/sci/ - Science & Math

I hope you're not implying that nature is a sentient/divine being of any sort.

Human immunodeficiency virus is - as the name says - a virus. Viruses aren't a deliberate form of population control - they just tend to spread quick when a lot of beings (often in poor condition) are in close contact with each other. Tough shit for Africans who obviously don't use condoms and think that raping virgins will cure them.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

Sterilization chemicals in food aid. Innovation is what we need to get out of this fix so we'll need all the white people we can keep around, also nips, gooks and educated chinks.

Population in Africa in 1950 before food aid: less than 250M
Population in Africa in 2011 with over a half century of food aid: over 1B
And what did we get from it all? Ladysmith Black Mumbazo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etu16HiMNJw

google "The population bomb"

this was supposed to result in global collapse in like 1970. Peak oil was supposed to happen in 1980's. The millerite's thought the world was ending in like 1860ish. The current hip way to get grants is to say we'll all die from global warming.

>>2536675

let me guess

your from the far left

>>2536763

You're adorable.

>>2536763
This is yet another reason I'm against food aid. It does nothing but exasperate an unstable population growth.

>>2536754
No, of course not. However, it's simply inconceivable that humanity could survive on this planet with the rate of population growth that's occurring right now. Eventually something has to happen. Either we choose it, or nature "chooses" it for us by whatever ends up happening when population densities get too big.

>>2536788

50 million times this.

There's no such thing as AGW. Read a book.

>>2536797
Oh boy here we go

>>2536799

U mad, bro? Come at me. :)

>If we do nothing, famine, war, and other disasters will reduce the population.

I see no issue here.

>>2536803
Can't be fucked, too tired I'll let some other /sci/borg destroy you

>>2536791
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6pnSNMs3SQ
No seriously, was this all? They even had to get a Jew's help to make this.

>>2536806

Nice try but you've got nothing.

Does population growth in developing nations really affect us in the developed world though? Why does it matter to us if there's billions of niggers in Africa? They'll all start starving to death until the population is under control again anyway.

>>2536809

I'm not disputing that not much has come from that are of the world but try to have a heart about human life. That's all.

OP, look at your graph please.

That is not an exponential rise.

Population growth continues on until 2050 and then it stops. Why? Because of industrialization.

There is no overpopulation problem, it's just a bunch of "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" crap.

>>2536812
We (the West) give them money, effort and food, they give us millions of refugees and migrants that form gangs, commit crime and never fully integrate (the 65 average IQ doesn't help). This is the story of the relationship 1961-2011

>>2536818
I think it's heartless to encourage them to create 750M more than they could feed in the first place.
>>2536812
They displace areas where whites or asians could live and produce things of value. See: Rhodesia

The answer is trans-human fascism.

>>2536812
The rate of deaths to birth in the US is just about one. That is, about as many people are born here as die. That would lead to a stable population size. At the same time, we have immigration that drives the population size up. When there's a billion starving Africans around, do you think they'll just sit around and do nothing? The more able will try to immigrate (look at Europe and France in particular TODAY), while the destitute will turn to crime and war. Africa has a great number of fantastic natural resources. Resources we need. I'd rather not have to pay for a small war every time we need stuff from Africa.

In the long run, we have the technology today to turn Africa from a huge shithole into a livable area with all kinds of modern conveniences. Maps don't show it so well in the Mercator projection, but Africa is HUGE. There's plenty of space there to be used for living. Right now, most of it is fucked by barely-industriral militias.

>>2536850
>implying morality

>>2536810
Wide-scale deforestation and release of fossil fuels' CO2 seem like fairly significant trends.

But I'm no climatologist.

What about pure-blooded white folks that are dirt poor.

>NO NO THEY ARE PURE! KEEP THEM! FOR THE GOOD OF HURR DERP A DOO!!

>>2536857
Even with the technology to turn Africa from shit to shine, that will do nothing but add to the population problem.

>>2536870
Which do you mean, West Virginia or Romania?

>>2536839
Hey, if population growth stops by then, I'll be happy. That's what the goal is. Will industrialization do it? Probably not. Industrialization is what has lead to the exponential growth of populations so far. In larger prosperity, more children make it to sexual maturity and have their own children. Our only hope then is that people will willfully enact population controls. That's something else that just hasn't worked well so far.

I, for one, support the idea of taking action to control the population before letting overpopulation reduce the size by drastic and probably violent means.

>>2536871
Only if we try to include the native population in the development.

>>2536871
I would recommend colonizing Africa only after population growth has been curbed. We have too many people as it is already, even if we stopped growing today. But we can manage. In the more distant future, it would be nice to redistribute populations from overpopulated areas to underpopulated areas.

>>2536878
>Industrialization is what has lead to the exponential growth of populations so far. In larger prosperity, more children make it to sexual maturity and have their own children.

How about you actually go read what happens when a country industrializes?

Because it's the exact opposite of what you just laid out.

Fewer children are born - you don't need 8 kids to work on the farm when you're not working on the farm anymore. In fact, 8 kids is more of a burden than anything.

Ubiquitous contraceptive use - condoms and the pill, mean couples have more control over how many children they have and when they have them.

Greater education and women's rights is another big thing that impacts population growth negatively.

These trends are seen in every currently industrializing and industrialized country on the planet. There are only a handful of OECD countries that even maintain population growth without the aid of immigration, and places like Russia have *negative* population growth.

The "problem" has solved itself. We don't need to do anything.

>>2536908
You make some valid points, but seem to neglect the time scales involved. You are right when talking about established industrialized countries. This is a process when viewed over several generations. The transition from one to the next is another thing.

> Fewer children are born - you don't need 8 kids to work on the farm when you're not working on the farm anymore. In fact, 8 kids is more of a burden than anything.

True, there are fewer births. There are also fewer deaths before people reproduce. While people are still in the mindset of thinking large families means more labor and more prosperity, they will still have a lot of children.

> Ubiquitous contraceptive use - condoms and the pill, mean couples have more control over how many children they have and when they have them.

Again, not something that happens overnight. Even IN industrialized countries contraception and family planning are prevalent only amongst the affluent and well-educated. This stabilizing effect only occurs once industrialization has been accomplished.

>>2536976
> Greater education and women's rights is another big thing that impacts population growth negatively.

Again, I agree. However, these things also take time. We can't just import these things to underdeveloped countries. Get these in place FIRST, then bother industrializing.

> These trends are seen in every currently industrializing and industrialized country on the planet. There are only a handful of OECD countries that even maintain population growth without the aid of immigration, and places like Russia have *negative* population growth.

Keep in mind what drives industrialization. Population growth. That's been the matra of development for a century or more now. There are curbing effects that industrialization brings. However, growth is still growth. Slower? Good. But in the big picture slower isn't good enough. It needs to STOP.

> The "problem" has solved itself. We don't need to do anything.

Unfortunately, nothing has solved itself. At best, we've bought some time. At CURRENT rates of consumption, we'll be using up more resources per decade than have been used up in the entirety of history. Even if the path of industrialization DOES eventually stabilize the population, we can't wait for that to happen on it's own.

>>2536812
we can only fucking hope

don't worry /sci/, i got this.

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;n
sl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=1991$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=rOXvRa2ZC2oXqBn7gz
62IMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVu
yj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=7.8;dataMax=86$ma
p_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.855;dataMax=8.7$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

Vertical axis is children per woman, bottom axis is what % of women over 15 years old are employed
Move the slider along from the 90s into now, and literally every country is experiencing a drop in birth rates. I agree with whoever says the problem fixed itself. Yes they're still making more babies than necessary to break even, but people aren't starving.

So long as there isn't cures for shit like aids we probably dont have that big a problem


CAPTCHA: 10-16 yeaded

>>2537056
This is a good graph and does show a downward trend in population growth. Keep in mind that anything above 2 is still growth, though, and still exponential growth. The rate changes the timescale. But again, it's still growth.

Let's assume that the trend continues. Let's assume that by 2050 we reach a stable population size. That's not that unlikely. We see it all the time in KP population models. However, that hardly means the "problem is solved."

We still have to get to 2050. These trends only continue so long as the resources are available to develop these countries. What happens if we run out before? Then things get even worse. If your house is on fire, you can just turn on the shower and say, "problem solved."

>>2537056

This curve is old. The population growth decrees must faster.
If we can get hole world industrialisated it will become population decline in 50 years.
But this demands more energy. And clean energy.
http://www.gapminder.org/

>>2536789

That is an insult to the far left.

Let the developed nations be (they have a <2 birthrate, growth comes from immigration

I say in africa, make it a "you get aid if you choose to be sterilized"

The third world will only continue growing at current rates if relief aid supplies match their needs.

Also, next time you're dying of a completely drug resistant bacterial infection, thank the filthy fucking indians for turning the ganges into a filthy fucking communal bath and using anti-bacterial soap.

>>2538357
The ganges is not the problem. It's the millions of indian doctors overprescribing antibiotics in overcrowded hospitals.

never heard of demographic transition?
growth will stop at about 10 billion until there is a new revolution comparable to the industrial one (made a BIG difference, more than computers, it changed everything).

As people get richer, they produce less children, like in western countries now. Africans will stop sooner or later.
The chinese are already under control.

Out of interest why did developing countries have a population boom much larger than developed countries in the 50s?

What made them think "now we must fuck more than ever"

>>2538432
They've always been producing children like crazy. Most of them died off before maturity, though. With foreign aid, more of them survived to reproduce themselves.

Who cares? The world ends in 2012 anyway.

Poor people should stop breeding so we can maintain a decent standard of living.

OP is a moron or a troll. Global population is going to peak at 9 or 10 billion shortly after 2050 and then go into decline. And this is UN projections, not unsourced FUD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

>>2539226
You've got it backwards, bro. They breed BECAUSE they are poor.
>>2539228

>>2539230
Give them free rubbers, shoot the pope.

The solution is to quickly industrialize the third world. No, not just send them food. Actually increase their standard of living and child survival rates. Then birthrates plummet. We've seen it happen in every other country that industrializes. See the Hans Rosling TED talk linked.

Thankfully, they're already doing it at a rapid pace, with or without our help, especially across Asia. Some parts of Africa may be a problem.

>>2539235
You still really don't get it.
People in third-world countries with hight poverty and low child survival have many children out of necessity, not just for lack of condoms.

Here's a Hans Rosling talk specifically about this.
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/

>>2539228
>implying 9-10 trillion people isn't a huge problem, even with decline

>>2539246
>trillion
The other option is genocide. Or mass suicide. Your first.

Really, if we don't help the third world industrialize, then the world population will peak even higher before going into decline.

China had a good idea with the 2 kid maximum. With the low child mortality rate, there isn't a reason to have a dozen kids.

>>2539240
I'd never seen this. Thanks.

Ending extreme poverty is the best way to ensure the long-term success and welfare of humanity.