|
Many parts of Africa also lack the infrastructure that's needed to maintain super dense populations.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
What, like lead water pipes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:It sounds like this "Africa" here has a lot of free space... Sahara is perfect for a landfill innit. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Clearly you just need to settle in it and then go desert folklore > petra for a god-tier city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Left-handed lute posted:4 billion people in 2020 would mean 30% native population increase every year until then. Is that even biologically possible? Women are fertile from around 13 to, eh, let's call it mid-40s, and can increase the population by (just under) 50% every nine months, or 66% every twelve. Forty percent of the population being breeding age sounds feasible. Get on it, Africa. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Sorry, meant 2100. http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/ http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jul/29/un-world-population-prospects-the-2015-revision-9-7-billion-2050-fertility For reference. Given the inevitable strife and chaos that will ensue, that's a supply of refugees and general poor that even the God-sized compassion of the Scandinavian people may have trouble dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/ How is a global population rise of 3 billion by 2050 the same as 3 billion extra Africans by 2020?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Sorry, meant 2100. Why is it inevitable that strife and chaos will ensue? Why are we assuming that this is a destined truth, rather than a projection that's extrapolating solely from current conditions, and which could range to a net decline of a billion people by 2100?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Also by 2100 we might all be living in space or something, a lot has changed over the last 85 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Sorry, meant 2100. 'Sorry, only meant a time beyond our lifespan.' 80 years ago the internet wasn't even imaginable. 80 years before that we didn't have telephones, radio or television. 80 years before the machine industry didn't exist. This is a ridiculous claim and has absolutely no bearing on the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Typically, the historical depictions of the ravenous hordes of poor people are completely off base, usually due to some sort of technological or political advancement. Remember that for a large part of history, a city of 1 million people was a deathtrap of disease and misery and nearly impossible to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Not even 100 years ago they believed that travelling above 20 miles per hour was deadly. 15 miles per hour for women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why is it inevitable that strife and chaos will ensue? Why are we assuming that this is a destined truth, rather than a projection that's extrapolating solely from current conditions, and which could range to a net decline of a billion people by 2100? Because planning and foresight based on our reasoning abilities would dictate that it's reasonable to assume that Africa's population growth and bad governance will lead to long term increases in the northward migration to Europe that is already occurring. Similar conditions in Europe in the past have also lead to massive outmigration, beginning in small trickles and settlements and growing to displace, degrade or oppress the indigenous populations of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa. Regardless of the specifics, only a naive fool would fail to take into account the likelihood of increased migrant flows when trying to plan policy in the present day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. This kind of foreign policy is why I'm in the Mami-camp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
 http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desire-migrate-permanently.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:What 'end of the line'? Africa will have 4 billion people by 2020, the increase in large part due to the gifts of western medicine and aid. Ian Winthorpe III posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Because planning and foresight based on our reasoning abilities would dictate that it's reasonable to assume that Africa's population growth and bad governance will lead to long term increases in the northward migration to Europe that is already occurring. In most, if not all, developing countries high fertility rates impose substantial economic costs and restrain economic growth. The main adverse macroeconomic effects may be analyzed in three general categories: (1) the saving effect, (2) "child quality" versus "child quantity", and (3) "capital deepening" versus "capital widening." These three categories are not mutually exclusive, but they highlight different familial and social perspectives. In addition, there are often longer-run adverse effects on agricultural output and the balance of payments. (1) The saving effect. A high fertility economy has perforce a larger "burden of dependency" than a low fertility economy, because a larger proportion of the population consists of children too young to work. There are more non-working people to feed, house and rear, and there is a smaller surplus above minimum consumption available for savings and investment. It follows that a lower fertility rate can free resources from consumption; if saved and invested, these resources could contribute to economic growth. (There is much controversy on this; empirical studies of the savings effect have produced varying results.) (2) Child quality versus quantity. Parents make investment decisions, in a sense, about their children. Healthier and better-educated children tend to be economically more productive, both as children and later as adults. In addition to the more-or-less conscious trade-offs parents can make about more education and better health per child, there are certain biologic adverse effects suffered by high birth order children such as higher mortality and limited brain growth due to higher incidence of malnutrition. It must be emphasized, however, that discussion of trade-offs between child quality and child quantity will probably remain academic with regard to countries where child mortality remains high. When parents cannot expect most children to survive to old age, they probably will continue to "over-compensate", using high fertility as a form of hedge to insure that they will have some living offspring able to support the parents in the distant future. (3) Capital deepening versus widening. From the family's viewpoint high fertility is likely to reduce welfare per child; for the economy one may view high fertility as too rapid a growth in labor force relative to capital stock. Society's capital stock includes facilities such as schools and other educational inputs in addition to capital investments that raise workers' outputs in agriculture and manufacturing. For any given rate of capital accumulation, a lower population growth rate can help increase the amount of capital and education per worker, helping thereby to increase output and income per capita. The problem of migration to cities and the derived demand for urban infrastructure can also be analyzed as problems of capital widening, which draw resources away from growth-generating investments. In a number of the more populous countries a fourth aspect of rapid growth in numbers has emerged in recent years which has profound long-run consequences. Agricultural output was able to keep pace or exceed population growth over the many decades of population rise prior to the middle of this century, primarily through steady expansion of acreage under cultivation. More recently, only marginal unused land has been available in India, Thailand, Java, Bangladesh, and other areas. As a result (a) land holdings have declined in size, and (b) land shortage has led to deforestation and overgrazing, with consequent soil erosion and severe water pollution and increased urban migration. Areas that once earned foreign exchange through the export of food surpluses are now in deficit or face early transition to dependence on food imports. Although the scope for raising agricultural productivity is very great in many of these areas, the available technologies for doing so require much higher capital costs per acre and much larger foreign exchange outlays for "modern" inputs (chemical fertilizer, pesticides, petroleum fuels, etc.) than was the case with the traditional technologies. Thus the population growth problem can be seen as an important long-run, or structural, contributor to current LDC balance of payments problems and to deterioration of their basic ecological infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:Soo, you are arguing that so many totally preventable deaths occurring is, in itself, better than not? Because you're afraid of African emigration? I'm saying that precedents and incentives have consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:
What a surprise that the continent enslaved, colonised, proxy-warred and now currently enduring conflict mineral regions or pittance farming... doesn't want to be in the place we hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:58
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Because planning and foresight based on our reasoning abilities would dictate that it's reasonable to assume that Africa's population growth and bad governance will lead to long term increases in the northward migration to Europe that is already occurring. Okay, Thomas Malthus. The basic problem is that this assumes that conditions remain constant as the situation changes, such that you can extrapolate outwards for 85 years. So, for example, assuming that the African political situation will remain unchanged for close to a century is absurd, and probably rooted in quaint, backwards visions of Africa and Africans, to put it extremely lightly.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:What a surprise that the continent enslaved, colonised, proxy-warred and now currently enduring conflict mineral regions or pittance farming... doesn't want to be in the place we hosed over. White guilt isn't an immigration policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:02
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:White guilt isn't an immigration policy. What is "white guilt"? Without knowing what it is, we can't determine whether it constitutes an immigration policy or not, leaving aside the whole question of why it's considered a response to that post by you.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:White guilt isn't an immigration policy. Quaint, but I'm the child of an immigrant from Africa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Are you the poster Ironic War Criminal? I mean, if I substitute the III for the 3rd letter of the alphabet, you're IWC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Additional hint: that immigrant isn't white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
my dad posted:Are you the poster Ironic War Criminal? I mean, if I substitute the III for the 3rd letter of the alphabet, you're IWC. Holy poo poo. I think you're right, and I think you're a genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Holy poo poo. Oh its confirmed in his rap sheet. Well this is less fun now
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Quaint, but I'm the child of an immigrant from Africa. So when you say 'we' hosed it over you mean Africans, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:11
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:So when you say 'we' hosed it over you mean Africans, gotcha. How's the Rhizzone doing?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:So when you say 'we' hosed it over you mean Africans, gotcha. Not at all. I'm a British citizen by blood and by soil. Thanks to colonisation I'm 100% British, despite not being purely of white-British blood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Typically, the historical depictions of the ravenous hordes of poor people are completely off base, usually due to some sort of technological or political advancement. I don't think technological optimism is a terribly sound basis for policy. "We've managed to stave off resource exhaustion so far, surely this means that it can never happen in the future and any concern about it is a cover for racism."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
We haven't managed to "stave off" resource exhaustion as much as we have contributed massively to it by giving all the products of resource exploitation to a very small portion of the population, and also spending massive amounts of resources on killing each other and destroying each other's resources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think technological optimism is a terribly sound basis for policy. "We've managed to stave off resource exhaustion so far, surely this means that it can never happen in the future and any concern about it is a cover for racism." Except their point is: a) historically people claim the world is unsustainable b) historically said event horizon hasn't appeared c) therefore, it's not a sensible logical argument by itself
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think technological optimism is a terribly sound basis for policy. "We've managed to stave off resource exhaustion so far, surely this means that it can never happen in the future and any concern about it is a cover for racism." Note the use of "never" in this statement. It allows one to transition from "Yes sometime before the sun goes out we will have resource exhaustion" into "We will have resource exhaustion before I am of the age of 60".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Except their point is:  Assuming that a disaster cannot occur in the future because it hasn't happened before is a basic logical fallacy. If we were talking about anything else, you'd be rightly mocked for this. It's pretty much the definition of the normalcy bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
If the disaster is unpredictable in both nature and magnitude then what do you propose we do about it? Like really "something nonspecific but terrible might happen at some point in the future" is not an argument against any policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Yes, you can argue that: 1) A, therefore B 2) not A Does not inherently mean B. But what you're saying is: 1) not B 2) A
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the disaster is unpredictable in both nature and magnitude then what do you propose we do about it? Develop policies that aim to minimize the adverse effect it will have on our societies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Develop policies that aim to minimize the adverse effect it will have on our societies. Policies such as "stop the bad stuff" and "protect against things going wrong"? Seriously what the gently caress is "a disaster" and how do you "minimise the adverse effect it will have on our societies"? What are we talking about, recession? Asteroid impact? Solar flare destroying all electronics? Children of Men becoming a documentary? Alien invasion? Do we need to develop a crack team of oil drilling economists and put them on a giant orbiting mirror between us and the sun along with an IVF clinic and a supply of nuclear missiles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:14
|
|