Written by H.R. Shaw.
Recently, for a laugh more than anything, I decided to watch David Attenborough’s ‘A Life on Our Planet‘. It was the usual wanky and yet soothing sermon laid over some really rather stunning footage. He engaged in a big rant about overpopulation and why we shouldn’t have any kids. Unfortunately, this national treasure forgot a few details, or rather carefully omitted them for his principled modern audience.
“The population of humans on earth has expanded rapidly in my life time, there will be 11 billion people on Earth by 2100. It is possible to slow and even stop population growth well before it reaches that point”David Attenborough
If you wanted to shock David Attenborough’s audience, you could preface this whole diatribe with one graph, and this is it. When he talks about the rapid expansion of the global population, he isn’t talking about Europe, he isn’t talking about America or even really Asia. He’s talking about stopping Africans from having babies because there’s too f*cking many of them.
As we can see from the above graph, none of the continental populations around the world will change that much in the next 80 years. This is important because we all hear relentlessly from the Green activists how climate change is OUR fault and how we have to stop having kids because we’re the problem. As more data comes out, we’re going to see the previously super woke enviro-mental left have to rationalise curbing the African population. Which is going to be good fun.
“Japans standard of living climbed rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century, as healthcare and education improved, peoples expectations and opportunities grew and the birth rate fell. In 1950, a Japanese family was likely to have 3 or more children, by 1975 the average was 2. The result is that the population has now stabilized and has hardly changed since the millennium”David Attenborough
Japan is an interesting example of a nation with a high birth rate developing a lower rate over time. Much of their development happened relatively slowly over the course of the 20th century. If you’re going to talk about turning Africa into a first world continent before 2100, you would have to work as quickly as possible. This means that you’re not looking at a long slow transition into a lower birth rate like Japan, you would have to try to effect massive change artificially. You would essentially be placing Africans into a culture that was not truly their own. Which is effectively what happens when people immigrate from one country to another. Which introduces a better example, the birth rates of Immigrant populations to the UK.
The above data is from some of those populations from 1965 to 2010, we can see two key effects:
First, that if the birth rates halve (which only the Bangladeshi rates do in this dataset) then it takes the full span of this data period, which is 45 years!
Second, that as the birth rates decrease, their rate of decrease also decreases. The Bangladeshi starting point is quite high (6+) and decreases by half. The Pakistani rate is slightly lower (5) and decreases by just under half. Both Indian and Chinese rates are 2.5-ish and went down by less than a point. So there appears to be a flattening tendency in birth rates, or if we’re correlating societal development with birth rate then we are observing a ‘diminishing returns’ phenomenon.
Because the African birth rate is just under 5 children per woman it would take 45 years to halve, and that’s if they were dropped into a first world continent literally this second. If you account for development time then it would be longer. Also, this 45-year period only makes their birth rate fall to 2.5, which is still over the rate of replacement! The African population would still be expanding. You could then factor in the diminishing returns phenomenon to make things seem really ridiculous, but I think I’ve actually proved my point.
For there to be literally any chance of effecting a change in Africa’s peak population, you would need serious intervention that extends beyond a bit of development. Which is surprisingly based for an Eco-freako!
A rather too honest summary
“Why wouldn’t we want to do these things? Giving people greater opportunity in life is what we would want to do anyway. The trick is to raise the standard of living around the world without increasing our impact on that world.”David Attenborough
OK, let’s develop Africa and keep women in schools for longer, which keeps them in careers longer and ultimately makes them miserable, as we see in the West. We could also look into the word “Opportunity” Attenborough uses, which when it comes from the left, never means more freedom or more fun. It usually means giving women the opportunity to abort their babies and pick a career over families. Sure David, we haven’t had enough of screwing women over in the West, let’s do it all over the world!
Honestly, do I have a solution to the African demographic expansion, not really! Neither does anyone else though, and I think we’d all prefer it if we could admit that instead of making an impressively pretty documentary filled with lies disguised as compassionate hot takes.
The ‘overpopulation problem’ can never be fixed by people who refuse to honestly take a look at the “science” they usually bat people over the head with ad nauseum. It’s all a con to sell hemp T shirts and screw over white people. If we want to win on environmentalism against these sods then we just have to push demographics as usual. Demographics is the one issue they can’t talk about honestly and that makes it their silver bullet. Nationalists…Lock and load.