop. %±
    1920 5,000 —
    1928 7,000 40.0%
    1936 9,000 28.6%
    1944 13,000 44.4%
    1952 19,000 46.2%
    1960 28,000 47.4%
    1968 39,000 39.3%
    1976 57,000 46.2%
    1984 84,000 47.4%
    1992 125,000 48.8%
    2000 166,000 32.8%
    2008 221,000 33.1%
    2010 249,000 12.7%

    from this i can deduce that the Amish have a growth rate of over 5% a year.
    more than 6.3% from 2008-2010.
    so here is where my equation comes in from there growth rates lets conservatively assume a 5% yearly growth rate this means that there population will easily double every 20 years.

    2010 250,000
    2030 500,000
    2050 1m
    2070 2m
    2090 4m
    2110 8m
    2130 16m
    2150 32m
    2170 64m
    2190 128m

    -in USA there is also 50 000 hutterites , 500 000 mennonites with quite high fertility.


    About jews:



    Ultra-Orthodox Jews are what ignorant people pejoratively call “black-hatters;” there are many different sects, from Chabad to Satmar, all divided based on traditions, theology, structure, and place of origin. One thing they all share in common however, is having a lot of kids.

    8 kids, to be exact.

    That’s right, the average Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women will have, in her lifetime, 8 kids, one of the highest, if not the highest, fertility rates of any group in the world. To provide some contrast, in Niger, the fastest-growing country in the world, the average woman has 7 kids.

    According to Professor Comenetz at the University of Florida,

    In America too, where the Jewish population is stable or declining, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish numbers are growing rapidly.

    The Ultra-orthodox population doubles every 20 years, which…may make the Jewish community not only more religiously observant but more politically conservative…the Ultra-orthodox population in 2000 was about 360,000, 7.2 per cent of the approximately 5 million Jews in the U.S.

    But in 2006, demographers now estimate the number had grown to 468,000 or 9.4 per cent.

    8 kids on average works out to about a 6% growth rate per year. Assuming a base population of 510,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the USA and UK in 2006, by the year 2050 there will be approximately…6,622,595 Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    There are only about 5,800,000 total Jews in the USA today.

    And what would their population be in 2100? 121,989,235, about the population of the UK and France combined (Note: This does not even take into account the 700,000-strong Israeli community, whose inclusion would raise the population projection to 15,712,433 and 289,425,442 people in 2050 and 2100 respectively).

    The highest fertility population in both Israel and the world, are the Israeli Bedouin Arabs. There fertility rate is reported as above 8.

    Their population was only 11,000 in the 1950s, and now they have a population of hundreds of thousands.

  176. @songbird

    So, I’d say it is idle to speculate.
     
    Based on archaeogenetics, I'm not optimistic about pacifists like the Amish.

    They’re not pacifists when deer season comes around. I don’t think I’ve ever failed to see an Amish guy fail to empty his magazine when shooting at a deer.

    • Replies: @songbird

    I don’t think I’ve ever failed to see an Amish guy fail to empty his magazine
     
    I'm amazed that they don't use musket balls.
  177. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    Are you serious? As a white man, I certainly do see the difference between other races and myself. Blacks certainly look at whites, Asians, and other and see differences as well . Anyone who denies this is lying to themselves…

  178. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    So when you need to pay your bill at a restaurant, you just randomly hand cash to the nearest available homo sapien blob. Good to know – and as it is all the same, can you please provide your name and credit card so that I, as another undifferentiated homo sapien blob, can get access to your financial resources?

    Thanks.

  179. @Curious

    Were the Turks the big demographic winners of the 20th century?
     
    Maybe, but they look set to lose in the 21st. Even putting aside the kurdish question, Turkey has seen a huge surge of arabic and generally islamic immigration. I'm not even talking about refugees. Turkish citizenship is very cheap to aquire and their property laws are hyperliberal for foreigners.

    A large number of Arabs (biggest group being Iraqis and not Syrians last year), Afghans, Pakistanis and other muslims now immigrate to the country. Worse, Turkey is seeing a shift in emigration patterns. It is not the gastarbeiter types who are leaving but increasingly the well-educated. Erdogan's pan-Islamism is eroding the ethnic character of the country. The biggest threat to his rule is not the moribound secular opposition but the nationalist right. By 2030, kurds will be 1/3rd of Turkey population and even greater share among the newborn. Add the arabs and other muslim populations and things start to look really bad for them.

    Wouldn't be surprised if they are the first NATO country to see an outright ethno-fascist leader rise to power over the coming decade or two.

    I agree, a country whose demography is ruined. ominous days await them

  180. “9) So far as I can tell, the Latvians, Estonians, and Ashkenazi Jews are the only peoples with fewer people today than in 1914. It is ironic that they played the most disproportionate roles (per capita) in cementing Bolshevism in Russia. God must really hate commies.”

    The international language of Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish: German for Jews, or if you prefer, slightly Judaized German. Culturally, Ashkenazi Jews were preponderantly Germanic.

    Today, the international language of Ashkenazi Jews is English and culturally they are preponderantly Anglo-Saxon. Of course, Anglo-Saxon is Germanic linguistically and culturally. So Jews still choose to be linguistically and culturally Germanic.

    Both Estonia and Latvia were strongly influenced by German language and, especially, culture, including Lutheranism and the forms of Masonry favored by German speakers.

    If we line up all the above, what meanings should shout out to us?

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    "Culturally, Ashkenazi Jews were preponderantly Germanic."

    Really?
    I thought Ashkenazim included Polish, Russian, another Eastern European Jews.
    Can this be called "Germanic"?
  181. @The Scalpel
    That is one bleak looking place!

    Even in the 1980s, however, it would not be so bad. Imagine all these apartments when they are new and shiny in the 1960-70s (not decaying like now), and full of young families, with everyone working in local industry. It would have been “cozy”.

    Here is a drone over some nearby villages – these places are totally abandoned (the final result of depopulation before nature starts climbing over).

  182. @Colin Wright
    'But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.'

    ? Germans wound up eliminated from East Prussia and Silesia, and no longer present as a major group in the Baltic States, Romania, Moldova, the Western Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, and wherever the Yugoslavian Banat is now. Moreover, in at least Poland, East Prussia, Silesia, and the Banat they were replaced by Slavs.

    I'd say it rolled the Drang nach Osten back a good seven hundred years. I doubt if the German people could survive another such 'success.'

    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. “Normal” Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher – at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France’s per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.
     
    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity. More territory would presumably mean a larger carrying capacity and thus an ability to sustain a much larger population. This is why the US's historical territorial expansion has been so beneficial to it. Theoretically speaking, as many as 100 million people could fit into the Southwestern US (including Texas, of course).

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. “Normal” Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher – at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France’s per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.
     
    At least Russia kept most of its 1914 territory up to the present-day, though. This should eventually allow Russia to achieve a very high population once its "breeders" will become a sufficiently large part of its population. Compare that with Germany where their "breeders" don't have anywhere near as much room/space for massive population growth.
    , @Colin Wright
    '... . Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.'

    Well, that becomes very, very speculative. The Nazis managed to significantly increase the German birthrate. You've got to decide to what extent they can maintain or further increase that, and to what extent they can foster German colonization in the East.
    '
    By now, nearly eighty years later, almost any outcome seems defensible. Eighty million Germans, two hundred million? Who knows?

    Maybe thirty million. America, developing the hydrogen bomb in 1949, definitively wins the nuclear phase of World War Two.
    , @reiner Tor
    1) Territory still plays some role (I'm pretty sure that the fact that Germany had one of the weakest baby booms in Europe is not independent of the fact that it was choke-full of refugees from the lost eastern territories), and it might again play a huge role in the coming AoIM, should it happen. It also matters a lot in terms of independence - Germany is probably the most dependent on exports among all the major powers, and it's probably not a coincidence.

    2) This is to a very large extent the responsibility of Russia's leaders in 1914, who pursued a needlessly aggressive foreign policy in pursuit of stupid goals. Russia was already big enough (maybe too big, demographically speaking - did it need tens of millions of hostile Poles and others inside its borders?), and with a low population density (even relative to carrying capacity), but it was still obsessed with expansion.

    Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.
     
    It might be considered a victory of sorts for Germany, had they remained independent. They are not. So I fail to see how what happened could be thought to be better for them than Russia becoming a hyperpower next door to them. Although it's possible that such a Russian hyperpower would've annexed huge chunks of eastern German territory (though that would have required a major war, so maybe WW1, just a few years or decades later..?), and it might have broken up Germany altogether (as was proposed by Tsar Alexander III in a private conversation with one of his ministers), but demographically speaking Germany would probably be better off (the Tsar wouldn't have ethnically cleansed East Prussia and Silesia), its immigration situation wouldn't be any worse (likely better), and it's not independent anyway. German national pride would also be higher in that alternative scenario. I fail to see how Germany is somehow better off now than in an alternative reality without world wars.

    I think it's more sensible to just say that demographically speaking or in terms of the size of the economy relative to world economy, Russia lost the most in the 20th century. Still, it became one of only two nuclear superpowers (China might close the gap later), and it's one of the very few truly independent great powers today, so its status is hardly low, even as it is. Germany certainly lost more since 1914: it lost its independence, its national pride, huge areas historically settled by Germans, it's a mere shadow of what it once was. Russia at least is still an independent power center with one of the strongest militaries in the world, relative to 1914 (the actual reality, as opposed to potential) it's actually stronger now than it was back then.
    , @Denis
    Germany could easily have become the global economic superpower had it not embarked on the ludicrous stupidity of the 2 World Wars.
  183. @prime noticer
    related website for teh lulz.

    https://www.getoutofillinois.com/

    Illinois is now the US state which is shrinking the fastest. losing about 6 people per 1000 people per year, net. that's not outmigration, that's net migration. according to the website, 300 people leave per day.

    New York is second, losing 5 people per 1000 people per year.

    California is avoiding net loss, by replacing Americans who leave, with Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians. still, California has lost over 1 million tax paying middle class Americans over the last 10 years, and it shows. California is in decline.

    Are there any data on where these people are going?

    • Replies: @Jimi
    Texas, Colorado, Washington and Oregon
  184. @Mr. XYZ

    Seems obviously dysgenic, though there might be some non-evident considerations I’m missing.
     
    AFAIK, the logic behind this was a principle of fairness. As in, it was perceived in the late 20th century as being unfair to deny children child support due to their illegitimacy.

    Mendeleev’s was a simple model.
    Also he wasn’t including Galicia.
     
    He also wasn't including Subcarpathian Ruthenia or Ottoman Armenia or (Ottoman) Pontus or Constantinople or Mongolia or Xinjiang.

    My guess is you’d have had ~550 million: 400M core Slavs + 100M Central Asians (most of the increase accruing to Kazakhs) + 50M sundry Caucasians, Moldovans, Balts.
     
    25M for Caucasians, Moldovans, and Balts sounds much more realistic, no?

    Most likely. Half the very limited number of mosques in both Saint-Petersburg and Moscow are late Tsarist era constructions.

    That’s around the time that the first mosques started to appear in Britain.
     
    Do you think that Russia is going to have much more Hindus and Buddhists in this scenario as well?

    Also, as a side question, how many Russian Jews (also, out of a total of how many?) do you think are going to be living outside of the (former--it was abolished by the Russian Provisional Government in 1917) Pale of Settlement right now in this scenario?

    I know that in real life something like 4 out of 5 Soviet Jews were living outside of the former Pale of Settlement in May 1941 but with this figure being reduced to 1 out of 2 Soviet Jews in 1959 as a result of the Holocaust wiping out most of the Jewry in the Pale of Settlement (though about 1.0-1.5 million of them did, in fact, manage to evacuate in time in 1941-1942 and thus survived the Holocaust). Interestingly enough, nowadays Russia has more than three times Ukraine's Jewish population--with Belarus's Jewish population being almost nonexistent right now (less than 10,000, or about 0.1% of Belarus's total population).

    Recently discussed this elsewhere.
     
    Where exactly (as in, which blog post and comment thread) is that comment of yours from?

    So, in scenario we’re discussing:

    SPB: 30-35M

    Moscow: 15-20M (~i.e. what it actually is today)

    SPB was bigger than Moscow – 2.3M vs. 1.8M on the eve of WW1, IIRC – and growing quicker. And probably would have kept its lead, just as NY did. 90% of financial activity was in SPB relative to Moscow. Moscow would have been the spiritual center, as well as a major manufacturing hub. Perhaps also bolder infrastructure development; construction on the original Moscow Metro began in 1914, while SPB had no metro plans at the outbreak of WW1.

    There were some discussions in Nicholas II’s circles about moving the capital back to Moscow, in line with neo-Muscovite artistic sentiment. Long shot, but if that had happened, Moscow and SPB would have ended up truly level pegging, I would guess.

    In reality, what happened is that after Bolshies moved capital to Moscow, SPB and Moscow swapped positions while keeping the same approximate ratio, though now loaded in favor of Moscow. But it was really the Siege of Leningrad that permanently destroyed SPB as a competitor to Moscow. Ever since, it has been been more Russia’s biggest millionik than its “northern capital”, IMO. The post-Soviet period beat in the last nail in its coffin (almost all the rich, repatriates, etc. went to Moscow, not banditized SPB).

    My personal belief is that this discontinuity between the two cities was caused by God punishing SPB for having hosted the fulcrum point of the Bolshevik Revolution. However, recent data shows that in the past few years, population growth in SPB has started to exceed Moscow’s. Perhaps a century old curse has been lifted.
     
    Was losing several hundred thousand people or so in the Siege of Leningrad *that* devastating for St. Petersburg? I mean, most of St. Petersburg's population survived this siege, no?

    Also, your projections here sound reasonable, though it's worth noting that New York appears to be much closer to other major US urban centers (Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, the Washington DC area, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even Chicago) than St. Petersburg is. St. Petersburg is sort of in the middle of nowhere--in part due to its extremely northern location. Granted, I get the logic in people moving en masse to the capital, but still, if the capital is in the middle of nowhere, well, it isn't exactly encouraging.

    I suppose that one good test for this would be to see just how many people will move to Indonesia's new planned capital in Borneo--which likewise appears to be in the middle of nowhere.

    Kiev: 7M
     
    Possible--especially if it will be made the capital of a Ukrainian autonomous region in Russia in this scenario.

    Odessa: 4M

    Odessa would have still been much bigger than it is today – only increased by 2x (!) over 20th century – but I revised my opinion it would be Russia’s third city, because I looked at its demographic history and saw that it was growing more slowly than a bunch of other places even during the 19th century.

    There’d also be vigorous competition from places like Krasnodar, Sochi, and Crimea due to greater freedom of movement. Without being correlated into Siberian iceboxes, Russians would be seeking to go to those places in much greater numbers, just as they have done since 1991 (population of Krasnodar and Sochi has doubled since then).

    Conversely, there would be another interesting effect. While the biggest metropolises will be twice bigger, and the southern cities will be multiple times bigger, the far northern and deep Siberian cities will likely be no more populated than they are today. Possibly even less. For instance, quite possible that Perm – a city that grew largely on the military-industrial complex in Soviet times – would only have 500,000 people, not a million.
     
    TBH, I wonder if 2-3 million for Odessa would have been somewhat more realistic. That said, though, I generally agree with your analysis in regards to everything here.

    BTW, how many people do you think that Constantinople would have had right now had Russia avoided the Bolshevik coup, remained in WWI until the very end, and acquired it after the end of the war? FTR, I don't think that the US would have looked very favorably at a Russian expulsion of Constantinople's Muslim population--so it's probably not going to happen in a scenario where the US still enters WWI.

    In addition, do you think that Odessa would have been Russia's fourth-largest city in this scenario or would some other city have been the fourth--with Odessa being in fifth place or lower? (I'm presuming that Kiev would, of course, be number three.)

    Also, how many people do you think that cities such as Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, and Kaunas are going to have right now in this scenario? In addition, I was wondering if the Baltics are going to see even more Russian/East Slavic migration in this scenario than they did in real life. At the very least, Estonia has an average IQ that isn't that much lower than Moscow's and if Estonia will remain a part of Russia, one would think that its high quality of life would be attractive for a good number of Russians, no? (BTW, I'm presuming that Russia would have still eventually lost both Poland and Finland, correct?)

    As a side note, I looked at a topographic map of Ottoman Armenia and Pontus and the topography there (mostly extremely high mountains with a very narrow coastal area) would probably prevent large-scale population expansion there. I don't think that Russians/Eastern Slavs are going to be particularly willing to move to extremely mountainous areas in eastern Anatolia, and as I said the amount of coastal territory with a low elevation in this area (Pontus) is very, very small. In fact, this is probably why northeastern Turkey has no cities that have a population of one million or more right now. The largest is Samsun and the next largest is Trebizond, I believe. Neither has a population of one million or more and Trebizond doesn't even have a population of half a million.

    19.8 million people in NYC metropolitan area. Give or take. New York remains the largest metropolitan area in the country — by far — according to the latest Census Bureau population estimates released Thursday

    The Northeast megalopolis (also Boston–Washington corridor or Bos-Wash corridor) is the most populous megalopolis in the United States with over 50 million residents and the most heavily urbanized agglomeration of the United States.

    Based on estimates taken in 2017, the states along the East Coast have a total population of over 118 million inhabitants. This region is home to more than one-third of the nation’s total population. It is also the most populated coastal region in the country.

    by contrast,
    Los Angeles/Metro population
    13,131,431

    Southern California/Population
    24.12 million

  185. @lauris71
    Breeder groups are inherently unstable because their behavior is culturally motivated. There is little reason to believe that most Amish, Mormon or Haredi women have genetic disposition to have more children than their peer populations on average. Change their society/environment radically and they will stop breeding - just like most of the traditional societies did with urbanization. Mormons are probably the most resilient group, but I cannot imagine how either Amish or Haredis can keep the functioning, once they become the absolute majority in their countries and have to support the (ultra-complex) modern state structures themselves.
    What ultimately changes the demographic trend upwards is natural selection among "normal" people, picking out the genotypes that increase the desire to have many children in modern urban environment.

    The Amish way of life appears more and more appealing to young people in this wasteland. The American agricultural system is dependent upon governments. The Amish system of farming supports its participants in addition to multiples of consumers who are not participants.

    It seemed to me for a while that the Unz commenters were thinking beyond the failed modernism. It’s becoming clear that commenters here aren’t quite as aware as they pretend to be. Modern urbanism is bankrupt. Most cities will be deserted within the lifetime of the next generation. The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.
     
    Its not that realistic to be hardcore pacifists in a dystopian future. For better or worse, I think there's a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society - although their agricultural skills are doubtlessly more valuable in a non-industrial society.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.
    , @Jake
    A number of commenters here, like elsewhere, are paid by the likes of the SPLC or ADL, etc.

    The Amish are no threat to the freaks and monsters in charge of Globalism and so are safely ignored.
  186. @Jake
    "9) So far as I can tell, the Latvians, Estonians, and Ashkenazi Jews are the only peoples with fewer people today than in 1914. It is ironic that they played the most disproportionate roles (per capita) in cementing Bolshevism in Russia. God must really hate commies."

    The international language of Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish: German for Jews, or if you prefer, slightly Judaized German. Culturally, Ashkenazi Jews were preponderantly Germanic.

    Today, the international language of Ashkenazi Jews is English and culturally they are preponderantly Anglo-Saxon. Of course, Anglo-Saxon is Germanic linguistically and culturally. So Jews still choose to be linguistically and culturally Germanic.

    Both Estonia and Latvia were strongly influenced by German language and, especially, culture, including Lutheranism and the forms of Masonry favored by German speakers.

    If we line up all the above, what meanings should shout out to us?

    “Culturally, Ashkenazi Jews were preponderantly Germanic.”

    Really?
    I thought Ashkenazim included Polish, Russian, another Eastern European Jews.
    Can this be called “Germanic”?

    • Replies: @Jake
    So you think all those Jews in Poland, for example, spoke Polish rather than Yiddish? If so, you are wrong.
  187. @JMcG
    They’re not pacifists when deer season comes around. I don’t think I’ve ever failed to see an Amish guy fail to empty his magazine when shooting at a deer.

    I don’t think I’ve ever failed to see an Amish guy fail to empty his magazine

    I’m amazed that they don’t use musket balls.

  188. @Emslander
    The Amish way of life appears more and more appealing to young people in this wasteland. The American agricultural system is dependent upon governments. The Amish system of farming supports its participants in addition to multiples of consumers who are not participants.

    It seemed to me for a while that the Unz commenters were thinking beyond the failed modernism. It's becoming clear that commenters here aren't quite as aware as they pretend to be. Modern urbanism is bankrupt. Most cities will be deserted within the lifetime of the next generation. The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.

    The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.

    Its not that realistic to be hardcore pacifists in a dystopian future. For better or worse, I think there’s a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society – although their agricultural skills are doubtlessly more valuable in a non-industrial society.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.
     
    But I agree. The Amish will be enslaved by historical recreation nerds with evil overlord pretensions who will get the military and gangsters on their side.
    , @dfordoom

    For better or worse, I think there’s a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society
     
    The Amish can only exist as long as others are prepared to allow them to do so.

    The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.
     
    Yes.
    , @AP
    This assumes that under warlord conditions the Amish would just sit back and allows themselves all to get martyred and/or enslaved like the Moriori. It's possible, but not 100%.
  189. @Skeptikal
    "Culturally, Ashkenazi Jews were preponderantly Germanic."

    Really?
    I thought Ashkenazim included Polish, Russian, another Eastern European Jews.
    Can this be called "Germanic"?

    So you think all those Jews in Poland, for example, spoke Polish rather than Yiddish? If so, you are wrong.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    I don't know.

    That was my question.
    Wiki:
    "Most Warsaw Jews spoke Yiddish, but Polish was increasingly used by the young who have not had a problem in identifying themselves fully as Jews, Varsovians and Poles. Polish Jews were entering the mainstream of Polish society, though many thought of themselves as a separate nationality within Poland. "

    "An ever-increasing proportion of Jews in interwar Poland lived separate lives from the Polish majority. In 1921, 74.2 percent of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language, but the number has risen to 87 percent by 1931 already, resulting in growing tensions between Jews and Poles.[21] Jews were often not identified as Polish nationals; a problem caused not only by the reversal of assimilation shown in national censuses between 1921 and 1931, but also, by the influx of Russian Jews escaping persecution especially in Ukraine where up to 2,000 pogroms took place during the Civil War, in which an estimated 30,000 Jews were massacred directly and a total of 150,000 died"

    The comments about Jewish national identification are interesting.

    Still I wonder whether speaking Yiddish makes a Polish or Russian or Ukainian Jew "Germanic."

  190. @Che Guava
    Any fool knows that it was the intention.

    A few major second-wave feminist writers made some sense at times.

    The Jewish coterie (the happilly married Betty Friedan, of course to a fellow Jew, the grossly obese lesbian orc Bela Abzug whose real name I forget. Steinem, , 90% another + ugly jewish women, were the main claimers of bullshit, and very much dominant. In fact, it was only them and their onther conpirators. .

    Um, no.

    It’s quite simply really. Do you believe women should have the right to vote, yes or no? If yes, you are a feminist. If no, congratulations, you have an IQ above 80 or at least are substantially resistant to idealistic egalitarian humanistic claptrap.

    No one group who aren’t net taxpayers should have the right to vote. Otherwise you get mob rule, begets parasitism, and parasitism is unsustainable. Take your solipsistic Boomer logic elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Ynu are a moron, I am not a boomer (only heard the term recently, and my parents were according to that).

    The more interesting thing is wtf are you in IRL? Here, at least a misled moron os a paid progadandist.

    Probably on spare time from a crap job or just as a paid propagandist.
  191. That is a fascinating demographic statistic that Bangladesh has more people than Russia. I had no idea. But here is a follow-up statistic:

    Number of titled chess players:

    Bangladesh 47
    Russia 2632

  192. @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. "Normal" Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher - at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France's per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.

    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.

    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity. More territory would presumably mean a larger carrying capacity and thus an ability to sustain a much larger population. This is why the US’s historical territorial expansion has been so beneficial to it. Theoretically speaking, as many as 100 million people could fit into the Southwestern US (including Texas, of course).

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. “Normal” Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher – at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France’s per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.

    At least Russia kept most of its 1914 territory up to the present-day, though. This should eventually allow Russia to achieve a very high population once its “breeders” will become a sufficiently large part of its population. Compare that with Germany where their “breeders” don’t have anywhere near as much room/space for massive population growth.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity.
     
    Hypothetically, in an AoMI scenario.
  193. I’m not convinced the world has a population of 7 billion, or China 1.3 billion, or India’s 1.7 billions, or Africa’s billions. It’s all suspect to me. Maybe someone with a more fertile mind than I can cite what the motive(s) can be, for those in position to say, declare such numbers as facts.
    My instinct tells me to look at the UN, and their agenda 21, and subsequent agendas. To scare everyone with: the world is over populated , serves the globalists. Does it not?
    Yet, we can fly over every continent, and for hours and see nothing but square miles of beautiful unpopulated areas. It just doesn’t add up.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  194. @Anatoly Karlin
    I have often thought along similar lines.

    Germany obviously failed at becoming world hegemon, as was its maximalist aim (though its attempts were respectable).

    But it pretty much succeeded if one views it as a resumption of the antediluvian race war between Germandom and Slavdom.

    Yes, one can certainly say that the current situation in Europe is rather favorable for Germany–with the collapse of the Soviet Union essentially restoring Germany’s Brest-Litovsk sphere of influence (albeit in a much milder form) in Eastern Europe. Germany was able to inflict severe demographic devastation to Russia, but also suffered a relatively heavy cost for this itself (in 1950, there were only 77 German men for every 100 German women aged 25-49; the comparable figure for the Russian SFSR was 62 men for every 100 women aged 25-49–with Ukraine being at 65 men and Belarus being at 69 men for every 100 women in this age range in 1950).

    Ultimately, though, I’m not sure that things are going to be too favorable for Germany. After all, it seems eager to import a lot of Third Worlders while having low native birth rates and very possibly dysgenic fertility as well. Plus, its population has much less room to expand than, say, Russia’s or even France’s population. Theoretically high-fertility Germans could eventually move to greener pastures, but then Germany is going to end up losing them.

    • Replies: @Daniel.I

    it seems eager to import a lot of Third Worlders
     
    God's Chosen wouldn't have anything to do with that, would they
  195. @Colin Wright
    '... Assuming a threefold expansion in all of these populations, we could have been looking to a Russian Empire or Republic with a further ~120M fully Russified Belorussians and largely Russified Ukrainians, for a total Slavic population of almost 400M...'

    This helps to explain the calculation of the Wilhelmine German General Staff that if war with Russia was delayed past 1916, it would be unwinnable.

    Given the German role in reintroducing Bolshevism into Russia, and of course their invasion of 1941-43, you could even say that the Germans did manage to defeat the Russian menace. The difficulty was of course that they lost the wars themselves as well.

    This helps to explain the calculation of the Wilhelmine German General Staff that if war with Russia was delayed past 1916, it would be unwinnable.

    Technically speaking, were Germany to acquire Britain as an ally after 1916, the calculations in regards to this could have somewhat been changed. Were Germany to also acquire the US as an ally after 1916, the calculations in regards to this would have definitely been changed–assuming that Germany would have been able to avoid total collapse before massive numbers of British and American troops could actually get there, of course.

    Given the German role in reintroducing Bolshevism into Russia, and of course their invasion of 1941-43, you could even say that the Germans did manage to defeat the Russian menace.

    Yep, certainly.

    The difficulty was of course that they lost the wars themselves as well.

    Yeah, the Germans themselves certainly paid a very heavy price for crippling Russia in terms of their own lives and territory. Sure, they hurt Russia much more than they hurt themselves, but at least Russia still has a lot of territory for their population to expand into once its “breeders” will become a sufficiently large part of its population. Germany, on the other hand, doesn’t. This is actually a problem that Germany experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries–as in, the amount of space that it had wasn’t that large even in 1914 and short of massive ethnic cleansing, there simply wasn’t a lot of available empty space for Germany to expand into like there was for the 19th century United States of America. Germany’s best bet had it won World War I would have been to try creating a Mitteleuropa-style union with its newly independent Eastern European satellite states. That way Germans could have had a lot of additional space to settle without Germany losing these Germans. Of course, such a Mitteleuropa-style union would have probably only worked in the long(er)-run had the Slavs living there had an equal say in running this union–something that might have been anathema to Slavophobic German nationalists!

  196. @Emslander
    The Amish way of life appears more and more appealing to young people in this wasteland. The American agricultural system is dependent upon governments. The Amish system of farming supports its participants in addition to multiples of consumers who are not participants.

    It seemed to me for a while that the Unz commenters were thinking beyond the failed modernism. It's becoming clear that commenters here aren't quite as aware as they pretend to be. Modern urbanism is bankrupt. Most cities will be deserted within the lifetime of the next generation. The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.

    A number of commenters here, like elsewhere, are paid by the likes of the SPLC or ADL, etc.

    The Amish are no threat to the freaks and monsters in charge of Globalism and so are safely ignored.

    • Replies: @Emslander

    A number of commenters here, like elsewhere, are paid by the likes of the SPLC or ADL, etc.
     
    I'm not one of them, but if you could put me in touch with either of those orgaizations, I wouldn't mind being paid for posting. I actually don't know what they are. In the meantime, I think a lot of commenters here need to have the psychotropic drugs they're taking adjusted away from the paranoid end of the spectrum.

    The Amish live and prosper the way 90 percent of the people in America prospered until the banks destroyed agriculture in the 1920's.
  197. @dfordoom

    A Marxist in this day and age. How strange.
     
    You can accept some elements of Marxist analysis as useful and valuable without having to accept the Marxist solutions. You don't have to be a Marxist to realise that class is crucial and that we're in the middle of a class war.

    You can accept some elements of Marxist analysis as useful and valuable without having to accept the Marxist solutions. You don’t have to be a Marxist to realize that class is crucial and that we’re in the middle of a class war.

    Well, as you can see by looking at what I’ve written, I tend to think in terms of sociological regions and intrusive groups, but more region than groups. To me, the classes are functional parts of groups. It’s certainly true that the rich are not functional in the contemporary West, and also that they are one of the groups responsible for the impoverishment of the Western non-rich, but it is also true that the same things could be said about quite a few groups. For a very large example, the educational / intellectual scene is not run by the rich –I tend to believe that the largest influence is from the US region settled from New Englander during the 1800s. New England always did fund higher education and take it more seriously than the rest of the US.
    One of my themes is that a coalition between the New England area and the New York City area (descendant of a Dutch trading post and still interested mostly in profitable trade) has been responsible for immigration since the AD 1840s, and for the Civil War, and that what is happening now is very similar to what happened then. Class is important, and business people / religious fanatics clearly direct much of what is happening, but both are acting in accordance with what their regions have done in the past. The Deep South, which also has religious people and business people, does not favor de-industrialization and high immigration. Niether does Texas.

    For a popularization of the region hypothesis, you might look at Woodward, _American Nations_, http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html

    Counterinsurgency

  198. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    Move to any ethnic urban area, live there for a year, then re-post. There is more to being identical than breathing oxygen and having a carbon based metabolism.

    Counterinsurgency

  199. Offtopic again, but I find it curious just a few minutes ago, to look at the demographic data for America.

    For example.

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics – although hispanics have the highest fertility there).

    3. In Utah, whites have the demographers’ “ideal replacement level of fertility of 2,1” (blacks and hispanic are above replacement in Utah, so I assume they are just a minority of black/hispanic Mormons there?).

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)?
    , @Mr. XYZ

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics – although hispanics have the highest fertility there).
     
    I wonder if this has anything to do with high housing prices there.

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).
     
    TBH, my guess is that blacks in Wyoming would prefer to marry a person of another race rather than to remain single their entire lives.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...black/hispanic Mormons there...'

    To make a really bad pun, 'black/hispanic Mormons' is an oxymoron.

    However, and in any case, Utah is by no means entirely Mormon. Half, or thereabouts, is my impression.
  200. @Dmitry
    Offtopic again, but I find it curious just a few minutes ago, to look at the demographic data for America.

    For example.

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics - although hispanics have the highest fertility there).

    3. In Utah, whites have the demographers' "ideal replacement level of fertility of 2,1" (blacks and hispanic are above replacement in Utah, so I assume they are just a minority of black/hispanic Mormons there?).

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).

    https://i.imgur.com/xsCs1zI.jpg

    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)?

    • Replies: @songbird
    Very interesting chart.

    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)
     
    Somalis settled there by the Feds because Maine was considered too white. Same thing is happening in other parts of rural New England and America, but Maine, I think has one of the larger Somali communities. It is kind of disturbing to see diversity come to Maine's beautiful, old, coastal towns.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    This might be due to African immigrants and their descendants settling and living in Maine. I seem to recall an effort to resettle Somali Bantu in Maine in large numbers a decade or so ago.
  201. My only response is to your last sentence.

    That’s disgustingly, appallingly irresponsible of you to write.

    That’s the nicest way I can put it.

  202. @Daniel Chieh

    The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.
     
    Its not that realistic to be hardcore pacifists in a dystopian future. For better or worse, I think there's a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society - although their agricultural skills are doubtlessly more valuable in a non-industrial society.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    But I agree. The Amish will be enslaved by historical recreation nerds with evil overlord pretensions who will get the military and gangsters on their side.

  203. @Mr. XYZ

    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.
     
    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity. More territory would presumably mean a larger carrying capacity and thus an ability to sustain a much larger population. This is why the US's historical territorial expansion has been so beneficial to it. Theoretically speaking, as many as 100 million people could fit into the Southwestern US (including Texas, of course).

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. “Normal” Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher – at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France’s per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.
     
    At least Russia kept most of its 1914 territory up to the present-day, though. This should eventually allow Russia to achieve a very high population once its "breeders" will become a sufficiently large part of its population. Compare that with Germany where their "breeders" don't have anywhere near as much room/space for massive population growth.

    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity.

    Hypothetically, in an AoMI scenario.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    I don't think that this is only hypothetical. After all, even if we'll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support. Of course, if everyone was actually this smart, then the carrying capacity for various territories and countries might very well be higher than it is right now due to various technological advances that will occur as a result of the extremely massive ultra-smart fraction that the world will have in this scenario, but there is still going to be a carrying capacity that we will eventually reach if fertility is eventually going to rebound. With or without massive IQ enhancement, I expect fertility to eventually significantly increase since even among extremely smart people, "breeder" genes should eventually predominate. That, and the fact that it is easier to sustain a large family if one is smart and wealthy (and if one is smart, one has more talents and thus more opportunities to become wealthy) as opposed to dull and poor. So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia.
    , @Skeptikal
    What is AoMI?
    If the survivable future = not urban living, then I think amount of territory, and its quality, cannot help but be relevant.
    Most important perhaps supply of water.
    Plus, also urbanites need to be fed, obviously.
    Not good planning to rely on imported foods, esp. fresh foods.
    Yes, there are greenhouses, etc. and the Netherlands exports the most fresh produce in Europe, but still I think expansive territory will contribute to survival in a number of ways. Of course, the larger the territory the harder to defend. So, what ends up being a prerequisite for survival of a nation or other group will depend on the scenario.

    AK: "What is AoMI?" Read/skim through "A Short History of the Third Millennium" and the AOMI I-IV series.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/topic/age-of-malthusian-industrialism/
  204. Optimism that the world can “ Support” 100 billion?
    Not a world worth living in.

    I imagine the author has little grasp of USA public lands, “ European Conservation Model”. For starters.

    The entire world economy is a race for what’s left.

  205. @Dmitry
    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)?

    Very interesting chart.

    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)

    Somalis settled there by the Feds because Maine was considered too white. Same thing is happening in other parts of rural New England and America, but Maine, I think has one of the larger Somali communities. It is kind of disturbing to see diversity come to Maine’s beautiful, old, coastal towns.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This is from an official American government publication.

    They compress together historic American blacks, with recent African immigrants, into the same category. It would be better if they separated these groups, as they almost don't have any cultural connection.

    It means historic American blacks must have a lower fertility rate than reported the overall "black rate" - as recent African immigrants are coming from the most high fertility countries in the world, and must raise the reported "black" fertility rates a lot.

    Somalis settled there by the Feds because Maine was considered too white. Same thing is happening in other parts of rural New England and America, but Maine, I think has one of the larger Somali communities.
     
    Somalia has the second highest fertility rate in the world in the World Bank reporting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    When Somalians immigrate to America, they will probably continue with this high fertility rate for at least 2 generations until their fertility rate will converge with the normal American level.
  206. @Smith
    Without genetics, no culture.

    You can teach a dog to run, it will never run as fast as a horse.

    Without genetics, no culture.

    You can teach a dog to run, it will never run as fast as a horse.

    I guess this explains why canids have never brought down an ungulate.

  207. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    You need glasses. Any pair will do, even the cheap ones off the rack at Dollar General.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
  208. @Dmitry
    Offtopic again, but I find it curious just a few minutes ago, to look at the demographic data for America.

    For example.

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics - although hispanics have the highest fertility there).

    3. In Utah, whites have the demographers' "ideal replacement level of fertility of 2,1" (blacks and hispanic are above replacement in Utah, so I assume they are just a minority of black/hispanic Mormons there?).

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).

    https://i.imgur.com/xsCs1zI.jpg

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics – although hispanics have the highest fertility there).

    I wonder if this has anything to do with high housing prices there.

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).

    TBH, my guess is that blacks in Wyoming would prefer to marry a person of another race rather than to remain single their entire lives.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'TBH, my guess is that blacks in Wyoming would prefer to marry a person of another race rather than to remain single their entire lives.'

    Actually, I think the two blacks are married to each other.

    More seriously, I would guess a disproportionate percentage of the blacks in the state are there on some form of government posting, and have no intention of settling down and having children until they've left.
  209. @Jake
    So you think all those Jews in Poland, for example, spoke Polish rather than Yiddish? If so, you are wrong.

    I don’t know.

    That was my question.
    Wiki:
    “Most Warsaw Jews spoke Yiddish, but Polish was increasingly used by the young who have not had a problem in identifying themselves fully as Jews, Varsovians and Poles. Polish Jews were entering the mainstream of Polish society, though many thought of themselves as a separate nationality within Poland. ”

    “An ever-increasing proportion of Jews in interwar Poland lived separate lives from the Polish majority. In 1921, 74.2 percent of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language, but the number has risen to 87 percent by 1931 already, resulting in growing tensions between Jews and Poles.[21] Jews were often not identified as Polish nationals; a problem caused not only by the reversal of assimilation shown in national censuses between 1921 and 1931, but also, by the influx of Russian Jews escaping persecution especially in Ukraine where up to 2,000 pogroms took place during the Civil War, in which an estimated 30,000 Jews were massacred directly and a total of 150,000 died”

    The comments about Jewish national identification are interesting.

    Still I wonder whether speaking Yiddish makes a Polish or Russian or Ukainian Jew “Germanic.”

  210. @Dmitry
    Offtopic again, but I find it curious just a few minutes ago, to look at the demographic data for America.

    For example.

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics - although hispanics have the highest fertility there).

    3. In Utah, whites have the demographers' "ideal replacement level of fertility of 2,1" (blacks and hispanic are above replacement in Utah, so I assume they are just a minority of black/hispanic Mormons there?).

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).

    https://i.imgur.com/xsCs1zI.jpg

    ‘…black/hispanic Mormons there…’

    To make a really bad pun, ‘black/hispanic Mormons’ is an oxymoron.

    However, and in any case, Utah is by no means entirely Mormon. Half, or thereabouts, is my impression.

  211. @Dmitry
    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)?

    This might be due to African immigrants and their descendants settling and living in Maine. I seem to recall an effort to resettle Somali Bantu in Maine in large numbers a decade or so ago.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    In a word, yes.

    https://wgme.com/news/local/lewistons-somali-community-says-maine-should-welcome-asylum-seekers
  212. @Mr. XYZ

    1. In New York, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (although all races are below replacement rate in New York).

    2. In California, blacks have the lowest fertility rate of all races (all races of California are below replacement rate, even hispanics – although hispanics have the highest fertility there).
     
    I wonder if this has anything to do with high housing prices there.

    4. In Wyoming, blacks have fertility rate of 1,146, as low as Leningrad region. Blacks in Wyoming have the second lowest fertility rate of any people in America (only behind to whites of DC). I wonder if this is because of a limited number of marriage partners, due to their small numbers of blacks there, as the other races have fertility rates of 1,8 there? (In America generally, there is a very low intermarriage rate for blacks to other races).
     
    TBH, my guess is that blacks in Wyoming would prefer to marry a person of another race rather than to remain single their entire lives.

    ‘TBH, my guess is that blacks in Wyoming would prefer to marry a person of another race rather than to remain single their entire lives.’

    Actually, I think the two blacks are married to each other.

    More seriously, I would guess a disproportionate percentage of the blacks in the state are there on some form of government posting, and have no intention of settling down and having children until they’ve left.

  213. @Anatoly Karlin

    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity.
     
    Hypothetically, in an AoMI scenario.

    I don’t think that this is only hypothetical. After all, even if we’ll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support. Of course, if everyone was actually this smart, then the carrying capacity for various territories and countries might very well be higher than it is right now due to various technological advances that will occur as a result of the extremely massive ultra-smart fraction that the world will have in this scenario, but there is still going to be a carrying capacity that we will eventually reach if fertility is eventually going to rebound. With or without massive IQ enhancement, I expect fertility to eventually significantly increase since even among extremely smart people, “breeder” genes should eventually predominate. That, and the fact that it is easier to sustain a large family if one is smart and wealthy (and if one is smart, one has more talents and thus more opportunities to become wealthy) as opposed to dull and poor. So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    "So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia."

    I should think that Russia will also see increased interest in immigration.
    This subject has come up before, and the response was: No no no!!
    Don't let them in!

    I kind of agree! But a few expats should be manageable . . .
    My worry would be unregulated or even regulated but undesired migrant waves from China.
    , @Malenfant
    > "Even if we’ll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support."

    Embryo selection and genetic modification for intelligence face major, if not insurmountable, implementation problems. But a society where the average IQ is just 130, to say nothing of a society where everybody is a stable and productive super-genius, faces no carrying capacity problem. There is a lot of room off-world and in ocean habitats. There are far horizons and infinite frontiers for us to measure ourselves up against. These notions today seem like little more than dreams, but they were dreamed by competent engineers and futurists many decades ago, and they are in principle perfectly feasible.

    Our tragedy is that these big dreams may never be realized. AoMI is far worse than you think it is.

    Fortunately, AoMI is also far less likely than you think it is. All indications are that the heritability of fertility is somewhere between 0.0 and 0.1. (Estimates of >0.1 -- and AoMI seems to rely upon an estimate of 0.3 -- are highly dubious if not simply spurious. They are an artefact of obviously shoddy methodology. Read the papers, compare them to papers examining the heritability of fertility in wild and farmlot animals, and give the matter some thought.)

    In other words, fertility in itself is very weakly heritable to nonheritable. Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you're so sure they exist?)

    ...And this is why the so-called "breeders" in the West are drawn from religious sects where high fertility is high status. The Quiverfull are a new group -- they have no ties of shared origin or kinship -- but their TFR is through the roof. The Mormons and Hutterites, now in decline, started in much the same way.

    Mormon TFR has been sky-high since the mid 19th century. Far higher than average. But they peaked in the 1860s, they have been in decline for many decades, and this decline has been very steep over the past ten years. If fertility is heritable to 0.3, this decline can hardly be explained. Fortunately, there are more parsimonious explanations, so it's not a paradox: Social status no longer increases with children, children have become a burden rather than an asset, religiosity has declined and many Mormons no longer take their religion totally seriously, and so forth. No such explanation is complete, and none of them are totally satisfactory, but they're a start.
  214. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    ‘… And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.’

    You can ignore anything if you just try hard enough.

    Stay away from blacks, though. Your enlightenment is likely to prove traumatic.

  215. @Daniel Chieh

    The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.
     
    Its not that realistic to be hardcore pacifists in a dystopian future. For better or worse, I think there's a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society - although their agricultural skills are doubtlessly more valuable in a non-industrial society.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    For better or worse, I think there’s a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society

    The Amish can only exist as long as others are prepared to allow them to do so.

    The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    Yes.

  216. @Anatoly Karlin

    The amount of territory that one has actually does have value in regards to things such as carrying capacity.
     
    Hypothetically, in an AoMI scenario.

    What is AoMI?
    If the survivable future = not urban living, then I think amount of territory, and its quality, cannot help but be relevant.
    Most important perhaps supply of water.
    Plus, also urbanites need to be fed, obviously.
    Not good planning to rely on imported foods, esp. fresh foods.
    Yes, there are greenhouses, etc. and the Netherlands exports the most fresh produce in Europe, but still I think expansive territory will contribute to survival in a number of ways. Of course, the larger the territory the harder to defend. So, what ends up being a prerequisite for survival of a nation or other group will depend on the scenario.

    AK: “What is AoMI?” Read/skim through “A Short History of the Third Millennium” and the AOMI I-IV series.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/topic/age-of-malthusian-industrialism/

  217. The more primitive the people, the more they flock together, if necessary, body to body. You can see that in popular mass festivities, pop music festivities, dance halls , etc., you can see that among primitive peoples, always flocking together in groups, outside, or in houses, cafes etc. They have little individuality, hardly any thoughts of themselves. They represent the non individualized mass man.

    As such, those people who in relation to the issue of overpopulation merely count and calculate in terms of resources as defined by modern ideology are mere semi-barbarian ideologically blinded number crunchers. Blind as they are, if not themselves representatives of mass man, they are overlooking other quantitative and qualitative issues which go along with environments where a great amount of people are stuffed together, issues like noise, the lack of free space, the obsessive industriousness of modern life, altogether the lack of physical, mental and emotional privacy due to the ubiquitous presence of average mass man, issues which are all a heavy drain on the minor part of sensible, cultured and individualized people, people who need privacy, solitude space and quietness for their development.
    In short, they are not taking into account the qualitative criteria which are of great importance for the minor part of individualized people. They are mere self styled ‘flock shepherds’ and ‘resource’ allocators of mass man.

    Since mass man has the habit to always flock together, to make lots of noise, and to be industrious like an ant, and in a democracy, to be very brutal and assertive, too many of them will always make the cities unsuitable for the more intelligent individualized man, as mass man cannot be prevented to not flock together. And as such the decline of society, due to an over-presence of mass man pushing away the intelligentsia, and as such the vast decline of cultural and intellectual development will continue.

    So I would introduce additional criteria on top of the resource criteria used by self-styled modern flock shepherds:

    One mass man makes the mental and mechanical noise of ten sensible men.
    One mass man in a democracy makes the noise of twenty sensible men.
    One mass man in a democratic consumerist work slave society takes the material resources, space and matter, and make the noise of thirty sensible man, or one historical king.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    I am more and more convinced that city life is simply barbaric and too stressful for an intelligent individual, unless that person is *rich.*

    See James Howard Kunstler on this. He pushed this line of thinking decades ago, and I think he is right. So in the dystopian future I foresee an urban jungle and various "intelligent" outposts far away from the madding crowds---also to escape from the immigrant experience and avoid the inevitable cultural conflict and annoyance.

  218. @Mr. XYZ
    I don't think that this is only hypothetical. After all, even if we'll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support. Of course, if everyone was actually this smart, then the carrying capacity for various territories and countries might very well be higher than it is right now due to various technological advances that will occur as a result of the extremely massive ultra-smart fraction that the world will have in this scenario, but there is still going to be a carrying capacity that we will eventually reach if fertility is eventually going to rebound. With or without massive IQ enhancement, I expect fertility to eventually significantly increase since even among extremely smart people, "breeder" genes should eventually predominate. That, and the fact that it is easier to sustain a large family if one is smart and wealthy (and if one is smart, one has more talents and thus more opportunities to become wealthy) as opposed to dull and poor. So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia.

    “So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia.”

    I should think that Russia will also see increased interest in immigration.
    This subject has come up before, and the response was: No no no!!
    Don’t let them in!

    I kind of agree! But a few expats should be manageable . . .
    My worry would be unregulated or even regulated but undesired migrant waves from China.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    I meant having massive population growth as a result of Russian "breeders" having a lot of space to expand into. So, it's going to be Russians themselves who are going to be breeding a lot and thus eventually causing massive population growth in Russia--not immigrants!
  219. @EldnahYm

    The Irish had the misfortune of living next to the English. In terms of deaths caused, between the starving of the Irish, Indians (on both continents), Opium Wars, British Empire will give Mao a run for his money. American colonists had the good sense of getting out early from that death camp. Sure, British look all civilized and gentle on TV shows, and the accent is enchanting. Civilized tea drinking makes the show, gassing of the Kurds afterwards – not so much.
     
    It's the English who have suffered the misfortune of living next to the Irish. If this were not so one would not see so many Irish migrating to England(and Scotland by the way), not to mention the rest of the former British colonies, and doing their best to ruin them(successfully ruined in the case of the U.S.). Even the conflicts within Ireland like the Troubles have much to do with smuggling of goods from Britain into that land. Irish complain all the time about how terrible the English are, yet their actions invariably show they can't get enough of them.

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent. If that's the worst that the English can be blamed for, they should be celebrated as benevolent overlords.

    The later Qing dynasty was plagued with revolts and famines, the casualties of the Opium Wars are utterly trivial compared to the Taiping rebellion, Dungan Revolt, or numerous famines which occurred. The Opium Wars might be looked at now as a national humiliation, but in terms of casualties they are hardly worth mentioning.

    The majority of New World Indian deaths happened in more populated South America, so if we're going to blame someone it's the Spanish. Even in North America the English were hardly the only colonists around and therefore can only share a portion of the blame. Accidental death due to disease is qualitatively different than Maoist famines anyhow.

    India had positive population growth during the British period. It's normal for countries that experience population booms to have famines in Malthusian conditions. India undoubtedly had plenty of famines before the British came along. India's economic growth today is almost entirely attributable to English language proficiency and the green revolution. Anglos have nothing to apologize for to ingrate Indians.

    The Kurds are a race of brigands who cynically switch sides in any conflict and were enthusiastic participants in massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Assyrians.

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent.

    You utter the words of an utter pillock who knows absolutely nothing about what forces drove the Irish Catholic peasantry to rely so much on the potato.

    “They can hardly be blamed….” Good grief what an idiotic statement!

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    Are you being serious or sarcastic?

    I thought you were being sarcastic at first which is why I put a lol, but I'm not so sure when I read it again.
    , @EldnahYm
    Population growth was the primary force.
  220. @Johan
    The more primitive the people, the more they flock together, if necessary, body to body. You can see that in popular mass festivities, pop music festivities, dance halls , etc., you can see that among primitive peoples, always flocking together in groups, outside, or in houses, cafes etc. They have little individuality, hardly any thoughts of themselves. They represent the non individualized mass man.

    As such, those people who in relation to the issue of overpopulation merely count and calculate in terms of resources as defined by modern ideology are mere semi-barbarian ideologically blinded number crunchers. Blind as they are, if not themselves representatives of mass man, they are overlooking other quantitative and qualitative issues which go along with environments where a great amount of people are stuffed together, issues like noise, the lack of free space, the obsessive industriousness of modern life, altogether the lack of physical, mental and emotional privacy due to the ubiquitous presence of average mass man, issues which are all a heavy drain on the minor part of sensible, cultured and individualized people, people who need privacy, solitude space and quietness for their development.
    In short, they are not taking into account the qualitative criteria which are of great importance for the minor part of individualized people. They are mere self styled 'flock shepherds' and 'resource' allocators of mass man.

    Since mass man has the habit to always flock together, to make lots of noise, and to be industrious like an ant, and in a democracy, to be very brutal and assertive, too many of them will always make the cities unsuitable for the more intelligent individualized man, as mass man cannot be prevented to not flock together. And as such the decline of society, due to an over-presence of mass man pushing away the intelligentsia, and as such the vast decline of cultural and intellectual development will continue.


    So I would introduce additional criteria on top of the resource criteria used by self-styled modern flock shepherds:

    One mass man makes the mental and mechanical noise of ten sensible men.
    One mass man in a democracy makes the noise of twenty sensible men.
    One mass man in a democratic consumerist work slave society takes the material resources, space and matter, and make the noise of thirty sensible man, or one historical king.

    I am more and more convinced that city life is simply barbaric and too stressful for an intelligent individual, unless that person is *rich.*

    See James Howard Kunstler on this. He pushed this line of thinking decades ago, and I think he is right. So in the dystopian future I foresee an urban jungle and various “intelligent” outposts far away from the madding crowds—also to escape from the immigrant experience and avoid the inevitable cultural conflict and annoyance.

  221. “My guesstimate is the earth can support around 100 billion people”
    The author is seriously mentally ill. Imagine yourself on any clogged urban freeway and then multiply the number of cars by twelve……….

  222. @Mr. XYZ
    This might be due to African immigrants and their descendants settling and living in Maine. I seem to recall an effort to resettle Somali Bantu in Maine in large numbers a decade or so ago.
  223. @Daniel Chieh

    The Amish know how to live in the dystopian future. For them there will be nothing dystopian about it.
     
    Its not that realistic to be hardcore pacifists in a dystopian future. For better or worse, I think there's a strong argument that the Amish can only exist due to modern society - although their agricultural skills are doubtlessly more valuable in a non-industrial society.

    I think this analysis holds even if, say, the laws of physics change and all manmade electrical devices cease to function. The balance of equilibrium would still quite favor warlordism, etc.

    This assumes that under warlord conditions the Amish would just sit back and allows themselves all to get martyred and/or enslaved like the Moriori. It’s possible, but not 100%.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I assume there'll be selection. Large part of them get killed or enslaved, another part adapt and fight back... but then they stop being Amish (who are pacifists).
  224. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A profoundly stupid comment. ‘Feminism’ and “women’s rights” were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

     

    Feminism, women's rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s (more creative than doing triple brackets signalling, imo). You should take the time to research it instead of insulting me.

    You’re not really stupid enough to think that women up and ‘liberated’ themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

     

    No.

    So yes, men are to blame.

     

    Again, J***sh men ...

    Mister, google “Haredim.”

  225. @Mr. XYZ
    I don't think that this is only hypothetical. After all, even if we'll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support. Of course, if everyone was actually this smart, then the carrying capacity for various territories and countries might very well be higher than it is right now due to various technological advances that will occur as a result of the extremely massive ultra-smart fraction that the world will have in this scenario, but there is still going to be a carrying capacity that we will eventually reach if fertility is eventually going to rebound. With or without massive IQ enhancement, I expect fertility to eventually significantly increase since even among extremely smart people, "breeder" genes should eventually predominate. That, and the fact that it is easier to sustain a large family if one is smart and wealthy (and if one is smart, one has more talents and thus more opportunities to become wealthy) as opposed to dull and poor. So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia.

    > “Even if we’ll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support.”

    Embryo selection and genetic modification for intelligence face major, if not insurmountable, implementation problems. But a society where the average IQ is just 130, to say nothing of a society where everybody is a stable and productive super-genius, faces no carrying capacity problem. There is a lot of room off-world and in ocean habitats. There are far horizons and infinite frontiers for us to measure ourselves up against. These notions today seem like little more than dreams, but they were dreamed by competent engineers and futurists many decades ago, and they are in principle perfectly feasible.

    Our tragedy is that these big dreams may never be realized. AoMI is far worse than you think it is.

    Fortunately, AoMI is also far less likely than you think it is. All indications are that the heritability of fertility is somewhere between 0.0 and 0.1. (Estimates of >0.1 — and AoMI seems to rely upon an estimate of 0.3 — are highly dubious if not simply spurious. They are an artefact of obviously shoddy methodology. Read the papers, compare them to papers examining the heritability of fertility in wild and farmlot animals, and give the matter some thought.)

    In other words, fertility in itself is very weakly heritable to nonheritable. Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you’re so sure they exist?)

    …And this is why the so-called “breeders” in the West are drawn from religious sects where high fertility is high status. The Quiverfull are a new group — they have no ties of shared origin or kinship — but their TFR is through the roof. The Mormons and Hutterites, now in decline, started in much the same way.

    Mormon TFR has been sky-high since the mid 19th century. Far higher than average. But they peaked in the 1860s, they have been in decline for many decades, and this decline has been very steep over the past ten years. If fertility is heritable to 0.3, this decline can hardly be explained. Fortunately, there are more parsimonious explanations, so it’s not a paradox: Social status no longer increases with children, children have become a burden rather than an asset, religiosity has declined and many Mormons no longer take their religion totally seriously, and so forth. No such explanation is complete, and none of them are totally satisfactory, but they’re a start.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you’re so sure they exist?)
     
    You're asking for actual evidence that breeder genes exist? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. We want to believe they exist. We need to believe they exist.

    You're talking as if this is a matter of science. It's a matter of faith.
  226. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    The English landlords were dicks during the Irish famine sure, but they can hardly be blamed for an oomycete ruining crops, or for that matter the Irish decision to become single crop dependent.

     

    You utter the words of an utter pillock who knows absolutely nothing about what forces drove the Irish Catholic peasantry to rely so much on the potato.

    "They can hardly be blamed...." Good grief what an idiotic statement!

    Are you being serious or sarcastic?

    I thought you were being sarcastic at first which is why I put a lol, but I’m not so sure when I read it again.

  227. @AP

    Shouldn’t you include Crimea (officially Russian) and the separatist-controlled Donbass (de facto Russian) in your calculations, though? They’d give Russia a slight boost right now–albeit one that probably isn’t that large.
     
    Sure. However the purpose of such comparisons is to imply that Ukraine has a much weaker position vis a vis Russia due to the change in population ratios. But whether or not Crimea is in Russia, this doesn't change. It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders. It was, on the contrary, a disadvantage - a lot of those Russians were high ranking military officers or government officials, who would probably not side with Ukraine in case of conflict with Russia. So again, the fact that Ukraine had about 33% of Russia's population in 1991, vs. ~24% in 2019 is much less meaningful than the fact that ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian state were 25% of Russia's population in 1991 vs. 22% today.

    “It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders.”

    — What would be your opinion of the advantage of having Mr. Groysman, Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Kolomojsky, Mr. Pinchuk, Mr. Zlochevsky and similar eminent Jewish pipers calling the tune in Ukraine?
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/10/biden-timeline.html
    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282575/jews-center-stage-in-ukraine-elections

    The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine’s Jews would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.

    Mazel Tov!

    • Replies: @AP
    I thought Biden was? Or was it Trump? Freemasons? Illuminati? Poles? Germans? You guys can't make up your mind, can you?
  228. @songbird
    Very interesting chart.

    Also is there some group of black Amish/Haredi people living in Maine (how is their fertility rate 4, when the hispanics are 1,28 in the same state)
     
    Somalis settled there by the Feds because Maine was considered too white. Same thing is happening in other parts of rural New England and America, but Maine, I think has one of the larger Somali communities. It is kind of disturbing to see diversity come to Maine's beautiful, old, coastal towns.

    This is from an official American government publication.

    They compress together historic American blacks, with recent African immigrants, into the same category. It would be better if they separated these groups, as they almost don’t have any cultural connection.

    It means historic American blacks must have a lower fertility rate than reported the overall “black rate” – as recent African immigrants are coming from the most high fertility countries in the world, and must raise the reported “black” fertility rates a lot.

    Somalis settled there by the Feds because Maine was considered too white. Same thing is happening in other parts of rural New England and America, but Maine, I think has one of the larger Somali communities.

    Somalia has the second highest fertility rate in the world in the World Bank reporting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    When Somalians immigrate to America, they will probably continue with this high fertility rate for at least 2 generations until their fertility rate will converge with the normal American level.

    • Replies: @songbird
    It's interesting to look at the different statistics for states. There is some idea that blacks vary a lot by region within the US, due to migration being a filter. According to this theory, the most elite blacks on the state level would be in Hawaii, followed by the North or West. Last of all would be the old slave states. But I don't see any clear trend here. I bet you on a more local level - postal codes - the numbers would be really interesting.

    IMO, a lot of black fertility is from babymamas - I think they have the highest dysgenic trends among any group in the US. The black middle class probably has very low TFR.

    I almost feel sorry for Somalis because their land seems like a natural hellhole - even just climatically. Of course, I would still deport them all because I am not crazy.
  229. @annamaria
    "It was not an advantage for Ukraine to have all of those Russians in its borders."

    -- What would be your opinion of the advantage of having Mr. Groysman, Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Kolomojsky, Mr. Pinchuk, Mr. Zlochevsky and similar eminent Jewish pipers calling the tune in Ukraine?
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/10/biden-timeline.html
    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282575/jews-center-stage-in-ukraine-elections


    The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine’s Jews would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.
     
    Mazel Tov!

    I thought Biden was? Or was it Trump? Freemasons? Illuminati? Poles? Germans? You guys can’t make up your mind, can you?

    • Replies: @annamaria
    Y0u missed the point. One more time:
    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282575/jews-center-stage-in-ukraine-elections

    The transformation wrought in Ukraine by the Maidan revolution has been an exhilarating roller coaster that has not bypassed Ukrainian Jewry, which is now in the midst of an exciting period of cultural revival paralleling that of the wider Ukrainian society, which is still just beginning to rediscover its own past and imagine an independent future. Whether this post-Soviet country will choose to elect an openly Jewish president, or a part-Jewish president, or continue with its current philo-Semitic president, the future of Ukraine’s Jews would appear to be brighter than anyone might reasonably have imagined.
     
    Chalupa sisters and other Banderites (the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi) joined hands with the Kagans clan' activists and with such locals as Kolomojsky (the leader of the Jewish community of Ukraine) and Pinchuk (a Jewish mega-donor for Clintons) in their fight against "Russian influence" or whatever. https://www.rt.com/usa/423731-russia-collusion-ukraine-oligarch-clinton/

    Pinchuk is a long-time Clinton donor (he’s given an estimated $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006, according to the New York Times)... who is listed as a financial supporter of a vehemently anti-Russia, pro-NATO think tank.
     
    https://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/

    In addition to the Chalupas, the co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacks, Dmitri Alperovitch also serves as a senior fellow to the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, which is an openly anti-Russian ... The Atlantic Council is funded by [Jewish]-Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who also happens to be one of the most prolific donors to the Clinton Foundation. The DNC denied multiple requests from the FBI to access their servers, effectively forcing the FBI to rely on CrowdStrike’s assessment of the hacks.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pinchuk

    Victor Pinchuk contributed millions to both the British intelligence outpost known as the Atlantic Council and the Clinton Foundation and is an extremely important player in the British operations against Trump. ... the filthy British operation run against the President is staffed by a group which might be called,“Veterans of the Ukraine coup.” Not only was Christopher Steele being paid as an informant of the FBI concerning Ukraine, he was also funneling his dirty memos to the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, the U.S. case officer for the coup. StopFake, the anti-Russia censorship and InfoWar network associated with the Chalupa sisters, is a full partner of the British military’s Integrity Initiative information warfare operation. That operation grew out of a British strategic determination for regime change in Russia following the 2014 Ukraine coup. https://larouchepac.com/20190322/john-solomon-breaks-old-story-all-roads-russiagate-lead-back-british-coup-ukraine-not
     
    This is for "AP" -- Mazel Tov!
  230. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    A profoundly stupid comment. ‘Feminism’ and “women’s rights” were invented by men, precisely to make porn (and commitment-free sex) possible.

     

    Feminism, women's rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s (more creative than doing triple brackets signalling, imo). You should take the time to research it instead of insulting me.

    You’re not really stupid enough to think that women up and ‘liberated’ themselves out of their own femininity, are you?

     

    No.

    So yes, men are to blame.

     

    Again, J***sh men ...

    Feminism, women’s rights and porn were all invented by people that come from a certain tribe called J**s

    Feminism came from Sartre (a man lol). He was not a Jew but half French and half Alsatian (Lutheran). Sartre’s debased sex-slave Simone de Beauvoir was a Frenchwoman.

    Women’s rights – according to wiki in the modern world was first proposed by the Englishman of radical Protestant descent John Locke.

    Pornography – brought into the mainstream by Hugh Hefner, of Swedish, German and English descent, presumably a Lutheran background. The other famous pornographer Larry Flynt is an American Southern evangelical Christian.

    These things seem to be a Protestant legacy.

    • Disagree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  231. @Anatoly Karlin
    (1) Territory has ceased to play the defining role it played in earlier centuries.

    (2) What matters is the gap between potential c.1914 and present reality. "Normal" Russia would have had twice as many people in its core territories, and 3x with a largely Russified Ukraine and Belarus (not even counting Balts, Caucasus, C. Asia). Its GDP will have been many times higher - at least as high as that of the US (assuming convergence to, say, France's per capita level). Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.

    ‘… . Sure, the Germans have been definitively driven out of Eastern Europe, but their population and GDP is only perhaps 20% lower than it would have otherwise been.’

    Well, that becomes very, very speculative. The Nazis managed to significantly increase the German birthrate. You’ve got to decide to what extent they can maintain or further increase that, and to what extent they can foster German colonization in the East.

    By now, nearly eighty years later, almost any outcome seems defensible. Eighty million Germans, two hundred million? Who knows?

    Maybe thirty million. America, developing the hydrogen bomb in 1949, definitively wins the nuclear phase of World War Two.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    That depends on Germany winning WW2, in that case sure, if the system was stable and they managed to completely redefine the social matrix of a modern state, there might be many more Germans. However, we are considering "business as usual" scenarios (e.g., say, no WW1, or subsequent World Wars). The Nazis coming to power was a fluke, Hitler lucking out of confrontation before 1939 was lucky, Germany beating France in 1940 so quickly was also almost a fluke. (Of course, there's also the ironic scenario that if Germany had also won against the USSR, but taken too long to do it - say, until 1944 - it may have become subject to American atomic democide, and ended up in a far worse state than it actually did).

    However, my basic point is that even WW1 was far from inevitable, the victory of Bolshevism in particular was an extreme fluke, while WW2 - in particular one that was as brutal as it was - was a fluke. Relative to "business as usual" scenarios, Russia's power (demographic, economic) relative to Germany would have probably been substantially higher than it actually is.
  232. That said, the Irish have an even more extreme and unique anti-record: There are fewer of them today (~6.6M in all Ireland) than in 1840 (8.5M)!

    It’s thought the Irish during the Famine years 1845 – 1850 lost about a million people due to starvation and disease. During those same years they lost another million of their population due to their enmasse predation as wage slaves (ie so called ‘cheap labor’/’immigrants’) in various far flung places of the British Empire, but in particular in the United States, most of these never to see Ireland again.

    Even after the Famine subsided Ireland continued to hemorrhage large numbers of their people for many decades after.

    Other people’s have experienced their predation as so called ‘cheap labor’ on a large scale, ie South and Central Americans, Baltics, East Europeans, etc, but the Irish are the only people I know of that engaged in armed resistance specifically against this phenomena to try and stop it, something one is not likely to have heard about as it decidedly does not fit the multi-cult ‘narrative’.

    Per the 1847 Famine era Spectator of London article linked below entitled ‘Extermination and Vengeance’; ‘extermination’ references the quarter million people Ireland was losing yearly due to British landlords evicting Irish farmers off their own land and exporting them to the U.S. via their (landlords) paying their (the Irish) ship fare to the United States.

    [Ostensibly one could say ‘no’ to this and either be arrested and be sent to prison and or very possibly starve, or say ‘yes’ and probably never see Ireland again. The Irish apparently didn’t think much of this ‘choice’ that was being offered them.]

    ‘Vengeance’ in the title references the shooting of members of the British aristocracy in Ireland who were promoting or sponsoring this scheme of the mass exodus of the Irish from Ireland as so called ‘cheap labor’.

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-november-1847/12/extermination-and-vengeance

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    Only about 3-4% of Irish emigrants were supported by landlords or the state, if Cormac O Grada's book is right.
  233. @Skeptikal
    "So, yeah, I expect Russia to eventually see its total population surge and skyrocket. Germany, nowhere near as much as Russia."

    I should think that Russia will also see increased interest in immigration.
    This subject has come up before, and the response was: No no no!!
    Don't let them in!

    I kind of agree! But a few expats should be manageable . . .
    My worry would be unregulated or even regulated but undesired migrant waves from China.

    I meant having massive population growth as a result of Russian “breeders” having a lot of space to expand into. So, it’s going to be Russians themselves who are going to be breeding a lot and thus eventually causing massive population growth in Russia–not immigrants!

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Well, Chechens, actually.
  234. @Willem
    People are happy when kids are born in the family, feel sorrow when a loved-one dies, are troubled by all sorts of diseases, are able to feel pleasure and pain, are more likely to cope when not under stress, are terribly naive (but that is not their fault), and always talk about the same thing when the ice needs to be broken: their kids and football.

    People are also able to feel empathy towards one another, like to work together, can think through genius ideas, and they are also able to make mistakes. A mistake people can make is to think in their own interest. Not that there is much wrong with thinking about your own interest (as ethical egoists can tell you), but what’s wrong is that people often think that they serve their own interest by being smart or opportunistic, while in reality they serve someone else his interest or they serve no interest at all. Admitting mistakes is also something that people find difficult, there is always an issue of pride, and our society seems more willing to punish mistakes, instead of rewarding someone who admitted that he made a mistake. But most of that is just predjudice: people are in general kind and forgiving. It’s only in places like politics and journalism that mistakes are equal to sin. But journalists and politicians only count for 0.1% for the total population, and are to be pitied for the situation they are in. E.g., never to be able to apologize for having created destruction by being part (or having created) terrible lies.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and eloborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and elaborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.

    OK, my previous comment wasn’t that good, more of a standard reply.

    Your position is wrong. It is not wrong because of the way you look at people. It is wrong because of the way the people whose difference you say you can’t see look at you. _They_ see a difference. In practice, the difference that they see is enough to break up the Democratic Party, as each different minority group in urban areas tries to seize control of the urban area for itself.

    If you think they are all mistaken, and you can cause them to realize this, then you could save the Democratic Party. If you cannot do that, then your failure to see difference is at variance with a major feature in your environment, comparable to that of a vision impaired person who won’t use vision correction devices (e.g. glasses) or accept corrective surgery.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It is wrong because of the way the people whose difference you say you can’t see look at you. _They_ see a difference.
     
    Of course there are differences. I presume Willem is arguing that the differences are almost entirely cultural. Which is possible.
  235. @Malenfant
    > "Even if we’ll be able to engage in things such as embryo selection and gene editing on a mass scale and literally make everyone in the entire world smarter than John von Neumann or Albert Einstein was, there would still be a limit as to just how many people various territories and countries could support."

    Embryo selection and genetic modification for intelligence face major, if not insurmountable, implementation problems. But a society where the average IQ is just 130, to say nothing of a society where everybody is a stable and productive super-genius, faces no carrying capacity problem. There is a lot of room off-world and in ocean habitats. There are far horizons and infinite frontiers for us to measure ourselves up against. These notions today seem like little more than dreams, but they were dreamed by competent engineers and futurists many decades ago, and they are in principle perfectly feasible.

    Our tragedy is that these big dreams may never be realized. AoMI is far worse than you think it is.

    Fortunately, AoMI is also far less likely than you think it is. All indications are that the heritability of fertility is somewhere between 0.0 and 0.1. (Estimates of >0.1 -- and AoMI seems to rely upon an estimate of 0.3 -- are highly dubious if not simply spurious. They are an artefact of obviously shoddy methodology. Read the papers, compare them to papers examining the heritability of fertility in wild and farmlot animals, and give the matter some thought.)

    In other words, fertility in itself is very weakly heritable to nonheritable. Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you're so sure they exist?)

    ...And this is why the so-called "breeders" in the West are drawn from religious sects where high fertility is high status. The Quiverfull are a new group -- they have no ties of shared origin or kinship -- but their TFR is through the roof. The Mormons and Hutterites, now in decline, started in much the same way.

    Mormon TFR has been sky-high since the mid 19th century. Far higher than average. But they peaked in the 1860s, they have been in decline for many decades, and this decline has been very steep over the past ten years. If fertility is heritable to 0.3, this decline can hardly be explained. Fortunately, there are more parsimonious explanations, so it's not a paradox: Social status no longer increases with children, children have become a burden rather than an asset, religiosity has declined and many Mormons no longer take their religion totally seriously, and so forth. No such explanation is complete, and none of them are totally satisfactory, but they're a start.

    Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you’re so sure they exist?)

    You’re asking for actual evidence that breeder genes exist? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. We want to believe they exist. We need to believe they exist.

    You’re talking as if this is a matter of science. It’s a matter of faith.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Not everything that is heritable is genetic, and not everything that is genetic is heritable.

    Example: coal mining is highly heritable, but there is no 'coal mining gene'. Same with infant circumcision.
  236. @Counterinsurgency

    If you go 1mm under the skin (as an anatomist) you will not see a difference between men or women. And as said, and elaborated in this comment, I don’t even see a difference when I just look at people.
     
    OK, my previous comment wasn't that good, more of a standard reply.

    Your position is wrong. It is not wrong because of the way you look at people. It is wrong because of the way the people whose difference you say you can't see look at you. _They_ see a difference. In practice, the difference that they see is enough to break up the Democratic Party, as each different minority group in urban areas tries to seize control of the urban area for itself.

    If you think they are all mistaken, and you can cause them to realize this, then you could save the Democratic Party. If you cannot do that, then your failure to see difference is at variance with a major feature in your environment, comparable to that of a vision impaired person who won't use vision correction devices (e.g. glasses) or accept corrective surgery.

    Counterinsurgency

    It is wrong because of the way the people whose difference you say you can’t see look at you. _They_ see a difference.

    Of course there are differences. I presume Willem is arguing that the differences are almost entirely cultural. Which is possible.

    • Replies: @Willem
    Yes, I mean cultural. But since cultural can mean so many things to people, I should clarify myself.

    So everyone who is sick wants to receive healthcare. So access to healthcare for all is cultural.

    Everyone who has kids wants them to have a good future. And since a good future is synonymous to good education, every kid should be able to receive a good education. So education for all is cultural.

    Nobody wants to work day in day out, so there should be rules that prevent people to become overburdened with work, which is cultural

    Things become more difficult when the definition of culture becomes murkier. To take an example from Ron Unz: Hispanics are more criminal. What does that mean? That Hispanics are more criminal? Or that Hispanics are more poor, and therefore become criminal (to make ends meet). The answer: stratify on socioeconomic status, and then you see that poor people are more criminal, independent if they are Hispanic or not. So here I would define that poverty leads to more criminality (to make ends meet) which is cultural. And if you want to do something about that you should challenge poverty with governmental help (e.g., basic income, help with getting people out of unemployment, or out of jail, etc). The racists disagree: they believe that skin colour is cultural. And since you cannot do anything about skin colour, you cannot do anything about crime from Hispanics. But you sure can hate them, that in fact is the easiest thing to do, much easier than taking the time in trying to understand someone else or someone else’s situation. Hating others also has this beautiful extra that, in comparison, it makes the person who hates another such a good person. Hating is a thing that insecure people are very good in. But since the hate is undefined you usually get that the hating person, sooner or later, starts to hate himself. From that moment onwards the only salvation, it seems to the hating person, is to cling to a group that has the same prejudice against others that you have and worship the most vocal leaders amongst that group. In that way you can continue your hate, but now in group context. You find your salvation (of not hating yourself) in the group, by giving up your own humanity. I think UR is a very interesting site as you can see that phenomenon occurring among the writing and the commenting. Of course not among all commenters (whom the cap fits should wear it), but there are plenty of (anonymous) commenters here who surely seem to have lost touch with reality, yet cling to the writers of UR as if they are gods whose words have to be defended against anyone who has a different opinion from them, certainly when such a dissident person acts like a humanist, communist, socialist, aims to be kind (the heresy). They usually expose themselves by being sarcastic or by plainly being nasty, which happens if you are just not capable (anymore) to try to listen to what the other has to say.

    I think the majority of racists are just lazy thinkers. In fact, I know plenty of people in the Netherlands who vote for political porties that are pure racist, yet these same people are also able to help others (with a non-white skin) who e.g., are in dire-straits or whose children need help, and some of their friends are non-whites. They are fine people, they just haven’t thought things through, which makes them sort of confused. But it usually doesn’t matter since the confusion is about something abstract that does not (or which they do not) relate with their own life.

    Now the media could do a real good job in educating what culture is to the masses, but they usually don’t. Most media are made by and read by people of affluence, and people of affluence are very class concious (more for themselves!), readers and writers of UR not excluded (except from Linh Dinh maybe, but he is a ‘special’ case). So instead of educating people about culture, the media manufacture all sorts of stories that scare readers to feel empathy towards other classes. And with that everything stays stable and looks fine for those who are affluent.

    Not that the affluent are to be envied. Their decadence is not inherited, but also cultural, that is that those who belong to the leisure class have nothing much more to do with their time, then to spend it with buying stuff, making silly arguments against one another, constantly feeling sad and disconnected from earth, because that is what boredom does to you. So if you want to challenge decadence, you should try to do something about the boredom of the leisure class and not hate the decadent rich.

    Or as Nietzsche said: ‘Against boredom, even the gods struggle in vain.’

    And now it’s high time to do something again instead of commenting here. But I appreciated your comment about ‘culture’, which is the reason why I wrote such a lengthy response.
  237. @Counterinsurgency

    The solution is really very simple in concept, but a bit harder to execute:

    Abolish Feminism. Abolish women’s rights. Abolish women’s education, right to work, right to vote and etc.
     

    OK, let's talk about that [0]. I've seen a few cases where something like that was attempted, and been related to at least one woman who tried it. This didn't work out well -- result was death, sterility, insanity, from resentment on the part of the women involved. The one woman who actively pursued life outside feminism seems to be doing pretty well, but her life is in its early stages.

    We can also consider the true nature of women (not that anybody really knows what it is, even the women involved. Part of women's nature appears to be resistance to description.).

    Source background: I've followed feminism since the 1960s in real time, read enough of the second wave source books to understand some of the appeal (roughly, "you'll drive a better bargain with men if you aren't utterly dependent, and have more social prestige also"), read some of the third wave material and have enough background to understand something of the the appeal there ("the second wave 'better bargain' doesn't work, so it's time to go full Medea [1] or to play Artemis the Huntress [2]"), also.

    So the way things work now is that men [3] (not all men, but men) call the shots for feminists, the West has seen marriage and family formation destabilized for the past, oh, 60 years or so, and the women are convinced that it is the fault of individual men and have retreated into being difficult or by outright divorcing (and siccing the cops on) the men in their lives.
    The men, bluntly, are cracking under the strain [4]. They can't even support themselves, and it turns out that women won't marry men who have a worse job than they do, and tend not to psychologically support the men they marry. (Rosie appears to be an exception.) Add this to women divorcing men who have a better job than they do if the man works hard enough to neglect them, and there isn't a winning choice for the men or women, unless you count promiscuity (which is dangerous and only possible for women until age, maybe, 35).
    On top of this, women support the laws that are making life difficult for them, apparently under the impression that they are strengthening their hand inside marriage. I well remember the 1950s, back when people realized that _work was done only because it was necessary_ [5], and wasn't a fashion accessory or a recreation. I've had several relatives die from their work, and they didn't have fun doing it.

    Fact of the matter is that men can't do all that much about the current situation. Women have had their basic natures [6] cruelly exploited, told that their problems could be solved by doing things that made the problem worse [7]. Right now, the men are following, of necessity, the HAL strategy from _2001_: "I would recommend that we put the unit back in operation, and let it fail. It should then be a simple matter to track down the cause." This would indeed follow your suggested course of action, but is clearly a very risky strategy (you remember that the entire crew save one was killed in _2001_). The men (all of them, worldwide) are just as cracked as HAL was in _2001_ [7a]. However, it's not only all that's available, it seems to be unavoidable (unless, of course, Trump survives, wins, and pulls off a near miracle [8]).
    The cities are nearly at the end of their lifetime, and when they go, we are left with a distributed production economy and a whole lot of city dwellers with no place to go. They just might descend on the countryside in enough strength to make the distributed economy impossible. Just taking down the electrical grid and destroying a few generators / transformers would make a distributed national scale economy impossible. Even if this did not happen, simple failure of the US Dollar based global trading network would lead to the same result. As I've pointed out, the global trading network would then, most likely, fail in a cascade of regional warfare.

    Frankly, I don't like the "let it fail" strategy, and any suggestions for avoiding the situation would be welcome. Remember, Ron Unz has made a site that has considerable readership, more than _National Review_, so ideas presented here could spread.

    Any thoughts?

    Counterinsurgency

    0] Favorite theorist just now is Karen Straughan, MRA (Men's rights advocate). She doesn't quite agree with you, but suggests that the current situation can't last. (see: "Fempocalypse!!" vide0). Take a look here.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)
    Women generally don't do well if left alone by the husband, and seem to need constant active affection. As with most mammals (and men are mammals also) women are quite capable of abandoning their current offspring if neglected. Since women also need the man's income, this has led to some very bad outcomes as the man is away (or overworked and uncommunicative or bad tempered) for extended intervals and the nonverbal part of the woman's mind concludes that the woman has been abandoned.

    2] "Artemis, the Chaste Huntress: You Really Didn’t Want to Mess With This Greek Goddess".
    https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/artemis-0011002
    Take a look at the first picture, "Earlier images of Artemis from 650 BC . . .". I've seen that expression on the face of a woman who almost qualified for the USAF Thunderbirds, but not quite because of some intrinsic spatial orientation problems, a contemporary Artemis who, thank goodness, did end up married and seems fairly happy but can't quite reconcile a huntress nature with men and life.

    3] You're right there, about a decade ago one of the NOW women defected and said flatly that the NOW leadership did nothing without directions from the Democratic Party. I've been amazed at the identity of organizations that have turned out to be controlled opposition, or even controlled support. Women's organizations seem quite vulnerable -- Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) was apparently taken over by professional managers who awarded themselves very high salaries and chased all the independent women out. I've seen things like that happen; it is currently going on in US school boards right now (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/election-day-2019-why-your-local-vote-matters/).

    4] https://www.curbed.com/2017/10/10/16450394/millennial-living-at-home-housing-homeownership

    5] Work as a "vocation" was considered good in Protestant circles, which were large, but try to find a vocation in the modern workplace and you'll fail every time. The person chooses a vocation, and corporations don't like the loss of domination involved in having people who can choose what they are doing. Hence the idea that one hires an employee, who then does what he (or she) is told, as opposed to hiring a specialist and letting him (or her) work in the specialty.

    6] Woman's basic nature which is plausibly a psychology based on extracting enough resources from whatever man is available to support themselves and their babies through the kids 15th or so birthday. Men seem to have two basic natures (or to come in two sorts). One specializes in provisioning a woman (or several in polygamous societies) and the other in letting other men provision his children (if any) while he does something else.

    7] Victorian era surgery to remove lower ribs to "enhance the figure", or the use of arsenic to make the skin lighter
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/mWN-yvDM2Pl/Arsenic+Wafers
    http://www.livingly.com/The+Most+Dangerous+Beauty+Trends+Through+the+Ages/articles/QwQvnR8Jpdw/Makeup+Killed+Through+History

    7a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boaf_U3-Q0E

    8] Not likely, unfortunately, as the Western Left political establishment appears ready and stupid enough to pull a Kamikazi / Götterdämmerung response to losing power. Still, might happen.

    Any thoughts?

    What’s up with you over dramatizing things by making generalizations (without providing concrete examples) about how women have apparently died when they have had their “rights” taken away from them?

    You give off the vibe of some kind of wierd troll or shill that has a malicious purpose, so I’m really not interested in engaging with you at all …

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    You give off the vibe of some kind of wierd troll or shill that has a malicious purpose, so I’m really not interested in engaging with you at all …
     
    Then don't. If you use the "this commentator" button below this message, you can block all my comments.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Counterinsurgency
    On re-reading your comment.

    You haven't had serious exposure to women. Take a look at almost any divorce. The kids ordinarily get hashed, and so does the husband. Women can go full bore Medea or Clytemnestra if they think they have been treated badly. That's one reason to work hard at having a good marriage -- all the alternatives are far worse.

    Counterinsurgency
  238. @dfordoom

    Breeder genes are not going to come to the fore; in this particular case, it seems nurture is stronger than nature. (Can you identify those genes, if you’re so sure they exist?)
     
    You're asking for actual evidence that breeder genes exist? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. We want to believe they exist. We need to believe they exist.

    You're talking as if this is a matter of science. It's a matter of faith.

    Not everything that is heritable is genetic, and not everything that is genetic is heritable.

    Example: coal mining is highly heritable, but there is no ‘coal mining gene’. Same with infant circumcision.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Not everything that is heritable is genetic, and not everything that is genetic is heritable.

    Example: coal mining is highly heritable, but there is no ‘coal mining gene’. Same with infant circumcision.
     
    Yes, absolutely. It's called culture. Cultural heredity is real.

    And for the past couple of thousand years it's likely that cultural heredity has been a bigger factor than genetic heredity.
  239. @anonymous coward
    Not everything that is heritable is genetic, and not everything that is genetic is heritable.

    Example: coal mining is highly heritable, but there is no 'coal mining gene'. Same with infant circumcision.

    Not everything that is heritable is genetic, and not everything that is genetic is heritable.

    Example: coal mining is highly heritable, but there is no ‘coal mining gene’. Same with infant circumcision.

    Yes, absolutely. It’s called culture. Cultural heredity is real.

    And for the past couple of thousand years it’s likely that cultural heredity has been a bigger factor than genetic heredity.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Labeling it as 'culture' is too specific and not correct.

    Coal mining is heritable not because of some 'coal mining culture', it is heritable because coal miners live in places where there are no other jobs and they don't have the physical resources to move somewhere else.

    Another example is iodine deficiency - it makes people dumb, dumb people can't move somewhere else or fix the iodine problem and go on to give birth to the next generation which grows up iodine deficient.

  240. @dfordoom

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.
     
    Demographics is certainly not the only worthwhile question. A much bigger issue is cultural disintegration. At this point in time, looking at western Europe or the US, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if you could transform such places into white ethnostates. You'd still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people. We trashed our own societies. And then we decided to finish the job by refusing to breed.

    No demographics, no culture.

    Hell, culture STEMS from demographics.

    As we can see in America, as there are more brown people, even white people start to act more like brown people.

    Culture can be remade/relearned, once genetics are lost, it takes costly genetic editing to reform.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As we can see in America, as there are more brown people, even white people start to act more like brown people.
     
    What is actually happening in America is that brown and black people have been acting more like white people. They have picked up the cultural degeneracy of white culture - the LGBT stuff, slut culture, the drug culture, the anti-family attitudes, the contempt for authority figures, the lack of respect for old people, celebrity worship, consumerism, hedonism, atheism.
  241. @Kurt_5
    According to the 1900 population chart, South Africa only had a population of 1.4 million in 1900, but the population today is somewhere around 55 million. I wonder what the white % of the population was in 1900? The black population exploded as a result of the improved medical care that the whites brought, yet they were rewarded with a massive explosion in black crime and have had the country stolen from them...

    I also have to add that around 1900 the white population was around 25% of the population, now it is around 9% with the same fertility rates as the other formerly white nations.

  242. @dfordoom

    That’s real funny considering demographics is the ONLY worthwhile question.
     
    Demographics is certainly not the only worthwhile question. A much bigger issue is cultural disintegration. At this point in time, looking at western Europe or the US, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if you could transform such places into white ethnostates. You'd still have corrupt, degenerate, decadent, hedonistic doomed societies. The damage that has been done to those societies has been overwhelmingly done by white people. We trashed our own societies. And then we decided to finish the job by refusing to breed.

    We trashed our own societies

    There is now “we” here, the jews take the ultimate blame. They took over control of the USA, UK and USSR and it is they that firebombed white cities that resisted their rule, forced them to take mass non white immigration and produce the modern pop culture that preaches ethnic cleansing of whites. Jews trashed the white societies, we have to deal with the jews.