Population Matters

The current issue of The Ecologist includes an article around a forthcoming Royal Society report on population issues People and the Planet, which will be issued this coming April. As the Ecologist article makes clear, the battle lines are already being drawn over what is sure to be a heated and acrimonious debate, no matter what conclusions the Royal Society arrives at.

Population is ‘our biggest challenge’ says government chief scientist Sir John Beddington

The next world population milestone of 8 billion will come sooner than we think - perhaps as early as 2025 - yet we remain reluctant to debate the issue. A forthcoming Royal Society report may force us to.

While many commentators look ahead to 9 billion by 2050 there is a more immediate statistic that ‘frightens’ the UK government’s chief scientist: 1 billion extra people in the next 13 years.

Speaking at a joint WWF and Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) event last week, which looked ahead to the Rio+20 conference in June, John Beddington told an audience that half of that population increase would come from Asia and most of the other half from Africa. Based on the UN’s projections, he said Africa’s population would grow ‘frighteningly fast’ from 1 billion today to 1.5 billion by 2025-2030.

He went on to lament the issue of population as ‘under thought’ and ‘our biggest challenge’ as it exacerbates existing problems over access to water and other resources.

Source

...

An early entrant into the lists is the British journalist and ubiquitous commentator on environmental matters, Fred Pearce, who is frequently wheeled out on these occasions to offer a refutation of the ‘overpopulation myth’. Mr. Pearce is quoted as saying:

...  ‘Rising consumption today far outstrips the rising headcount as a threat to the planet. And most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population, while most of the remaining population growth is in countries with a very small impact on the planet. By almost any measure you choose, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

‘The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians or 250 Ethiopians. The truth is that the population bomb is being defused round the world. But the consumption bomb is still primed and ever more dangerous

In the past, Mr. Pierce has referred to migration controls as the ‘New Apartheid’ and, according to a 2010 interview, believes that
”... overpopulation worries are a potentially racist distraction”.

I have often suggested that a heightened focus on environmental concerns, and overpopulation specifically - as an alternative to some of our other preoccupations (the JQ, say) - offers the possibility of attractive political gains for radical nationalists who are able to exploit them fully. The question is, can we do so without drawing down upon ourselves the charge of eco-fascism? If so, how? The plain fact of the matter is that the earth is certainly incapable of sustaining several billion people in the longer term at anything even close to current western levels of material consumption, even allowing for the Deus ex machina sort of just-in-time technological solutions that cornucopians insist are just around the corner.

We seem to be facing, in reality, a stark choice between a dramatic Malthusian-style culling and (much-reduced) fair shares all round. How should we play this one?

Posted by Dan Dare on Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 05:50 PM in
Comments (62) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 16, 2012, 06:41 PM | #

Dan the sustainability of people and place is a very powerful idea. As is the real need to protect ourselves against environmental, cultural and social ‘externalities’ from those selfish ‘free-riders’ that would put short-term gain over our collective intra and inter-generational duties (and undermining of the ‘moral economy’ within and between generations). Green-washing (it doesn’t need to be sincere) is a way of buying ‘moral capital’. But actually many of the issues are real and potentially very serious.

Equally one can also say that the West cannot take all of these people so ‘justice’ is not served by an open borders policy. Rather we must help those nations to help themselves to stand on their own metaphorical feet and provide for their own populations (again sincerity is not always a virtue indeed its opposite can be in the right circumstances).

2

Posted by Søren Renner on February 16, 2012, 08:14 PM | #

Two words, one phrase: econational futurism.

3

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 16, 2012, 08:26 PM | #

Two words, one phrase: econational futurism.

Søren, how do you expect people to understand what you’re talking about, if you don’t make it more complicated?

4

Posted by uh on February 16, 2012, 08:44 PM | #

While many commentators look ahead to 9 billion by 2050 there is a more immediate statistic that ‘frightens’ the UK government’s chief scientist: 1 billion extra people in the next 13 years.

...  John Beddington told an audience that half of that population increase would come from Asia and most of the other half from Africa.

zlzlzozllzzz

ha ha ha, why are you so worried, dan?

silver made a program that proved “world population” (that is, RAPID NON-WHITE EXPONENTIATION) would level off shortly thereafter at a mere 10 billion!!!

zolz;z;zlzolzlzlzlz more food courts fuccyea!!!! very liquid very safe lzoz

while most of the remaining population growth is in countries with a very small impact on the planet.

now that’s some serious doublethink — not even the new york times is lying about chinese pollution.

I have often suggested that a heightened focus on environmental concerns, and overpopulation specifically - as an alternative to some of our other preoccupations (the JQ, say) - offers the possibility of attractive political gains for radical nationalists who are able to exploit them fully.

hmm, whom have i seen, on majorityrights, arguing for a focus on overpopulation and environment concerns ... a mystery itz ....

We seem to be facing, in reality, a stark choice between a dramatic Malthusian-style culling and (much-reduced) fair shares all round. How should we play this one?

however they decide to continue screwing us, would be my guess. beating the drum at this point is pretty useless. that isn’t uh being a cynic; it’s underscoring the fact that a rolling population explosion possesses a momentum and a logic all its own. so some at the top are feeling the pressure at last: good. but their prior commitments to dispassionately screwing their own kind will overrule even this disaster which his class did everything to encourage.

MARK MY WORD — their answer will be more food production: that’s the only place to run with this ball, for the other goalpost is DIE-OFF, to which they are “morally” and “ideologically” opposed. meanwhile they will be obliged to shout & wave their hands all the more frantically that “overpopulation is a myth”, “the earth can handle it”, for as you see, they are “reluctant” to debate something that a) they’re too spineless to control anyhow and b) gives them a shiver of cognitive dissonance when they realize it’s camp of the saints time for realz. at this point, their role as individual animal actors will reassert itself as the adrenaline spike from even considering the implications of this retreats as their central nervous system begins pumping acetylcholine into their ganglia, allowing them to focus and coolly decide how to think around what’s at stake here to avoid committing egregious crimethink ...

 

5

Posted by uh on February 16, 2012, 08:50 PM | #

Two words, one phrase: econational futurism.

Oh, another wannabe-trendy futurism that exists nowhere except in your head. Yeaaaa, that’ll do it!

Lift those buckets, Jimmy. The water ain’t carrying itself.

6

Posted by Dan Dare on February 16, 2012, 09:20 PM | #

their answer will be more food production

Well, yes, obviously, that’s going to be a major component of the ‘solution’.

However, the question then becomes, how? And where?

Lots of libbos imagine that the Brazilians are going to step into the breach, turning their presently unused cerrado to the production of corn for Prakash’s chapattis and cassava for ‘Ngdongo’s fufu. But, hang on, aren’t you Yanks depending on the Brazilians to help out with the ethanol you’ll need to power your tank-sized Straßencreuzer so you can continue drive across the state to get a Big Whopper (made from cows fattened on the self same corn)?

 

7

Posted by Dan Dare on February 16, 2012, 09:21 PM | #

Kreuzer.

8

Posted by uh on February 16, 2012, 09:35 PM | #

Lots of libbos imagine that the Brazilians are going to step into the breach, turning their presently unused cerrado to the production of corn for Prakash’s chapattis and cassava for ‘Ngdongo’s fufu. But, hang on, aren’t you Yanks depending on the Brazilians to help out with the ethanol you’ll need to power your tank-sized Straßencreuzer so you can continue drive across the state to get a Big Whopper (made from cows fattened on the self same corn)?

LOL — just so, sir.

I would say the Brazilians have already stepped in. They know that’s where their bread is buttered. It was only recently that they agreed to really curb illegal logging in the Amazon, which they have done to an appreciable degree, but they aren’t replanting any of the thousands of acres lost; they turn it right over to the soy and cattle industries.

uh is no expert on these affairs, so he can’t predict ‘what will happen when ...’, but it will obviously be at the cost of so many more acres of forested areas, first in Brazil, perhaps New Zealand, certainly China. China btw leads the world in wheat production and is second to the USA in corn production; Brazil and Kazakhstan if I remember right are three & four — and of course, Kazakhstan has the precious Tengiz Field, in which Chevron and ExxonMobile are majority shareholders, soooo I don’t think putting a few more thousands of acres under cultivation there would be too difficult.

Though I cringe to say it, I don’t think where this food will be produced is the problem; the tragedy of the commons will just have to go on so the liberal ... sorry ... universalist gutmenschen-mafia can keep avoiding the tough decisions.

9

Posted by uh on February 16, 2012, 09:37 PM | #

No matter what happens — they enjoy Silver’s nature-hating, food-courting support!

10

Posted by Ivan on February 16, 2012, 09:48 PM | #

Two words, one phrase: econational futurism.

Søren, how do you expect people to understand what you’re talking about, if you don’t make it more complicated?

Jimmy, you useless eater, isn’t it obvious: Søren is simply defying here time honored wisdom of risk management which prescribes Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. He just put WE CONTROL THE HORIZONTAL. WE CONTROL THE VERTICAL. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ADJUST YOUR RECEPTION.ormless mooncalf—and the bartender said “Not much chance of that!”

 

11

Posted by Ivan on February 16, 2012, 10:05 PM | #

Billions now ...

12

Posted by Clancy on February 17, 2012, 12:04 AM | #

Rising consumption today far outstrips the rising headcount as a threat to the planet. And most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population, while most of the remaining population growth is in countries with a very small impact on the planet. By almost any measure you choose, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Actually, the opposite is true:

“Industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World, according to latest evidence from Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).

Global warming alarmism is turned on its head and the supposed role of carbon dioxide in climate change may be wrong, if the latest evidence from Japan’s scientists is to be believed.

Japanese national broadcaster, NHK World broke the astonishing story on their main Sunday evening news bulletin (October 30, 2011). Television viewers learned that the country’s groundbreaking IBUKU satellite, launched in June 2009, appears to have scorched an indelible hole in conventional global warming theory.

Standing in front of a telling array of colorful graphs, sober-suited Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies told viewers, “The [IBUKU satellite] map is to help us discover how much each region needs to reduce CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions.”

http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/15/new-satellite-data-contradicts-carbon-dioxide-climate-theory/

13

Posted by Bill on February 17, 2012, 05:43 AM | #

People like Jonathon Porritt and David Attenborough say it (population growth*) is the number one issue - Lester Brown often says it, but has a more nuanced stance. Every time people say that, they are not talking about the real elephant in the living room, which is over consumption.

ML: You write that ‘national border controls are the new apartheid of a globalised world economy’. Should rich countries simply open their borders to all migrants? FP: One libertarian economist I interviewed argues that if money can move freely around the world, we have to have free movement of people. I agree with this. You cannot say that money has a higher priority, or right, to move than people do. Let’s get our priorities right and put people first, for once.People don’t come to Europe in order to live on welfare. They want to work.

Liberal thinking says consumption is the problem, but has no concerns about fast tracking millions of third worlders to Western consumption levels.

FP: Overpopulation is the wrong issue. Forty years ago, women were having 5 or 6 children each. There really was a population bomb going off. Actually, around the world today, women have diffused the population bomb. Women now have an average of 2.6 children globally and the replacement level [demographers’ figure for the amount of offspring women must have to maintain the population] is 2.3 - so we are really very close to replacement level fertility rate.

This sounds like cloud cuckoo land to me, just look at the population explosion in England, most entirely due to immigration.

* (my insertion.)

14

Posted by Malthus was Right on February 17, 2012, 10:49 AM | #

Why doesn’t Fred Pearce, and his lefty chums, put his money where his mouth is and actually arrange his finances so that he lives on the ‘global average citizen income’ (adjusted for PPP, of course), whilst donating the balance of his substantial pay-packet to War on Want etc?
Also, it would be perfectly possible of him to reduce his carbon footprint likewise by giving uo his car, washing machine, hoover, telly etc.
If he did all this, then I’d respect him as a good man and true.
But no doubt if challenged you’ll get nothing but earache and excuses “blah, blah, blah ‘the need for governments, blah ,  blah, blah ‘sackcloth and ashes, blah, blah, blah, ‘the rich’, blah, blah ,blah , not sacrificing my children’ etc etc.

Don’t hold your breath.

15

Posted by ben tillman on February 17, 2012, 10:58 AM | #

Liberal thinking says consumption is the problem, but has no concerns about fast tracking millions of third worlders to Western consumption levels.

And more importantly, turning zero-population-growth zones into population-explosion zones.

16

Posted by Dan Dare on February 17, 2012, 12:35 PM | #

@14

Indeed. It’s useful to contemplate what ‘fair shares for all’ could mean if the libbos were to get their wish.

Global GDP per capita is around $10,000, compared to $48,000 in the US, $40,000 in Canada and $36,000 in the EU-15. An equitable re-distribution of global wealth would entail that western countries transfer around three-quarters of their national income to the third world, as opposed to the 0.5% or so that is currently made over in development aid.

We can be quite certain that Fred Pearce is not personally leading the way on this.

17

Posted by Jenko on February 17, 2012, 07:56 PM | #

Population booms are only a problem when it’s White. Non-White booms are good and never to be discussed. Oh, and I should have access to every Libertarian’s bank account. The internet we use is the same, so how can you say data packets have a higher priority than people? Give me your money Libertarians, or you’re a nativist.


Leftists are full of shit and will say or do anything to increase their level of power, money and influence.

First it was global cooling, then nuclear power will kill us all, then the population bomb.

Later it was global warming, gasoline will kill us all, and there are too many whites and not enough black gods on mother earth.

18

Posted by Grimoire on February 18, 2012, 12:39 AM | #

To paraphrase a humorist observation: “We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to a slow diminishment of our numbers, a weakening of our ability to defend ourselves, and the likely extinction of our people. The other leads to vicious conflicts with immense losses on all sides and the possible extinction of our people. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice.”

19

Posted by Silver on February 18, 2012, 05:44 AM | #

silver made a program that proved “world population” (that is, RAPID NON-WHITE EXPONENTIATION) would level off shortly thereafter at a mere 10 billion!!!

Whoah, hang on.  I certainly did not “prove” it.  It’s not the sort of question that lends itself to proof.  Based on current trends and on realistic and reasonable assumptions that they’ll continue, yes, leveling off at 10 billion by century’s end is a fair estimate.  But it could very, very easily be 11 billion, or even 12 billion; at best it’ll only be 9.  10 is my best guess though.

No matter what happens — they enjoy Silver’s nature-hating, food-courting support!

Lol.  Admiring and encouraging productive achievement is the same thing as hating nature in Lentini’s book, as though the one necessarily leads to the other.  It hardly matters then that I actually claimed to like nature.  (I merely specified that I don’t like all of it—as in snakes, bugs, spiders, and crap like that.)  Nope, you admire cars, airports, railways, satellites, shopping malls, stock exchanges, etc, that can only possibly mean you hate nature. Gotcha.

Malthus,

Saying “Malthus was right” is about as meaningful as the prediction that the stock market “will fluctuate.”  Obviously the trick is to point out when Malthusian constraints are present (or are being pressed up against).  Malthusians’ track record here over the last 200 years has been even worse than WNs’ predictions of “collapse” over the last 50.


Dan Dare,

However, the question then becomes, how? And where?

Lots of libbos imagine that the Brazilians are going to step into the breach, turning their presently unused cerrado to the production of corn for Prakash’s chapattis and cassava for ‘Ngdongo’s fufu. But, hang on, aren’t you Yanks depending on the Brazilians to help out with the ethanol you’ll need to power your tank-sized Straßencreuzer so you can continue drive across the state to get a Big Whopper (made from cows fattened on the self same corn)?

Lol.  I don’t know where you get off using that smug tone, Dan.  It’s not as you’ve run the numbers and you know for damn certain that there’s no way in hell there will be enough food or enough ethanol or enough anything in a few years time.  When you get down to it, is your opinion really anything more substantial than George Lincoln Rockwell’s prediction of economic collapse by 1969?  (“IQ matters,” see, therefore the GLRs of the world understood precisely what that would mean for events over the next few years. Lol.)

Anyway, I’ve never heard of this Fred Pearce before.  Sounds like the typical clueless holier-than-thou liberal gasbag, though.  The preponderance of fuckwits like him are one reason I seriously doubt very much progress will be made until Generation Niggerlover begins to depart the earth.

 

20

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 18, 2012, 06:16 AM | #

Saying “Malthus was right” is about as meaningful as the prediction that the stock market “will fluctuate.”  Obviously the trick is to point out when Malthusian constraints are present (or are being pressed up against).  Malthusians’ track record here over the last 200 years has been even worse than WNs’ predictions of “collapse” over the last 50.

@Silver

I said as much on the Renner interview thread and pointed out collapse talk (the Malthusian prospect) could be just another species of a political theology in Eric Voegelin’s framework.

I previously said:

“As has been pointed out “The Population Bomb” predicted that everyone in the world would be starving right now. Equally, Malthus came up with his ideas in the late 18th century. It was no merely theoretical projection for 200 years in the future, but rather an issue which was of the uppermost concern and of immediate priority to him. Guess what – it hasn’t happened yet.

Now as much as I loathe extreme ‘free-market’ ideology one must acknowledge the systematic genius of capitalism – its extraordinary flexibility and plasticity which has transformed the world in so many ways and continues to do so. As a system it is rather good at solving practical problems”.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/soren_renner_at_vor#c121704

It remains an open question as to what the future holds in this regard.

21

Posted by Bill on February 18, 2012, 06:38 AM | #

When deciding to make a determined enquiry into why mass immigration was taking place in my living space, little did I know that I was about to plunge into a world that for me had been turned upside down and inside out, all in a blink of an eye as the saying goes.

I sometimes refer to my quest for answers in this upside down world as entering a rabbit hole where one immediately finds oneself standing perplexed in a disorienting maze.

Slowly, over the years, a story emerges, it immediately becomes apparent that immigration is only the tip of the iceberg, which as we all know, the bulk of which is submerged 9/10 under water and out of site.

I soon found myself in a world to which I was not privy, the journey of discovery was a painstaking two steps forward one step back, it is not my intention here to catalogue the highways and byways of the discovery of my journey, suffice to say that I have lost count of the number of Google searches I have made, tens of thousands I would easily guess.

Many times I have read on the Internet from a myriad of sources that an emerging world government is hoving into view.  This coming governance apparently has been gestating for many years, some say for many decades, others say for millennia, take your pick.  What isn’t in dispute is the brainchild of this venture is attributed to the the high and the mighty of our civilisation, collectively known as the powers that be, or the establishment, or the elite, or the rich and the powerful.  All of these, or an amalgam of such people, can be described as an oligarchy.

The new world government is to be run by a handful of such people.

I learn that for centuries, keeping the people (herd) ignorant is a most important strategy for the oligarchs, the fewer there are and the less enquiring they are is all for the better, but if this is so, it begs the question why give the masses the potentially all conquering means of resistance known as the Internet?

These herd vibrations, the pawing of the ground and the suspicious sniffing, is becoming a problem for the PTB according to the Daily Bell this morning.

http://www.thedailybell.com/3624/Remaking-the-Internet

The machinations of the TPTB have been successfully hidden from the masses even up till this very moment, it is only a few on the Internet who are picking up bad vibrations.

The oligarchs it seems are asking themselves was it such a good idea to give the masses such an instrument of information and means of communication? 

Another recurring theme in my dot joining venture is that oligarchs in general subscribe that it is only they who are fit to rule the masses, and in order to do this they need to cull the present population from the present seven billion people, to below a manageable one billion.

As stated, this proposed culling is a central plank in the NWO thinking.  A simple Google search will confirm this.

Why is this topic a no go area for MR?  Is it simply another one of those tin foil wing nut conspiracy theories to be carted away kicking and screaming by men in white suits?

Whatever next UFOs?

22

Posted by anon on February 18, 2012, 10:12 AM | #

Aren’t the maximum population projections based on the assumption that Africans will follow the same trajectory as the Vietnamese etc? I don’t think there’s any chance of that happening.

If so then the limit is simply the carrying capacity of the planet combined with the willingness of non-Africans to support that proportion of Africans who can’t support themselves which ironically will tend to zero as White people lose influence.

23

Posted by Selous Scout on February 18, 2012, 10:45 AM | #

Why do White people have such a hard-on for Africans?

What is it, some sort of fetish? Psychological tic?

Life in the West seems to revolve around them.

I admit, I’m fascinated by Africa the continent.

But black people? Not at all.

I couldn’t care less about black people and would be more than happy to have a hand in their complete eradication from the face of the earth (one can dream…).

24

Posted by Leon Haller on February 18, 2012, 10:57 AM | #

Posted by Søren Renner on February 16, 2012, 08:14 PM | #

Two words, one phrase: econational futurism.

One word: “Econationalism”.

(I love this topic, have read a lot of carrying capacity theory- eg, the great Garrett Hardin - and simply cannot let myself get sucked into the discussion.)

Apropos of nothing: Who is Haller? I am a racialist, a eugenicist, an Occidentalist, an American nationalist, an environmentalist, a capitalist, a cultural elitist ... and a Christian. I see no Final Contradiction is simultaneously holding these commitments.

I do have an interesting idea for MR. I think we need a post just on potential nationalist discussion topics. We can get more and more specific in the comments. Eventually, we could have several hundred potential topics for posting. Then we could write something on each of them, followed by comments. The purpose is to use the ‘group mind’ to do our best to fashion a genuine nationalist ideology, with well-thought out justifications. Eventually, we could get a Nationalist Manifesto monograph out of it.

Movement need ideologies, and ideologies need manifestoes. Our conversations should be less meandering, and more directed to producing something useful.)

25

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 11:07 AM | #

It’s not as you’ve run the numbers and you know for damn certain that there’s no way in hell there will be enough food or enough ethanol or enough anything in a few years time. - Silver

I haven’t Silver, but others have.

Their current assessment is that right now, based on global biocapacity, the long-term sustainable population is around 4.3 billion, including 213 million for the US and 17 million for the UK.

Whether you will find their methodology and conclusions persuasive is for you to decide.

26

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 11:18 AM | #

s/b 149 million for the US.

27

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 18, 2012, 01:15 PM | #

http://populationmatters.org/

It’s not as you’ve run the numbers and you know for damn certain that there’s no way in hell there will be enough food or enough ethanol or enough anything in a few years time. - Silver

I haven’t Silver, but others have.

No, they didn’t. 

It is not authoritative.  Large numbers of their statements were found to be demonstrably wrong in a first skim. 

First is the overarching reliance on the discredited Anthropogenic Global Warming bunkem.  But belief in the AGW boogyman is necessary to engender acceptance of an artificially created and

financially arbitraged scarcity

that doesn’t otherwise exist in hydrocarbon fuels on Earth.  And which can never exist while the Earth remains capable of supporting hydrocarbon based life.

But this “cult” is becoming a central feature of modern - ahem - “liberal” thought, including the conformist liberal thought on M-R.

Next come generalist statements about “mineral scarcity” that are simply false.

Surely you can do better than this? 

 

 

28

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 01:21 PM | #

Large numbers of their statements were found to be demonstrably wrong in a first skim.

Show me where.

The scientific data upon which Population Matters bases its assessments is not based on an ‘overarching reliance’ on AGW.

29

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 01:29 PM | #

Graham @20

The reason it ‘hasn’t happened yet’ is that we are still living in a historical period characterised by what William Stanton termed the ‘Weak Restraints on Growth’. When Malthus made his predictions in 1798 he was looking back on a pre-industrial age and extrapolating from millenia of human history in which surplus populations were routinely culled through starvation, disease and warfare. He had not noticed the Industrial Revolution that had already been in quiet progress for almost fifty years, and failed to account for the effect that powered machinery and new means of bulk transportation would have on the production and distribution of food.

The Industrial Revolution was followed by the Petroleum Age, which resulted in a seemingly endless cornucopia of cheap and easily accessible fossil-based energy, and that in turn was followed by the Green Revolution, which facilitated dramatic increases in agricultural productivity, particularly in the third world. In parallel with these, western science has established what Stanton terms ‘Death Controls’ in the form of medical advances which have permitted great population surges to occur in regions of the world where a Malthusian-type cull might otherwise have been expected.

Now, we are at a point in global history where yet another Deus ex machina is required, if the good Doctor is to be denied once more. Perhaps it will come, but again then perhaps it won’t. You appear to be content to leave the matter to the vagaries of the market. I’m not sure that would be wise.

30

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 18, 2012, 03:14 PM | #

@ Dan Dare,

The scientific data upon which Population Matters bases its assessments is not based on an ‘overarching reliance’ on AGW.

You can see Population Matters “overarching reliance” on AGW start here:

http://populationmatters.org/issues/environment/

with all the usual emotionally loaded words like “climate change”, “biodiversity”, “low carbon footprint”...  It’s no accident the AGW cult has adopted the tactics and terminology of the Holohoax cult to try to shut off debate.

Show me where.

This section:

http://populationmatters.org/issues/resources/materials/?phpMyAdmin=e11b8b687c20198d9ad050fbb1aa7f2f

and its linked pages make overarching claims of imminent mineral resource scarcity.  Which are wrong.

I suggest you read every one of these mineral commodity summaries. You can begin here:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

You’ll actually learn a vast amount about the real global economy today.  These summaries cover both the USA and ‘world’ resources.

The reason the USA ranks so rich in so many mineral categories is simple.  It’s one of the few countries that was ever systematically assayed with core drilling conducted on a half mile grid plan.

In brief, “Population Matters” has cooked their data to support their predetermined agenda.  This agenda is smaller “White” families, preferably with zero children.  The Africans you pretend to be concerned about have neither internet access or the literacy to read it.  They’ll just keep humping away.

Your ignorance may not be your fault.  But a persisting refusal to remedy it definitely would be evidence of a serious character defect.

31

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 03:33 PM | #

Your first link does not demonstrate an ‘overarching reliance’ on AGW as a basis for the claims. In fact, as I stated, AGW plays

no

part in the calculation of either biocapacity or ecological footprint which are used to derive the estimates of sustainable population level.

You have not mentioned the scientific data that I referred to, which probably means you haven’t troubled to look for it.

32

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 18, 2012, 04:22 PM | #

@Dan

I do not doubt that serious environmental issues are potentially on the horizon, and I am a serious but small ‘e’ environmentalist, but on the ‘Malthusian prospect’ what I would suggest is:

[1] We may be on the cusp of a biotechnology based revolution with regard to gene technology thus improving agricultural yields etc., (but see my essay on ‘the body’ it could have very negative social consequences).

[2] The ‘end of the world’ types have been consistently wrong. One example is oil. A very good university friend of mine is quite high up in the North Sea oil industry on the engineering side. When North Sea oil was first discovered everyone was assured that it would be gone in twenty years. But the oil men are still in Aberdeen doing very nicely. My friend has told me about how there is a constant push for better technology such that previous ‘unthinkable’ locations and previously unprofitable pockets of oil can be drilled as a matter of routine now.

[3] If there’s one constant in human life it’s greed – sometimes it can serve the public good. If there is serious money to be made from environmental technologies expect to see large investment and efforts on that front.

[4] The politics of it concern me in this regard. Take Mr. Renner’s phrase (“billions will die, we will win” I believe) and the thinking behind it. The idea that environmental collapse is ‘inevitable’ and within ‘touching-distance’ and will automatically have some wondrous vivifying effect, seems to me to reflect a ‘political theology’ in the Voegelin meaning of that term. It also smacks of political defeatism and inertia as why bother doing anything if only this one-off event can really ‘count’ for something? It’s structurally similar to the politics of SWP types that tell themselves that this ‘crisis of capitalism’ is the ‘one’ before the revolution. But might such an idea represent an empty boosterism and wishful thinking? Is it politically wise to ‘bet the house’ on the putative certitude of such events – would it really matter if the ‘collapse’ occurred after London and Rome etc., were Muslim cities?

How certain can we be about the future? I would say the worst of the soothsayers of doom assert such events will occur in a fairly short time-frame with a probability asymptotically approaching one. Yet we are dealing with a complex and dynamic system. I for one would not assume such a high level of certitude – we don’t have all the evidence in yet. Predictions are potentially fallible - other than taxes and death obviously!

But yes they are all very serious topics that you raise – like I said before ‘justice’ cannot be served by an ‘open-borders’ stance as the West simply cannot take everyone, even if it were minded to.

33

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 05:22 PM | #

Yes Graham, it’s the political aspects that concern me as well.

As mentioned in the OP, there is likely to be considerable public interest in the findings of the Royal Society which, I would wager at this point, will tend more towards the Malthusian rather than the cornucopian end of the spectrum. It’s hard to see, given the available data, how any other conclusion could be reached without actual political interference.

The question ‘How should we play this’ was not an idle one. For once, the tide is running in our direction, and when I use ‘we’, I refer not to an upcoming council by-election in Barking but rather to Majority Rights and other similar communications vehicles. There is an opportunity here for ‘slipstreaming’, that is to repurpose the propaganda of operations like Population Matters (patron: Sir David Attenborough) and, eventually, the RS’s findings - assuming they turn out to be ‘favourable’ , that is, fairly dire - to advance our own political agenda.

But what agenda would that be? Leon above suggests the need for a nationalist ‘ideology’ which amounts to much the same thing. However, where I would part company from Leon is in the belief that a single ideology can be crafted to suit all ‘nationalists’. As we have seen from the interventions of Comrade XPWA in this thread, the response of resource-constrained Europeans and cornucopian North Americas (and Australasians) to a future western world in which everyone runs the risk of impoverishment in order to support the ‘fair shares for all’ strategy is likely to be very different. North America and Australasia are both extremely well endowed in both material resources and real estate, in marked contrast to Europe (sans Russia), but both appear to be embarked on a demographic and political trajectory which will inevitably result in their ties to the ancestral homelands becoming ever more tenuous.  Chimerica, anyone?

Without spelling it out in large neon letters I hope you can see where I’m going with this. Not to put to fine a point on it, perhaps der Chef might have been on the right track after all.

34

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 18, 2012, 05:35 PM | #

Our population has recently shrunk. It’s as if Danielj has disappeared into thin air.

http://www.liveleak.com/e/07b_1284580365

35

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 18, 2012, 05:53 PM | #

@Dan

Yeah much to think about certainly. And if a position can be crafted that is both pragmatically correct and ideologically helpful so much the better. Green also buys ‘moral capital’.

I think in terms of ideology the ‘New Worlders’ and we old Europeans are rather differently placed in many ways - particularist tailoring rather than a ‘one-size fits’ all approach is likely needed.

America for example is an atypical outlier in the West with regard to the politico-cultural significance of religion in public life. Venus and Mars do have different atmospheres, as can be observed at MR.

36

Posted by Silver on February 18, 2012, 06:01 PM | #

Aren’t the maximum population projections based on the assumption that Africans will follow the same trajectory as the Vietnamese etc? I don’t think there’s any chance of that happening.

It sounds as though you may have looked into the numbers because Vietnam is an excellent example of fast-tracked demographic transition: total fertility rate of 7.0 as late as 1973, to a replacement rate of about 2.16 only 25 years later (nowadays sub-replacement).  But if you have looked at the numbers how can you think there is “no chance” of Africa following suit, especially considering that many black countries have already markedly reduced their TFRs in the last 20 years? 

If you haven’t looked at the numbers and merely plucked “Vietnam” out of the air please go to this link http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN  Clicking on “download data” will provide you with data going back to 1960 as well as (and more importantly) making it easier to scroll from data in the 70s and 80s to today.  (The HTML data is atrociously presented.) 

What are some examples of African countries markedly decreasing their total fertility rates?  S. Africa, Botswana and Namibia are on course to arrive at replacement fertility (or lower—let’s hope) in the next twenty years.  These are of course some of the richest black countries, but it’s important to note that vast number of blacks in them are not greatly better off than blacks in other countries, yet their fertility is still vastly lower.  Other examples of better off black countries that have markedly reduced fertility are the island nations of The Bahamas, Barbados, Cape Verde.  Barbados is, by world standards, a middle income country, while Cape Verde is only some 1.5 times wealthier than the average African country.  Bahamas and Barbados are already sub-replacement, while Cape Verde was under 2.5 by 2009 (from 5.0 in 1992).  Even Haiti, which is no richer than the average African country at all, is today under 3.5.  Another encouraging example is Ethiopia, today still at a disastrously high 4.2 or so, but that’s down from a hair-raising 7.0 (!) as late as 1992. 

Some comments. Firstly, as we can see, there is a correlation between slightly greater and wealth and drastically reduced fertility.  Despite what the doomsayers may tell you, almost all African economies have been growing, and growing quite steadily.  That growth is obscured by the fact that these countries nevertheless remain very, very, very poor (this is certainly the image of Africa do-gooder niggerlovers are keen to present you with), as well as by the fact their population growth is so rapid.  Many African countries have experienced sustained 3% annual growth for lengthy periods (of say 15 years), but in many cases their populations have grown by this rate as well, meaning that per capita wealth remains largely unchanged (not really, though, since this doesn’t account for higher quality goods and services, so they in fact are somewhat better off than the raw numbers suggest).  But as factors like education, contraception, political guidance, and cultural mores act to reduce fertility, the same rate of economic growth results in increased per capita growth.  It’s reasonable to assume that this increased per capita growth in turn becomes another factor (an important one, I would argue) in reducing fertility even more. All this suggests to me that there is every chance of Africans decreasing to replacement fertility (or below).

37

Posted by Grimoire on February 18, 2012, 06:04 PM | #

Gayham, you’re becoming esoteric here….steady.

38

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 06:53 PM | #

According to the [url=http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm]UN Population Prospects (2010), the population of Africa will increase from 1.05 billion in 2011 to 2.2 billion in 2050 and 3.6 billion in 2100.

This is the UN’s ‘middle series’ variant projection which assumes a TFR of 4.64, 2.89 and 2.13, respectively. The same projection has global population increasing to 9.3 billion and 10.1 billion in 2050 and 2100, respectively. Global TFR is expected to approach replacement level by 2050 but then, according to the demographer’s ‘70 year rule’, it will after 2120 that the global population stabilises at something over 10 billion.

39

Posted by Dan Dare on February 18, 2012, 06:54 PM | #

Here’s that link again:

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/publications.htm

40

Posted by GenoType on February 18, 2012, 08:56 PM | #

Desperate Danny,

You have not mentioned the scientific data that I referred to, which probably means you haven’t troubled to look for it.

XPWA read it.  After a while he tuned out at the use of “emotionally loaded words like ‘climate change’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘low carbon footprint’...”  Suggestive of the very agenda he was trying to bring to your pigheaded attention.  Then he suggested that you read every one of these mineral commodity summaries:

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

I’ll bet you didn’t read any of the summaries at this link.

Your idea of trying to juijitsu the leftist greenies on overpopulation and immigration was tried by the vDare gang years ago, specifically Brenda Walker.  They didn’t even make a dent.  The revival of this failed tactic is an act of sheer desperation on somebody’s part.

Now that a connection between you and vDare has been made….

This cycle has run on MR multiple times and it always plays out as “porridge of words.”  Is this what Bowery meant by “glass ceiling”?

In a way I’m beginning to enjoy this spectacle.  MR presently displays the most negative aspects of the modern industrial urban English character, namely stubborn pigheadedness and blind refusal to face facts.

I do believe the English would prefer to see England completely covered with blacks and Muslims before ever admitting that “we were wrong” with respect to Germany.

 

 

41

Posted by Dan Dare on February 19, 2012, 02:06 AM | #

XPWA read it.

On the contrary, he hasn’t even found it yet.

As far as minerals are concerned, they too are completely irrelevant to the underlying case except insofar as their processing creates waste and pollution.

You should assisting your chum in seeking out the scientific data rather than bothering us with trivialities. If you have nothing of value to contribute it would be best to stay silent.

42

Posted by anon on February 19, 2012, 02:41 AM | #

Silver

But if you have looked at the numbers how can you think there is “no chance” of Africa following suit, especially considering that many black countries have already markedly reduced their TFRs in the last 20 years?

Because i think human populations are fundamentally different at a biological level. Most of the world’s population - like the Vietnamese - will show a baseline connection between prosperity and TFR. I don’t think Africans will (half-will, half-won’t) because of lower average IQ, low event horizon, impulse control etc.

AIDS sums it up in both directions:
1) All the reasons why AIDS is an epidemic in Africa but not elsewhere.
2) I think AIDS and STDs will be a bigger factor in any recent reduction in African TFR than rational policy.

“No chance” was too strong but i don’t expect Africa to ever hit replacement while outsiders are willing and able to feed them. They’ll just keep breeding up to whatever the limit is which will drop dramatically once white people are unable to feed them.

.
Selous

Why do White people have such a hard-on for Africans?

altruistic urge ~ r.e.d

(relatedness times empathy times distress) and Africans are always in the most distress whether in Africa or elsewhere. Of course the altruists then make it worse by reducing the death rate but not reducing the birth rate to match.

.
Genotype

Your idea of trying to juijitsu the leftist greenies on overpopulation and immigration was tried by the vDare gang years ago, specifically Brenda Walker.  They didn’t even make a dent.

There’s no point using jujitsu on the lefties themselves as race trumps everything with them but green-based population arguments are good for countering pro-immigration arguments based on we need more people because of low birth rates or aging population - just say we shouldn’t be trying to keep the population at the same level but instead let it drift down, plant more forests and make ourselves more sustainable. That argument works well on middle of the road people.

 

43

Posted by Wayne on February 19, 2012, 10:45 PM | #

Population does matter, and I think I have to say that more and more countries and passing bills on how to prevent population growth by implementing contraceptives and any artificial birth control.

44

Posted by GenoType on February 20, 2012, 12:02 AM | #

Danny Boy,

The plain fact of the matter is that the earth is certainly incapable of sustaining several billion people in the longer term at anything even close to current western levels of material consumption, even allowing for the Deus ex machina sort of just-in-time technological solutions that cornucopians insist are just around the corner.

Get it through your authoritarian, Ecologist-loving pig-head: No nationalist “green” platform calling for the culling of the non-white population or an end to non-white immigration will succeed.  It has been tried.  It’s racist. Your fucking “Malthusian culling” with its “(much reduced) fair shares,” can only be implemented by the left and its costs borne by the bottom three-fourths of the white population.  The jewish and gentile elite will see to that, and continue on long past your lifetime at present and increased levels of material consumption.  Bet on it.

Remember the Sierra Club’s problem with The Population Bomb and John Tanton?  From one decade to the next you fucking conservative dumbasses remember or learn nothing.

 

45

Posted by Lurker on February 20, 2012, 12:15 AM | #

GT - youre right of course, conservatives have proved useless. But there is no harm in using elements of green ecological thinking, they arent wrong after all. And if some thinking people can be won over using those arguments then thats a plus.

46

Posted by Silver on February 20, 2012, 12:49 AM | #

anon,

Because i think human populations are fundamentally different at a biological level. Most of the world’s population - like the Vietnamese - will show a baseline connection between prosperity and TFR. I don’t think Africans will (half-will, half-won’t) because of lower average IQ, low event horizon, impulse control etc.

AIDS sums it up in both directions:
1) All the reasons why AIDS is an epidemic in Africa but not elsewhere.
2) I think AIDS and STDs will be a bigger factor in any recent reduction in African TFR than rational policy.

“No chance” was too strong but i don’t expect Africa to ever hit replacement while outsiders are willing and able to feed them. They’ll just keep breeding up to whatever the limit is which will drop dramatically once white people are unable to feed them.

That could also just as easily be an argument for why africans can never even reduce their fertility rates, much less reduce them to replacement.  But the evidence is clear that they have drastically reduced them.  If they can reduce them that much, why not all the way down to replacement/sub-replacement?  There’s nothing magical about that number. It’s not as if the average african knows of its existence or bases family formation decisions on it.  And again I remind you that (predominantly) black countries like Barbados and Bahamas are already sub-replacement.  The French-owned, black-dominated Caribbean islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe are also sub-replacement.  Blacks in America have recently gone sub-replacement.  These places are all wealthier than the average African country so the link between wealth and fertility is obvious.  Africans may have lower IQ, but this affects the creation of wealth much more than it does the appreciation of wealth and the reaction to it.

 

47

Posted by Silver on February 20, 2012, 01:06 AM | #

anon,

I also want to add this point.

Because i think human populations are fundamentally different at a biological level.

I don’t deny that they are.  But I question your competence to infer the implications of those differences.  Honestly now—think honestly about it for your own edification—it’s 1973 and Viets are cranking out kids 6 to a woman: wouldn’t you be one of those squawking at the top of your voice that it’s in the monkey yellow bastards’ genes to have so many children?  Or if Viets are too asiatic (hence too potentially civil) for you, how about Brazil?  They were crankin’ ‘em out at nearly 5.0 in the early 70s; wouldn’t they have just been a pack of moolie half-breeds in whose highly-sexed genes it was to be so fertile, who thus had no hope of ever going sub-replacement?

48

Posted by Dan Dare on February 20, 2012, 02:05 AM | #

How is it that being chastised by Comrade GenoType seems curiously like being savaged by a dead sheep?

49

Posted by Leon Haller on February 20, 2012, 05:31 AM | #

Random comments;

1.

Blacks in America have recently gone sub-replacement. (Silver)

Are you sure about that? What is your source? I haven’t heard anything of the kind. I thought blacks were still over-reproducing, albeit not to the same extent as Hispanics.

2. The nationalist minimum goals we can all agree on (even the obstreperous Genotypes and JRichards’s) is that a) we wish to end nonwhite immigration into white lands, and deport as many nonwhites as feasible; b) we wish to reduce the nonwhite planetary population (preferably peacefully, by ending foreign aid and medicines, while maximizing anti-natalist measures, like contraception distribution, family-planning encouragement, and promotion of nonwhite female empowerment, esp in the Islamic sphere); and c) we wish to increase white planetary population.

Does anyone disagree with a-c?

3. The purpose of my off-topic comment @24 was stated here:

Movements need ideologies, and ideologies need manifestoes. Our conversations should be less meandering, and more directed to producing something useful.

I agree that different approaches work with different groups. But my point was that we at MR ought to try to be more constructive in developing a nationalist ideology (as opposed to just bitching at each other and making jokes) that we can then turn into a propositional agenda, one that can be posted all over the internet, pasted onto public walls, handed out at rallies, etc. Something precisely articulated (with the best possible slew of justifications). The handouts or posts would just state the principles of a nationalist agenda, with directions to a website (like MR) which would then elucidate the propositions in greater depth, with all manner of bibliographic citations.

I consider myself an intellectual, but I recognize the truths that Lee John Barnes and others make wrt excessive philosophizing, wherein ever more sophisticated theory is developed which reaches an ever shrinking target audience. Granted, there is something to be said for converting the intelligent, that is, for quality over quantity. But at this point, we really do need to be reaching masses of our people in whatever ways are most effective.
 
4.  Genotype’s understanding of politics is extremely limited. Any form of anti-immigrationism has barely ever been tried, and where anti-immigrant initiatives have appeared on American ballots, they have almost always won. Opposition to immigration is, amazingly, more popular than, say, opposition to ‘gay’ marriage (the latter being one of the supreme bizarities of our unprecedentedly degenerate modern age). Environmentalist/overcrowding anti-immigration arguments are the very best weapons for British nationalists. Indeed, they may work better in the UK than anywhere else (and DD is British, unless I’m mistaken).

50

Posted by anon on February 20, 2012, 06:39 AM | #

silver

That could also just as easily be an argument for why africans can never even reduce their fertility rates, much less reduce them to replacement.

It could - and is more likely.

I have no doubt Africans will be at replacement TFR some time before the end of the century but it won’t be for the same reasons as non-tropicals. It will be because white people are no longer feeding the surplus population and no-one else will.

.

Blacks in America have recently gone sub-replacement.

The welfare queen is a minority cliche. The more standard case is a black woman with one or no kids for reasons entirely unrelated to the standard Viet-style case of TFR ~ prosperity.

.

But I question your competence to infer the implications of those differences.

Honestly now—think honestly about it for your own edification

wouldn’t you be one of those squawking at the top of your voice that it’s in the monkey yellow bastards’ genes to have so many children?

Or if Viets are too asiatic (hence too potentially civil) for you, how about Brazil?

wouldn’t they have just been a pack of moolie half-breeds in whose highly-sexed genes it was to be so fertile

Being able to squeeze that many passive-aggressive wanky ad homs into one paragraph is a genetic trait. Discuss.

 

51

Posted by anon on February 20, 2012, 08:50 AM | #

In the above post i’d read

That could also just as easily be an argument for why africans can never even reduce their fertility rates, much less reduce them to replacement.

as

That could also just as easily be an argument for why africans will reduce their fertility rates

i.e. as a consequence of behavior e.g. AIDS epidemic, so my reply makes no sense. Never mind.

 

52

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 20, 2012, 09:04 AM | #

@Lurker,

GT - youre right of course, conservatives have proved useless. But there is no harm in using elements of green ecological thinking, they arent wrong after all.

Some parts weren’t wrong.  There’s also no use.  What Danny is advocating was already attempted from inside the Sierra Club over a decade ago.  Brenda Walker and others attempted to use logic to point out that goals of US zero population growth obviously included population growth arising from immigration. 

Result?  The Sierra Club leadership was bought off by a Jew waving Federal Reserve notes.  He won and she and her supporters lost.  This was not shocking since the Sierra Club is a 501c3 “non-profit” entity.  These entities exist to provide high six-figure salaries with perks for senior staff to pursue the agendas of billionaire backers while also generating massive income tax breaks for the ‘donors’.

So the Sierra Club suppressed any discussion of the immigration issue.  The entire transaction underlined the fact that most “environmentalism” (and all 501c3 institutional environmentalism) is a greenwashed anti-white racial agenda and elite control mechanism.

Now comes Danny Boy who thinks he’s found the latest E-Z silver bullet.  He hasn’t.  An entire case of these were previously fired through a mini-gun with absolutely no effect.

@Dan Dare.

It is not my responsibility to prove your theses.  That’s your job.  I hit the link you claimed proved your case and actually read through a number of the web pages starting from the “landing page” that

you

aimed me into.  Every page was strewn with material errors of scientific fact and loaded with non-specific high emotional content Greenie propaganda of the usual type.  I realize you are inclined to cherry pick data but that’s not the way to gain credibility elsewhere.

Well, on to the next MR thread-ad for a new formulation of Dr. Wunderkind’s Cure-All Snake Oil Elixir.  I wonder what that one will be?  Here, lets copy Dr. Kevin MacDonald copying the Jews and “long march” through the institutions.  That’ll really shock their socks off when we suddenly appear in control of the governments and institutions of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Israel.

 

 

53

Posted by Silver on February 20, 2012, 09:21 AM | #

Haller,

Are you sure about that? What is your source? I haven’t heard anything of the kind. I thought blacks were still over-reproducing, albeit not to the same extent as Hispanics.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf Page 35 of this report. The data for 2010 is preliminary but they were close to edge for the entire decade anyway.  (I mean, if the preliminary data is accurate it’s not as if it came out of nowhere.)

Longer-established hispanics are probably sub-replacement.  Puerto Ricans and Cubans are definitely under (especially Cubans—way under).  It’s the masses swarming in in recent years that drive up the hispanic rate.  (Getting rid of birthright citizenship would be tremendously productive. Always something to keep in mind.)

2. The nationalist minimum goals we can all agree on (even the obstreperous Genotypes and JRichards’s) is that a) we wish to end nonwhite immigration into white lands, and deport as many nonwhites as feasible; b) we wish to reduce the nonwhite planetary population (preferably peacefully, by ending foreign aid and medicines, while maximizing anti-natalist measures, like contraception distribution, family-planning encouragement, and promotion of nonwhite female empowerment, esp in the Islamic sphere); and c) we wish to increase white planetary population.

I totally fail to see how or why (b) would form part of any nationalist minimum set of objectives.  I would have thought it a luxury.  And good God, preferably peacefully, eh?  And you’re supposed to be some sort of a “moderate.”  My, my.

anon,

I have no doubt Africans will be at replacement TFR some time before the end of the century but it won’t be for the same reasons as non-tropicals. It will be because white people are no longer feeding the surplus population and no-one else will.

Presumably you’re referring to providing them with aid rather than selling them food.  Based on my calculations, sub-Saharan Africa receives official aid (which is the vast bulk of all aid) to the tune of roughly 10% of its GDP.  The per capita GDP of SSA minus S.Africa is about $1000, so the aid amounts to about $100 per person.  SSA per capita GDP could conceivably grow to $4000 by mid-century, by which point replacing the aid currently being received would not be particularly burdensome. 

The welfare queen is a minority cliche. The more standard case is a black woman with one or no kids for reasons entirely unrelated to the standard Viet-style case of TFR ~ prosperity.

So clue me in: what are those “entirely unrelated” reasons?

And what about the other cases mentioned?  What explains blacks’ ability there to overcome the dictates of biology?

Being able to squeeze that many passive-aggressive wanky ad homs into one paragraph is a genetic trait. Discuss.

I don’t know that I’d describe my efforts to open your eyes to a larger perspective as “passive-agressive wanky ad homs” but, for the record, yes, my willingness to try could very well be a genetic trait!


Dan Dare,

You say you haven’t run the numbers but others have and link me to a site where the number-crunching has allegedly been performed, but I poked around that site and really couldn’t find very much in the way of numbers at all.

54

Posted by anon on February 20, 2012, 10:49 AM | #

silver

I don’t know that I’d describe my efforts to open your eyes to a larger perspective

and another one.

.

So clue me in: what are those “entirely unrelated” reasons?

Not quite the expert after all.

 

55

Posted by Dan Dare on February 20, 2012, 11:44 AM | #

What some commentators here haven’t quite managed to grasp yet is the differenence between Population Matters’ political objectives (‘fair shares for all’) and the science-based claim (‘the world is running an ecological deficit’) which causes them to take the position they have.

The latter is of course of much greater interest to our cause than the former.

It’s time to put Comrade XWPA out of his misery and direct him to the portal. Let’s see if he can find the rest on his own from there.

Start here.

56

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 20, 2012, 12:33 PM | #

Don’t underestimate the cunning of cynical reason – defined as the feeling that we know very well that our present situation is invidious in some regard, but all the same we act as though it isn’t. We might well be heading for a radical deterioration of circumstances, yet we act as if nothing is wrong.

On the other hand we always have the ‘end of the world is nigh’ types.

Biases of both the optimistic kind and the pessimist sort plague discussions of this type.

Perhaps reference class forecasting etc., can help us get a sense of perspective?

57

Posted by Dan Dare on February 20, 2012, 01:08 PM | #

Biases of both the optimistic kind and the pessimist sort plague discussions of this type.

Anyone who takes a science-based approach to the effects of the so-called ‘Ehrlich equation’, I = PAT, and who also has an eye on contemporary political reality, cannot fail to take a pessimistic view. I’d suggest it is the rational, indeed the only responsible, position to adopt given the facts and circumstances.

The argument should not be about the scientific facts, which have never been seriously challenged, but rather about the ensuing politics.

58

Posted by Dan Dare on February 20, 2012, 02:02 PM | #

SSA per capita GDP could conceivably grow to $4000 by mid-century [from $1000 today] - Silver

Given that the population is likely to more than double over the same period, a quadrupling of gdp/capita implies a sustained annual growth in gdp of around 6%. I’m wondering how this is going to be achieved without re-colonisation (which may actually already be underway, albeit not without its critics).

59

Posted by anon on February 20, 2012, 02:54 PM | #

I’m wondering how this is going to be achieved without re-colonisation

And if it’s achieved with Chinese colonization the black population won’t be doubling.

60

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 20, 2012, 03:31 PM | #

@Dan

Yeah I’d say that very serious issues are on the horizon but the how, when and how bad will it be?, is uncertain – and you’re right the political stories or narratives that could arise from such issues is, in a way, more important to understand. Just that the ‘Renner narrative’, for shorthand, seems to me to really be appallingly ill-considered from a political point of view - both tactically and strategically. Political quietism dressed as profundity if you like.

61

Posted by Captainchaos on February 21, 2012, 01:06 AM | #

I do believe the English would prefer to see England completely covered with blacks and Muslims before ever admitting that “we were wrong” with respect to Germany.

Strong words, and a criticism which should be taken to heart, considering that GT is himself a Limey (well, of Limey descent, but let’s not split hairs).

62

Posted by Gudmund on February 21, 2012, 11:56 AM | #

It amazes me to see Silver making the same arguments I have in recent months regarding dropping fertility rates.  I also have to agree with him regarding the issue of whether r/K selection is really a valid concept w.r.t. human populations.  I wouldn’t deny that Africans probably do differ to a considerable extent in just how they choose to raise their children (i.e. parental investment and what-have-you), but I don’t think there’s anywhere near adequate evidence to support Rushton’s theory.  Indeed, the available evidence seems to point away from it.

“Development” in Africa is a two-edged sword.  Sure, the West gives them food aid, gratis.  But the West also brings in Western, liberal ideas which contribute to changing ways of life.  TFR has dropped as African education, urbanization, birth control access, etc has increased.  It will probably continue to do so.  It may be that liberals are unwittingly doing the racists’ work for them, albeit by different means than the average racist may prefer.

As I have said, there is not some immediate solution for overpopulation woes, but the problem does seem to be balancing itself out with time.  Could it be that the hoo-ha over this issue (and, for the record, I am referring specifically to the tendency to nitpick every possibly positive idea to death - not the population issue per se) is simply another manifestation of the gloom and doom mindset that seems to pervade these circles?

I am, by the way, open to Dan’s strategy here.  The population issue is one that actually has some potential to be taken seriously by the intelligentsia and others, unlike many of the hobby horses we’ve tried over the years.  For once, numbers and the cultural zeitgeist may be on our side.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Kai Murros: Moscow Speech 2010

Previous entry: Marxian Illustrations or Marxian Illusions?

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

uKnLeo commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/27/14, 09:42 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Gregory Bateson on Pathology - Context and Relation' on 08/27/14, 05:17 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Gregory Bateson on Pathology - Context and Relation' on 08/27/14, 04:42 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein' on 08/27/14, 03:59 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'the cat and the song' on 08/27/14, 03:34 PM. (go) (view)

Luq commented in entry 'The eternal nation in its rural hearth' on 08/27/14, 12:34 PM. (go) (view)

LOL! commented in entry 'Men are the losers of the sexual revolution' on 08/27/14, 12:32 PM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/27/14, 04:52 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Are we to be cannon fodder for war on behalf of White plutocrats?' on 08/27/14, 02:58 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/27/14, 12:09 AM. (go) (view)

Stephen Nieman commented in entry 'Guns, Lies and Forgeries:A Bible Story' on 08/26/14, 09:55 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/26/14, 05:27 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/26/14, 02:58 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/26/14, 02:02 PM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry 'Englishmen fight back - and win.' on 08/26/14, 11:02 AM. (go) (view)

mario commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 08/26/14, 08:21 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Fratricidal Tendency' on 08/26/14, 05:45 AM. (go) (view)

Phil Arps commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/25/14, 04:05 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/25/14, 11:43 AM. (go) (view)

VanSpyke commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/25/14, 11:19 AM. (go) (view)

VanSpyke commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/25/14, 11:09 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/25/14, 10:22 AM. (go) (view)

Leon commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/25/14, 07:09 AM. (go) (view)

anonymous commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 08/24/14, 11:09 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/24/14, 04:14 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/24/14, 03:23 AM. (go) (view)

J Richards commented in entry 'African-Americans go shopping in Ferguson, Missouri' on 08/24/14, 02:36 AM. (go) (view)

VLAD commented in entry 'Chinese Offer Solution To European Race Replacement: Clone Europe' on 08/23/14, 10:50 PM. (go) (view)

vladtheimpaler commented in entry 'Chinese Offer Solution To European Race Replacement: Clone Europe' on 08/23/14, 10:46 PM. (go) (view)

C.B commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/23/14, 07:20 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Stevie Winwood' on 08/23/14, 04:23 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Stevie Winwood' on 08/23/14, 01:32 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Stevie Winwood' on 08/23/14, 12:39 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/23/14, 12:03 AM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'swift passage' on 08/22/14, 07:54 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone