PDA

View Full Version : Demographic Trends: World Population to Hit 9 Billion in 2050



cosmocreator
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 04:05 AM
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

The world's population is expected to be more than 10 billion by the year 2050. Most of the growth is going to be in 3rd world countries.

Why is it that they always interest themselves in quantity but never quality? Given that most of the growth is going to be in 3rd world countries, I think it's obvious the quality is going to decline dramatically.

Shaun
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 01:05 AM
If/When the world goes to hell, I think I'll move my family and just live in a small mountain village in Norway. Seriously.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 02:16 AM
Don't get to pesimistic. Remember, AIDS has not taken its full course. What is the Bantu growth rate (birth-death) in South Africa, Botswana, etc.?

The Eastern Front
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 03:26 AM
Most likely the population will increase in these shit countries and their government won't do shit with them. And little piss ant Humanitarian groups won't be able to do anything either. So then, these auslanders will immigrate to America and turn OUR country into shit. Texas is alredy going to the wetbacks again, no doubt America will be next. If this population increase gets to out of hand, I'll move over to Japan, Germany, or Norway and start a new life there.

Louky
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 08:16 PM
The way I look at it is that we're all on a continuum of consciousness. By the time I'm aware of something, a lot of other people of higher consciousness are already "there," but most people are still unaware. The masses will wake up, it just will take them longer. I just hope we have enough people conscious of the peril of Third World swamping of our homelands before it's too late. But that really is up to us who know the truth, isn't it?

Dr. Brandt
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 11:43 PM
World Over-Population
John Tyndall says that liberals are missing the point



Sometimes the Guardianistas tell us the truth; sometimes they do not. It all depends on what suits their agenda. But of one thing we can be sure: even when they do tell the truth the deductions they draw from that truth are crazy to the point of being downright dangerous.

An article on August 18th by the paper’s environment editor John Vidal was headed 'World faces population explosion in poor countries'. Thus far The Guardian was only telling us what everybody should know. But with almost mechanical reliability its writer went on to predict, with no hint of disapproval, consequences of such an explosion that would amount to the end of White European Civilisation.

Says Vidal in his opening words:-

'The world is heading for wildly uneven population swings in the next 45 years, with many rich countries "downsizing" during a period in which almost all developing nations will grow at breakneck speed, according to a comprehensive report by leading US demographers released yesterday.

'They predict that at least an extra 1,000 million will be living in the world’s poorest African countries by 2050. There will be an extra 120 million more Americans, and India will leapfrog China to become the world’s most populous country. One in six people in Western Europe will be over the age of 65 by 2050.'

120 million more Americans? That, for a start, is a grossly misleading forecast. The fact is that the core US population, consisting of Anglo-Saxon and related European elements, has a birth-rate that is almost static. White immigration into the United States would swell the country’s numbers to some extent, but at the present level this would occur on nothing like the scale to account for a 43 per-cent population increase. The bottom line is that most of the 120 million new 'Americans' of which the Guardian writer speaks will come from the ethnic minorities, through both immigration and the internal ethnic-minority rate of reproduction. Serious-thinking people in that country will not view such a prospect with anything other than alarm.

Likewise with Britain. Mr. Vidal tells us that we too are headed for a population increase. Britain, he said:-

'– is expected to grow faster than any other major European country. Within 20 years the authors expect it to have four million more people, at which point its growth is expected to tail off, adding only a further 1.5 million in the next 25 years to eventually reach 65 million.'

Of course, we know whence will come most of the four million new 'Britons' we have been briefed to expect. As with the American increase, they will come almost entirely from the 'ethnic' communities, such is the almost zero reproductive rate of the indigenous Anglo-Celtic population. Such things, needless to say, would not bother Guardian writers nor, probably, the boffins from whom the statistics are obtained.

The article goes on:-

'The changes, considered inevitable given present trends, will transform geo-politics and fundamentally affect the world’s economies, people’s lifestyles and global resources, suggest the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.'

Reproduction trends

Here, it will be noted, the familiar word 'inevitable' makes its appearance. Leftist-liberals love this word because of its utility as a stick to wield against those who do not welcome the liberal one-world agenda: everyone is going to get what is coming to them whether they like it or not, etc., etc., etc. But here 'inevitable' seems to mean a process which is completely out of control, whether by liberals or by others. The changes being referred to are, of course, those consequences – economic, political and social – of the grossly disparate reproduction rates currently being achieved by the world’s different races. That the white races could alter the stated trends by way of their governments encouraging larger families, while at the same declining to subsidise Third World demographic proliferation, does not even merit consideration.

And the same applies to other capable and advanced peoples like the Japanese. Says Vidal:-

'Countries such as Nigeria and Japan, which today have similar sized populations of about 130 million people, could be unrecognisable by 2050, say the authors. By then, Nigeria is expected to have more than doubled its numbers to more than 300 million people. But Japan, which has only 14 per cent of its current population under 15, may have shrunk to roughly 100 million people.'

Europe, says the survey according to Vidal, "is expected to have 60 million fewer people than today and some countries could lose more than a third of their populations." And he continues:-

'Eastern Europe is leading the world’s down-shifters. Bulgaria is expected to return to pre-1914 levels, losing 38 per cent of its people, while Romania could have 27 per cent fewer and Russia 25 million fewer people. Germany and Italy are expected to shrink by about 10 per cent.'

And:-

'The projections are based on detailed analyses of infant mortality rates, age structure, population growth, life expectancy, incomes and fertility rates. They also take into account the numbers of women using contraception and AIDS/HIV rates, but do not allow for environmental factors.'

And here’s the punch line:-

'Climate changes and ongoing land degradation are widely expected to encourage further widespread movements of people and pressure for migration away from rural areas towards cities and richer countries.'

This is a very innocent-sounding way of telling us that in terms of Third World immigration into Britain and other white lands "we ain’t seen nothing yet!" There’s going to be a lot, lot more of it. Of course, reference to the 'land degradation' made by the writer is another way of pointing out that in Third World countries, through primitive and irresponsible methods of agriculture, resources are allowed to go to waste.

But in the final analysis the responsibility is not that of the Third World countries; it is ours! Says our Guardian man:-

'The population changes are causing alarm among experts, who believe sustained growth in developing countries can only be managed with economic help from rich countries. "World population is going to grow massively in some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. We have to ask how rich countries are going to help," said Kirstyen Sherk, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.'

Well, far from asking 'how' rich countries should help the 'developing', i.e. undeveloped, countries’ economies, what we should really be asking is why they should do so. The population explosion in these undeveloped countries has been assisted so far by a constant bailing-out process whereby the developed countries have presented them with huge aid programmes to enable them to feed their growing millions. And what is being suggested, at least by implication, by such people as Miss Sherk is that that there needs to be yet more of this. In other words, more economic subsidy leading to yet more population growth, requiring yet more economic subsidy! In any plain person’s language that is crazy, but in the hothouse world in which dwell progressive liberals it constitutes the highest humanity and wisdom!

Gloabalists worried

But even the globalists are now worried. Vidal reports one of them thus:-

'The former World Bank economist Herman Daly believes globalisation and the uncontrolled migration of cheap labour could put potentially catastrophic pressures on local communities and national economies. "The sheer number of people on Earth is now much larger than ever before in history. Some experts question whether Earth can even carry today’s population at a 'moderately comfortable' standard for the long term, let alone 3 billion more."'

Of course, the local communities referred to here are communities in the white, western world, including Britain. The uncontrolled migration of cheap labour does indeed carry with it the potential for 'catastrophic pressure'. Does Mr. Daly think he is giving us all the benefit of some blinding revelation on his part? This journal and others like it on the hated 'racist' right have been saying much the same thing for several decades, with little thanks from World Bank economists or global-minded folk of any description. But what is the solution? The solution is not to breast-beat and just issue dire warnings. The solution is for those nations affected by the danger to act. That means us, among others. It means that the white, western nations acquire governments possessing the will to defend their frontiers, and place firm barriers against further Third World immigration, while taking all necessary steps to remove those who have crossed the frontiers in the past.

And when I speak here of 'western nations' I do not mean those nations identified by their allegiance to liberal-capitalism; I mean 'western' in a cultural, and above all racial, sense. This includes the nations of the former Soviet Bloc, who belong to that entity. It includes White America, and it includes White British Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is even possible to envisage a time when it could include a restored White South Africa and Rhodesia.

For the looming catastrophe is not, as the Guardianistas and those like them would claim, a global one; where we are concerned it is a catastrophe facing white people. We may take no pleasure in its effects on others – who with even a modicum of humanity can enjoy the sight of starving and disease-ridden Africans, particularly the young? – but the plain truth of the matter is that that catastrophe is one that we can do absolutely nothing about. It is the way of the big, wide, tough world we inhabit and have inhabited for millennia beyond calculation. The one way we can affect what happens to these non-white peoples is a way that makes things even worse: we compound the problem by clinging onto the strange superstition that we 'rich' countries have a duty to feed them, care for their sick and assist them in economic development. We have no such duty. The duty we do have is to ensure that, in a world in which human fertility outstrips economic resources and therefore ensures that some will not survive, we will be among the survivors. That is what governments elected by nations are supposed to do, and that is what journalists who act as tribunes of public opinion are supposed to advocate. But point this out to Guardian-writers and you may as well be preaching to the birds.

As for "pressure for migration away from rural areas towards cities and richer countries", meaning Third World migration to the West, that is a mirage. The pressure comes not from poverty in the countries of the migrants, nor from paucity of resources failing help from ourselves; the pressure comes from the centres of political power in the developed nations, where it has been decreed that traditionally white, European lands, including those outside Europe but founded and built by Europeans, become 'multi-racial', that their peoples voluntarily relinquish their identities and their nationhood and throw their doors open for the world and his wife to come and settle; that their territories, made fertile and prosperous by the brains and the sweat of untold generations of white men and women, be surrendered to invaders. That, in a nutshell, is where the pressures are coming from!

If white peoples were to find leaders of a different stamp, leaders moved by patriotism and duty who would resolutely preserve their homelands for the peoples to whom they belong, and were they to develop institutions dedicated to their own racial interests, there would be no external pressure of the kind described in this survey which could in a thousand years provide the slightest danger to them. Apart from Japan and China, both nations which, with low birthrates, come entirely outside the categories being discussed here, there are no non-white nations ever remotely likely to have the economic and military capacity to pose a threat to us, our lands and our resources. So I say again, putting it in another way: the 'pressures' and the potential 'catastrophes' are of our own making. They are pressures and catastrophes created in the liberal mind and only made real by liberal paralysis.

Whites must breed

And there is one further thing we must do. While we cannot and should not take on responsibility for the Third World’s problems of over-population, we most certainly can and should reverse what threatens to become our own problems of under-population – that is of low fertility rates among white people which with each generation make our nations progressively older and thus weaker in vitality, energy, productiveness and the capacity for self-defence. In other words, we should challenge another of the liberal mantras: that 'population control, meaning deliberate reduction of families and a relative impoverishment of youth, is a good thing.

If we Whites have lost the instinct to produce children and welcome them as additions to familial and national strength – as did our ancestors without even needing to think about the matter – we will surely die out eventually, even if the final self-extinction is not witnessed by those presently living.

We can start putting this process into reverse by conserving all our own resources to our own nurture and development. But of course Guardian journalists would contemplate such a course with horror. As my American friend Sam Dickson put it so well at the meeting at which I was a guest in New Orleans earlier this year: "What makes us unforgivable in the eyes of liberals is that we actually want to survive."

Rachel
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 02:39 AM
Finnish philosopher, Pentti Linkola, deals with the issue of over population. He gives extreme solutions to this dire problem.

www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html (http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html)
www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/frntpage.htm (http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/frntpage.htm)
http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefa...humanflood.html (http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefallofbecause/articles/humanflood.html)

SouthernBoy
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 03:21 AM
I can't site the article, but I've read that birth rates have actually been decreasing lately.

friedrich braun
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 04:22 AM
That was a pretty good piece. Folks like him make me think that there's still hope on the British isle.

cosmocreator
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:00 AM
Finnish philosopher, Pentti Linkola, deals with the issue of over population. He gives extreme solutions to this dire problem.

www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html (http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html)
www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/frntpage.htm (http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/frntpage.htm)
http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefa...humanflood.html (http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefallofbecause/articles/humanflood.html)



"If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die."

Only millions? :icon_evil

The Blond Beast
Friday, November 5th, 2004, 10:49 AM
Sanguine, to say the least...


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/05/population_041105.html

NEW YORK - The world's population will stabilize in 300 years to about nine billion people, with an average life expectancy of 95 years, the United Nations predicts.

In Japan, where people already tend to live longest, the average person will hang on to 106 in 2300, says a UN report released Thursday.

The report departs from dire predictions in recent years that the world's population could reach 12 billion by 2300.

The average woman will have two children in coming years, raising the world population to 9 billion in 2300 from its 6.4 billion now, the UN's Population Division said.

Long-term estimates of population growth dropped because of declining fertility rates.

The report also forecasts that India will pass China to become the world's most populous country.

It will be followed by China and the United States, and Africa will have twice as many people – about 25 per cent of the global total.

The average age is expected to jump to 50 years from 26.

Its authors report warn that the slightest changes in their model, such as a tiny drop in fertility rates, could dramatically alter the results.

The report says that if women kept having as many children as they do currently, the global population would skyrocket to 1.34 trillion in 2300, a completely unsustainable level.

Ederico
Friday, November 5th, 2004, 11:02 AM
9 Billion: A total stressing of our social and natural environment. A planet that is severly overcrowded needs a severe depopulation policy in my opinion. Currently, and most importantly in the future, if extreme measures such as sterilisations of those seriously genetically defective, severe criminals, and those that voluntarily select to be sterilised, are not at least considered for introduction we will face a global over-population that could result in global misery for all. Whether it is a contradiction of basic human rights it is not questionable, the crux of the question is that we need population decrease and not growth.

Unfortunately those stimulating global population growth are generally the burgeoning and ignorant billions of the Third World who produce humans through quantitative aspects rather than qualitative ones. Unfortunately the West is blinded by the Egalitarian dogma where each individual is equal to the other. I will quote Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche on the question: "All men are not equal; thus speaks justice" - Change justice to nature and you have a winner.

The current plight of the Third World can be partially linked to their extreme and reckless fecundity which is overpopulating Third World areas and the whole globe (not to mention Europe through mass immigration).

An ideal world population should figure at around 3 billion I believe, possibly less.

Perun
Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Dr. Brandt already posted this I believe

Loki
Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 03:59 PM
Dr. Brandt already posted this I believe
Oops sorry

HIEL
Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 04:04 PM
This is my solution to the third world problem. http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4896

Theudanaz
Friday, February 25th, 2005, 11:19 AM
White Women (& Men): Get those fertility pills popping and have yourselves lots of little soldiers, or abandon your families to the dreadful fate of being squashed, mangled and suffocated by the imminent brown tsunami as forecast here below...:(


UN: World Population to Hit 9B in 2050

UNITED NATIONS - The world's population will increase by 40 percent to 9.1 billion in 2050, but virtually all the growth will be in the developing world, especially in the 50 poorest countries, the U.N. Population Division said.

In a report Thursday, the division said the population in less developed countries is expected to swell from 5.3 billion today to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of richer developed countries will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.

"It is going to be a strain on the world," said Hania Zlotnik, the division's new director. She said the expected growth will be concentrated in countries that already struggle to provide adequate shelter, health care and education.

The report reconfirmed many trends, including an increasingly aging population in developed countries. But it said immigration would prevent the overall population in richer countries from declining.

The United States is projected to be the major net recipient of international migrants, 1.1 million annually, with its population increasing from 298 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050, the report said.

Between 2005 and 2050, population growth in eight countries — India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States, Ethiopia and China — is likely to make up half the world's increase, the report said.

Median fertility is expected to decline from 2.6 children per woman today to slightly over 2 children per woman in 2050. Zlotnik said India's population will surpass China's in the coming decades because its fertility, currently at 3 children per woman, is higher than China's, estimated at 1.7 children per woman.

In 2000-2005, fertility levels remained above 5 children per woman in 35 of the 148 developing countries, including 30 of the poorest nations. The pace of decline in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia was slower than anticipated.

In southern Africa, the region with the highest AIDS prevalence, life expectancy has fallen from 62 years in 1995 to 48 years in 2000-2005, and is projected to decrease further to 43 years over the next decade before a slow recovery starts, it said.

Thoraya Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said the new projections should spur more action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and help couples freely determine the size of their families. "We must take more urgent action to promote access to reproductive health, including family planning, and fight HIV/AIDS to save millions of lives from AIDS and maternal death, as well as to reduce poverty in developing countries," she said in a statement.

In 2002 the Population Division had estimated global population in 2050 of 8.9 billion.

Sigel
Friday, February 25th, 2005, 01:48 PM
There's no Third World. No, not anymore. That's only a phrase you coined to keep us in our place. There's one world, only one, and its going to be flooded with life, submerged. This country of mine is a roaring river. A river of sperm. Now, all of a sudden, it's shifting course, my friend, and heading west...

Jean Raspail's 'Camp of the Saints' is coming to pass.
http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/xraspail.htm

Disturbing.

Huzar
Friday, February 25th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Don't be too pessimist Thiudans. I understand what you feel reading those data, but don't desperate too much. I can give you some help to interpretate these informations and some precisations (i'm a political science student and this is my sector). Yes the general situation is not good at all, at first impression, although, if we do a deep analisys, the scenario is , yes very dangerous, but not completely desperate ; there are many data from many different sources and some observations can be a little different from one side to the other. Besides, remember that the major part of PROJECTIONS, are based on ACTUAL trends, but NOTHING tell us that actual standards will remain the same FOREVER; example : the country "X" has today a fertility rate of 4, then continuing on this trend for 50 years, entire population will have a demographic increase of over 200%. O.K., but What say to us, that the rate of 4 will remain unchanged for 50 years ? Of course nobody can foretelling the future, but the most general logic dynamic of demography says NO. At the begin of the last demographic boom of western world (1950-1960) fertility rate was 3.2 for european women and 3.5 for american white women. If a similar trend would has manteined itself until now, we were the double than we actually are (Germany, probably, over 100 ml. instead 80, Italy and France almost 80 ml. instead 60 ml. and so the others). Although, reality it's another thing : those good trend didn't preserve forever. In a laps of time of 30 years they pulled down to actual miserable standards (...........:~( ). Now, i think several non white world's areas to be reconductable to this dynamic; I'll illustre situations with reference to potential involvment of white nations:
*NOTE = in all data i'll cite only the FERTILITY RATE (number of sons per woman) whom constitutes, the "REAL GROWTH" in technic academic terms. while i don't tell the annual percentage of increase (effective percentual growth) whom is defined "NOMINAL GROWTH" in technic academic terms. This, cause i believe the last definition(nominal growth) the hearth of a bad EQUIVOKATION; Theorically, a nation could have a notable "nominal growth", without a proportional "real growth". EXAMPLE : the nation "y" has an annual percentual increase of 1,5%(it's rather high), but if you see the fertility "real growth" that is 2.0 (2.1 is th "line" of replecement. Going under this line means a sure decrease on the long term), we understand that the situation is not so good. The high annual percentage (1,5%) reported, is caused by the PREVIOUS generations, NOT by the ACTUAL number of births, therefore is only "nominal"; sure, it cause an effective increasing, but it's only a transitory phenomenon : a sort of demographic "inertia effect". A nation with a similar situation will have only a "pseudo-encrease " doomed to finish rapidly. The biggest mistake of many statistics, is to considerate only the "nominal growth". This is only an HALF of truth.


CENTRAL AMERICA : the situation of the most populated nation ( MEXICO) is stabilized substantially; official data of 2004 and estimations of 2005 report a fertility rate of 2.42 sons per woman ("0" replecement rate is 2.1). It means that Mexico "real" growth is finished. other countries under Mexico, like guatemala etc. are not very significant numerically anyway (although they're on the same trend). In carebbean isles the situation is even better : Cuba has the same growth of a european nation (1.9 rate) and Dominican republic goes to the same. Jamaica is insignificant, and PuertoRico will have a small increase(2000= 3,5 ml./ 2050= 4 ml.). The only demographic danger could be Haiti (90% blacks-10% mulattos)whom has a persistent 4 rate (for now, at least).


SOUTH AMERICA : Brazil with its big population (180 ml. 2005) is at the and of run ; 1.95 rate (i repeat, "0" growth rate is 2.1) and this involve even blacks mestizos and mulattos. Venezuela and Colombia the same : respectively 2.5- 2.6 rate. The rest of continent is not too important or goes on the same or(better) is white (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile), so i doesn't rapresent a danger theorically.
NOTE* the major danger for, northamerica, could be the "combination" of all these fluxes.


ASIA : Nort-west = very similar to european countries ; China (1.6 rate, equal to France) Japan (1.3, lesser than the mean western rate/ 2000= 130ml. 2050= less than 100ml.). Korea similar to china trend. (depopulation of Japan will cause a strong flux of immigration from south east, deviating partially it from usual north american target.
South East : Vietnam after decades of under development has a very moderate rate (2.2 rate) Indonesia, the most populed state of this area (2005 220 ml. has a "0" rate (2.1). Here the only demographic bomb are Philippines.

Indian sub continent : here there is a real battle against unproportionate growth : actual fertility is 2.9 but is persistent and it's difficult to pull down(although consider it was 6.5, 40 years ago). The same about confinant countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

MIDDLE EAST : here the things must be cleared abut many cases; Turkey it's not true that there is a demographic bomb in this country. Absolutely. Many statistics emphatize this fact but the real data are these : fertility 1.98 (pulling down) probable REAL population in the future 2005 = 70 ml. 2050 = 80-85 ml.(at MAX) . NOT the 100 ml. and over, someone claims...Therefore there will be an objective increase, yes , but not dramatic (strictly demographically).
Iran : 20 years ago at the age of revolution the rate was 6-7. Now is 2.1 ("0") The biggest broblem is arabic peninsula : Saudi Arabia, Irak, Syria etc.(the pure ARABIC strain culture, [**even before the Islam religion itself**], is against any form of demographic control).

AFRICA :~( :~( :~( :~( .........
The situation is known very well by all the presents. Although we must do some distinctions : north africa (or white africa, like some say) has , today a much lower increase than sub saharan africa. North west africa has the lowest rate ( Algeria 2.5, Morocco 2.5, Tunisia 2.0 ) while Egypt has 3.0.(but decreasing)

Black africa is the REAL HELL = actual mean rate for all subsaharan zone is 5.0 about. The data, instead, don't count AIDS effect, DETERMINANT in many areas. HIV is the strongest obstacle to AFRICA growth (africans refute any sex/demographic control) . The legacy will cause millions of death especially among women and children (demographic centre) determinating new unknowns cenarios.



It's all for now. I apologize with all, especially with anglophones, for my english:( It's the longest coverage i've posted on skadi............:D

Nordic Dream Maiden
Friday, February 25th, 2005, 07:13 PM
White Women (& Men): Get those fertility pills popping and have yourselves lots of little soldiers, or abandon your families to the dreadful fate of being squashed, mangled and suffocated by the imminent brown tsunami as forecast here below...:(
I can give you an easy answer as I got from my daughter who's in her mid twenties w/ a diploma who just almost pulled down 100 grand in her first year in sales. She was raised a Racialist and wasn't one bit ashamed of it. She was very well known in the "White Power music" scene and was a girlfriend to one of the Bound for Glory band member here in the Twin Cities. She wants kids but cannot find a real man. And when I mean man its defined as her staying home and reproducing in a regular middle class home and neighborhood, and not in a trailer park with some guy floating from job to job because he proclaims his Racialism in front of swine and gets fired for that or his attitude does him in; an educated and smart racialist who knows what to say in whatever environment who can legally carry a 44magnum. She just cannot find that Racialist man, sure plenty of male CyberRacialists exist and can type anything sweet to the eye--but procreation exists on the physical reality plane and not the cyberplane or Skadi's adult forum.
She has known many real white Racialists, but as she has noticed, the older they get the more "goyim" and neo-connish they get. It's almost like the two liberals who live beside me, both very white, with a 4th coming white child are doing more for whites than Racialists and these people always vote democrat and would attend a "lib" march in a heartbeat. If staying quiet for some of us to create more babies for our preservation has to be, let it be and realize your work for the jews is for your kind to survive.

helsingor
Saturday, February 26th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Are these people self sufficient in their food production? If not, the Western world should stop sending any and this will be a self correcting problem.

Frostwood
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 03:30 PM
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/

A thorough illustration of exponential growth: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/pop/bacteria/index.php

Map of population distribution on Earth. (http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/images/distribution.gif)

hauer
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 03:49 PM
The whole system is out of balance. 3/4 of the entire world population needs to disappear to restore the balance and to get a new world order.

Xanthochroid
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 03:59 PM
The whole system is out of balance. 3/4 of the entire world population needs to disappear to restore the balance and to get a new world order.

Do not worry, It will be taken care of...

That map is crooked BTW...

Blutwölfin
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 05:14 PM
That map is crooked BTW...

If you turn your head a little... :rolleyes:

GreenHeart
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 11:56 AM
What we need to do is grow our nordish race, and cause the other races to drastically shrink in number.

Náttfari
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 12:10 PM
What we need to do is grow our nordish race...

We don't need more people, we need better people.

GreenHeart
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 03:47 PM
We don't need more people, we need better people.

Exactly, but those of us discussing here are better people. :)

Still, many of our people would be a lot better without the jewish propaganda destroying the noble aryan ideals. After all we have to have leaders and followers, we can't all be leaders.

I think after the great victory it wouldn't hurt to implement eugenics, to promote superior health, creativity, good looks and intelligence (which go hand in hand). But well, some of us are doing that already... :D

If we have more of us, there is more stock from which to select out and breed the "better" people.

Blutwölfin
Sunday, February 26th, 2006, 11:18 AM
A population milestone is about to be set on this jam-packed planet. On Saturday, Feb. 25, at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the population here on this good Earth is projected to hit 6.5 billion people.

Along with this forecast, an analysis by the International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau points to another factoid, Robert Bernstein of the Bureau's Public Information Center advised LiveScience. Mark this on your calendar: Some six years from now, on Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Earth will be
home to 7 billion folks.

These are estimates, of course, but clear trends emerge from the data behind them.


Population profile

A report issued by the Bureau in March 2004 noted that world population hit the 6-billion mark in June 1999. "This figure is over 3.5 times the size of the Earth's population at the beginning of the 20th century and roughly double its size in 1960," the study explained.

Even more striking is that the time required for the global population to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion-just a dozen years-was shorter than the interval between any of the previous billions.

On average, 4.4 people are born every second. The population on Earth today is nearly four times the number in
1900 [graph]. Behind that phenomenal global increase is a vast gulf in birth and death rates among the world's countries. But according to population experts, this gulf is not a simple divide that perpetuates the status quo among the have and have-not nations.


Birth dearth

"What is worrisome about this demographic divide is not the differences among nations' population growth rates, but the disparities associated with these trends ... disparities in living standards, health, and economic prospects," explained Mary Kent, co-author along with Carl Haub, of a Population Reference Bureau report issued last month titled "Global Demographic Divide."

Kent, editor of the Population Bulletin, and Haub, a senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau, reported that news of declining population in Europe fueled concern about a global "birth dearth," but there is continuing population growth in developing countries. The question, they asked, is which demographic trend is the world facing?

"The reality is that both trends are occurring," Haub said. "The dramatic fertility decline during the 20th century coincided with improved health, access to family planning, economic development, and urbanization."

Kent and Haub also reported that most countries will experience population growth through 2050, as the world adds a projected 3 billion more people to the total.

Remarkably, despite the many new developments over the past 50 years, one fact looks very much the same, explained Kent and Haub: Populations are growing most rapidly where such growth can be afforded the least-an observation that has changed little over time, they said.


Source (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flivescie nce.com%2Fothernews%2F060224_world_popul ation.html)

Gorm the Old
Monday, February 27th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Hurry ! Mark out your square metre of living space while you still have time.

Mead Devourer
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 02:39 AM
bye bye earth. :~(

brian
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 03:06 AM
A population milestone is about to be set on this jam-packed planet.


In other news:

"Religious leaders wringed their hands in joy over more souls to convert"
"Political leaders wringed their hands in joy over more souls to import"
"Business leaders wringed their hands in joy over more souls to sell to"
"Bono wringed his hands in joy over more children he can use to save his career."
"American neocons wringed their hands in joy over more chances to spread American freedom to"
"African dictators wringed their hands in joy over more power they have attained, without even trying"

Weird ... it was all in the front page of today's paper.

:D

Sifsvina
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 03:08 AM
Wake, Jotun, wake! Shake, Jotun, shake! Burn and blow, rain and snow! Wake, Jotun, wake!

Ewergrin
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 03:22 AM
Wake, Jotun, wake! Shake, Jotun, shake! Burn and blow, rain and snow! Wake, Jotun, wake!

This is going to be my nightly prayer before bed!

Sifsvina
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 03:30 AM
This is going to be my nightly prayer before bed!

Good idea! But I think I will use it as a "waking" ritual in the morning;-)

Ewergrin
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 03:38 AM
Good idea! But I think I will use it as a "waking" ritual in the morning;-)
It takes both fire and ice and air and earth....

ornendil
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 06:57 AM
This is horrible! Is there anything to be done? :~(

Gagnraad
Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 07:10 AM
This is horrible! Is there anything to be done? :~(
Ofcourse not!
The world is going to Hel, we can just simply watch it.
Although, it feel hopeless, we must not give up.

Crabby Badger
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 04:45 AM
Lets just say I have my doubts. They say all sorts of things about world population. I figure the planet wont make it that long with all the resources we use and crap we pump into the ecosystem anyways.

I am a big believer in radical population reduction targets. Like Billions less than now. I used to say 1/2, then 2/3rd, then 3/5ths, now I figure that there does not need to be more than 500 million humans in the world. Which is still alot when you compare our numbers to the numbers of other species.

There I go again living up to my monkier the Crabby Badger.

TheGreatest
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 05:59 AM
9 billion tommorrow, 90 billion the next day and one trillion in the distant future.



Alas we are punishing ourselves aren't we? The British once drew a clear line when it came to sharing technology with outsiders (even with Europeans). Had they continued this policy we wouldn't be in the shape we're in.
The Third World continues to have large families and they show no signs of stopping. If you checked a few documents you will find out that the UN or America (all comes from the same American farms) is feeding the entire world at
Western Taxspayer's expense.


North Korea --> Fed by the UN
Africa --> Fed by the UN
India --> Fed/Subsidized by the UN


The only countries that are not being fed by the UN/US is probably Europe, the United States (ignoring the ghetto's), Japan and maybe China. China could be accepting food aid but I hadn't heard of it.



I hope I don't come off as an Anarchist but if the West collapsed it would fix a lot of problems. For instance almost all of Africa and India would die off within months

MockTurtle
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 07:57 AM
I used to say 1/2, then 2/3rd, then 3/5ths, now I figure that there does not need to be more than 500 million humans in the world.

Interesting coincidence. My botany professor in Undergrad mentioned that, in order to achieve a state of lasting stability, the human population needs to be reduced to about that number -- 500 million. Even then, though, we would have to be much more conscious about resource consumption and environmental damage, etc.

Of course, he didn't even try to tackle the problem of just how the reduction itself will be accomplished. Maybe he knew inside that it wouldn't be a pretty thing? :-O

Cythraul
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 08:43 AM
"What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides."
Pentti Linkola (http://www.penttilinkola.com)

An excellent metaphor for our global population circumstance. I too believe half a billion or so to be a healthy number of humans. I don't advocate depopulation but rather breeding restrictions of some sort. Actually, taking away the incentives for having more than one or two children would probably suffice. The western benefit system and third world strife for quantity are absolutely not helping the planet.

With regards to the article, I very much doubt that they can predict a slow down like that. It's going to require a non-passive approach from the entire world to cap population growth. The problem is that many - probably the world's majority - do not believe (or know) we are even over-populated.

Jäger
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Interesting coincidence. My botany professor in Undergrad mentioned that, in order to achieve a state of lasting stability, the human population needs to be reduced to about that number -- 500 million. Even then, though, we would have to be much more conscious about resource consumption and environmental damage, etc.
The 500 million figure comes from the (late) 80s, where many more were concerned about overpopulation.
It has many media references, incl. the TV-Show "Sliders" :D


Of course, he didn't even try to tackle the problem of just how the reduction itself will be accomplished. Maybe he knew inside that it wouldn't be a pretty thing? :-O
It is quite simple, if we re too many, we are too many, we will be regulated by mother nature herself :)

Æmeric
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 02:27 PM
The report says that if women kept having as many children as they do currently, the global population would skyrocket to 1.34 trillion in 2300, a completely unsustainable level.

This is completely ridiculace. The world population couldn't get that large - that would be 25,000 persons per sqm, including desert & tundra. Eventually famine & pestilence would take charge & hold the global population to way below 1.34 trillion. The only reason for throwing around numbers like these is to scare people in the West into having fewer children, when it is the third world that is causing overpopulatio. And without technical assistance from the West, the population of the Third-World would be a fraction of what it is and that of the Earth would be significantly lower then the 6,724,376,514 it currently is.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009, 08:57 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The world's population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in developing and, in many cases, the poorest nations, a report released Wednesday said.

A staggering 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet.

"The great bulk of today's 1.2 billion youth -- nearly 90 percent -- are in developing countries," said Carl Haub, a co-author of the report. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia.

"During the next few decades, these young people will most likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful employment, and adequate health care," Haub continued, calling it one of the major social questions of the next few decades.

In the developed world, the United States and Canada will account for most of the growth -- half from immigration and half from a natural increase in the population -- births minus deaths, according to the report.

High fertility rates and a young population base in the developing world will fuel most of the growth, especially in Africa, where women often give birth to six or seven children over a lifetime, the report says. The number is about two in the United States and 1.5 in Canada.

A stark contrast can be drawn between Uganda and Canada, which currently have about 34 million and 31 million residents, respectively. By 2050, Canada's population is projected to be 42 million, while Uganda's is expected to soar to 96 million, more than tripling.

"Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world population is still growing at a rapid rate," said Bill Butz, president of the bureau. "The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6 billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history."

By 2050, India is projected to be the world's most populous nation at 1.7 billion, overtaking current leader China, which is forecast to hit 1.4 billion. The United States is expected to reach 439 million for No. 3 on the list.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/12/world.population/

Sigurd
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009, 09:03 PM
A staggering 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet.

And the remaining three percent probably in our countries, but not by our fellow countrymen, but by foreign imports from precisely those countries. :|

Hersir
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 07:07 PM
World population passed 6.9 billion in mid-2010, according to United Nations demographers, and is on track to reach 7 billion in late 2011. The number of people added to the population each year – 79.3 million – has been consistent for nearly a decade. Since the world population is larger each year, of course, this consistent increment equates to a slow fall in the annual growth rate. From mid-2009 to mid-2010, the population grew 1.16%, compared with 1.32% annually a decade earlier and with slightly more than 2% four decades ago.

At the same time, humanity’s median age is consistently rising, a byproduct of longer life expectancy and the fact that women are having fewer children on average than their mothers had. In 1970, the world’s median age – the precise age at which half of all people are younger and half are older – was 22.1 years. In 2010, it is 29.1 years. Yet overall “youthening” was the consistent trend from 1950, when the median age was 24 years, until 1970. Since then the median age has risen by two to three months every year, a trend that now shows no signs of slowing.

The overall growth and aging of human population mask an unprecedented range of demographic diversity. Many industrial countries are now experiencing either relatively slow population growth or– in Japan, Germany, and 14 East European countries – absolute decline. The combination of rising life expectancy and falling fertility has led these countries to experience significant population aging, meaning a rise in the median age.

http://www.commodities-now.com/assets/images/worldpop.gif

In contrast, many developing countries continue to grow rapidly and have still-large proportions of young people. Median ages are nonetheless rising slowly (albeit from low bases) in most of these countries for the same reasons as in industrial nations: increasing life expectancy and declining fertility. Some developing countries already have relatively low fertility accompanied by fairly rapid aging, with China being the most often discussed example.

Source http://www.commodities-now.com/news/general/4417-world-population-on-track-for-7-bn-late-2011.html

Arktischer
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 08:54 AM
I really don`t want to have nightmares this night so I`m not going to think about how many of those 7 billion are White, let alone Germanic.
What I see very wrong here is the fact that the world`s natural resources are slim as it is, we don`t need more resource-consuming lowlifes.

We need to close our Germanic borders before the next hoards of mongrel immigrants will descend upon us.

Hersir
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 03:39 AM
The United Nations yesterday revealed unsettling news about the world's population: Instead of leveling off at around 9 billion by 2050, the population will now reach 10.1 billion people by 2100 and keep growing. That projection from the U.N. Population Division reflects revised estimates of fertility particularly in developing countries. Demographer John Bongaarts, a vice president of the Population Council in New York City, spoke with ScienceInsider about why the outlook has changed:

Q: What have previous U.N. population reports said?

J.B.: The U.N. makes projections to the year 2050 every 2 years and every 4 or 5 years they make a longer year projection. Throughout the 2000s, there were two reports where they predicted a peaking in the low 9 billions, then a decline. The big news here is that there's no peaking and no decline, and continued increases over the entire century to 10 billion. Then it doesn't say. It's still growing in the year 2099.

Q: Why did the projections change?

J.B.: The main reasons are that in the poor countries, particularly in Africa, the fertility declines that they had expected are not materializing as rapidly as they originally projected. The U.N. has a set of assumptions about what happens to fertility over time as countries develop. Africa is not following the script as precisely as expected.

It's both fertility being a little bit higher and mortality being a little lower. In the '90s some epidemiologists predicted that the population of Africa would decline because of AIDS. That has not happened. There have been a lot of deaths due to AIDs, but population momentum is so strong that we're going to have a billion more people in Africa by 2050 and 3.5 billion people in Africa by 2100.

That raises of course the question, "Can you feed all these people? Will this lead to a crisis of some kind?" That is quite possible. The U.N. does not take that into account in their projections. [So it could change] if you end up with massive civil wars in that region or you run out of food or there's another AIDS-like epidemic or another virus or something.

Q: Why is fertility a little higher than expected?

J.B.: One reason is that African governments have neglected to invest in family planning programs. ... There are exceptions. Kenya had a program starting in the 1970s that did some good, but was underfunded in the last decade. A success story that is now being followed very closely is Rwanda. The Rwandan government in the last few years has made a major investment in health and in family planning, so that is bringing down the fertility rate.

But most governments in Africa do almost nothing in family planning or very little.

Q: Do people blame that on the governments, or donors or both?

J.B.: It's a complicated story. It's partly the AIDS epidemic. In the '90s everybody said the sky's falling and people are dying, so what's the point of having a family planning program. The other problem is that conservative governments, the Bush Administration, the Vatican, and so on have strongly opposed family planning programs.

The third factor is that economists have objected to investing in this. They don't think family planning programs work. For example, the World Bank, which was a very strong supporter of family planning in the '70s and '80s, has gone entirely missing in action in the last 2 decades.

Q: Is that starting to change?

J.B.: After 2 decades of neglect there's suddenly a resurgence of this. The Obama Administration has increased very substantially aid for international family planning programs. The British have made family planning programs one of their top priorities. The World Bank has started an entirely new reproductive health program, including family planning, which is something surprising from them. And Melinda Gates talks about family planning now.

There is suddenly a return of interest. This also has to do with the fact that food prices and energy prices are rising, we now have much clearer evidence for global warming. All of that together brings this issue back in focus.

Source http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html?rss=1

Cuchulainn
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 04:22 AM
Whoever estimated that african population would decrease due to AIDS was incredibly naive. To think that people would stop having unprotected sex in third-world countries just because they're carrying a deadly disease or because theres not enough food to go around or even the fact that there are constant civil wars going on... lunacy. The europeans never should have given up control of their respective colonies, it would have been better world-wide if they had stayed and implemented some form of modern society. Yes I realize that in alot of cases there were revolutions that forced out those european controllers, but damn! africa is just a shithole, just about anything would be better than what is there now.

Patrioten
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Whoever estimated that african population would decrease due to AIDS was incredibly naive. To think that people would stop having unprotected sex in third-world countries just because they're carrying a deadly disease or because theres not enough food to go around or even the fact that there are constant civil wars going on... lunacy.The mistake was more likely due to overestimating the level of deaths and infections that would occur throughout Africa as a result of aids, leaving fewer women alive in fertile ages to produce children. If the spread of aids across countries, and the number of infected people in individual countries does not reach predicted/assumed levels then this would have necessitated a revision of the projection. Projections must necessarily be revised from time to time, the factors that have an impact on fertility and population growth are not static all the time everywhere. Changes can be sudden and often unexpected. In the case of Africa, projections about a dropping fertility rate are hard to make due to economical conditions not being the same as those in other countries which the models are based upon. If Africa maintains its current economical development pattern, as is likely due to factors of race, economic policy, geography etc., then fertility decline can be a very slow and unpredictable process.

velvet
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 05:01 PM
The 10billion figure is still way too low, I always wonder where they base these assumptions in, because this would mean that the third world would NOW cut their fertility of a half, as well as India (China is stable at 1,3bio), but this IMHO is totally unrealistic.

This means that world population will continue to grow into the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 42 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2042.

United Nations projections (Pdf document) indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2200.

Source (http://www.worldometers.info/population/)

2011: 6,921 billion and each second 2 new add to this!

Thats almost another billion in just ten years. By 2042 world population will be far beyond the 10billion, because thanks to retarded first world aid programmes, more children survive (50 years ago 2/3 of the 15+ children of African women died before they reached fertility age), lesser miscarriages, and even AIDS infected women reproduce thanks to first world aid. This means the world population will grow exponential as it did already in the last decades, and no longer lineal. And most important it doesnt even depend on local conditions anymore, which used to be the most effective population control instrument in the past. No food - no overpopulation, easy as that. Not today anymore, where Europe and America essentially produce the food for the entire world - and never ending streams of immigrants.

Hopefully Mother Earth will wreck some havoc over the world and reduce it effectively again.... :|

Patrioten
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Starvations will still occurr though it will be cushioned sufficiently by the west to encourage and ensure further growth, which means more immigration. The 20 million arabs and africans that the EU wants wont be a problem once the hordes start to move.

Edgard
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 05:44 PM
The 10billion figure is still way too low, I always wonder where they base these assumptions in, because this would mean that the third world would NOW cut their fertility of a half, as well as India (China is stable at 1,3bio), but this IMHO is totally unrealistic.

This means that world population will continue to grow into the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 42 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2042.

United Nations projections (Pdf document) indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2200.

Source (http://www.worldometers.info/population/)

2011: 6,921 billion and each second 2 new add to this!

Thats almost another billion in just ten years. By 2042 world population will be far beyond the 10billion, because thanks to retarded first world aid programmes, more children survive (50 years ago 2/3 of the 15+ children of African women died before they reached fertility age), lesser miscarriages, and even AIDS infected women reproduce thanks to first world aid. This means the world population will grow exponential as it did already in the last decades, and no longer lineal. And most important it doesnt even depend on local conditions anymore, which used to be the most effective population control instrument in the past. No food - no overpopulation, easy as that. Not today anymore, where Europe and America essentially produce the food for the entire world - and never ending streams of immigrants.

Hopefully Mother Earth will wreck some havoc over the world and reduce it effectively again.... :|

Time to start handing out food aid with a sterilisation shot even if its only 50% effective it would help. They use it on horses and as 3rd worlders have proven they are no more capable of controlling their birth rate than a horse it would seem the sensible thing to do.

Elessar
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 05:46 PM
I'm wagering on a world war or a widespread natural disaster breaking out before then, so we'll see how it pans out :P

Edgard
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:05 PM
I'm wagering on a world war or a widespread natural disaster breaking out before then, so we'll see how it pans out :P

I think I should look for a place way out in some mountain valley where I can build a house and grow most of my own food. Then I can watch it all go down on satellite TV. At least a world war would kick liberals to the curve and hopefully we could keep it of western soil. I would enlist but I bet I am over the hill before it comes to the real deal.

SaxonPagan
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:06 PM
Population growth is the elephant in the living room that the Greens/Ecologists etc.. are all missing!

It's no good nagging us into taking a shower instead of a bath, driving a lower-emission car, recycling our Coke cans and imposing energy saving light bulbs on us if the world's population is growing exponentially.

I know it's trendy to talk about reducing your "carbon footprint" by 2% or whatever, but it's just a cosmetic, futile gesture in relation to the main issue (that they refuse to address!) of population control.

Edgard
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:25 PM
Population growth is the elephant in the living room that the Greens/Ecologists etc.. are all missing!

It's no good nagging us into taking a shower instead of a bath, driving a lower-emission car, recycling our Coke cans and imposing energy saving light bulbs on us if the world's population is growing exponentially.

I know it's trendy to talk about reducing your "carbon footprint" by 2% or whatever, but it's just a cosmetic, futile gesture in relation to the main issue (that they refuse to address!) of population control.

True cutting the world population by 2% would do way more for mother earth.

Elessar
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:58 PM
I think I should look for a place way out in some mountain valley where I can build a house and grow most of my own food.

In Britain? Land is slim picking there, let alone the thousands if not millions who seek refuge in the countryside as well. How good is the growing conditions there anyhow?
That's what's great about living in America/Canada (not to rub it in), is that there is miles and miles of uninhabited mountains and prairies to roam.

Hersir
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 07:16 PM
In Britain? Land is slim picking there, let alone the thousands if not millions who seek refuge in the countryside as well. How good is the growing conditions there anyhow?
That's what's great about living in America/Canada (not to rub it in), is that there is miles and miles of uninhabited mountains and prairies to roam.

If you arnt already settled and prepared by the time the sh*t hits the fan, you have only a small chance. The best would be with a small community, cant survice that long on your own.

Edgard
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 07:37 PM
If arnt already settled and prepared by the time the sh*t hits the fan, you have only a small chance. The best would be with a small community, cant survice that long on your own.

Well I was thinking some place in Europe a few miles out from a mountain town. Some place that would be the last place in the world to get hit and where most of the food in the shops is grown by the farmer down the road.

Maybe some place a few miles across the border from Germany. I don't foresee living way out on my own but being partially self reliant wile working in a local town. I might have a hard time talking my other half into it but in time she might relent :)

Canada sounds grate and I have also considered moving out there but I hear that it's getting really multicultural so I don't know if it would be a good idea.

For me the main point is not being a target and not being stuffed if the international food trade hits troubles so I guess it wouldn't have to be the mountains just a safe distance from a large city, not that I really think European cites will be hit but it would be hard to get food as there is no way a large city can support is self from local farmers and that's a lot of other people looking for food.

Edgard
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 07:40 PM
In Britain? Land is slim picking there, let alone the thousands if not millions who seek refuge in the countryside as well. How good is the growing conditions there anyhow?
That's what's great about living in America/Canada (not to rub it in), is that there is miles and miles of uninhabited mountains and prairies to roam.

I think the growing conditions in the UK are fairly good but the cost of a country house and land is way to high so unless you are a millionaire it would be a bit of a stretch :(

celticviking
Sunday, July 31st, 2011, 07:31 AM
July 29, 2011

The global population is expected to top seven billion in 2011. By 2050, it's expected to exceed nine billion. By 2100, it's expected to rise to 10 billion.

The figures were cited by a Harvard School of Public Health press release about a review article of Professor David Bloom published in Science.

The global population growth is expected to be highly uneven geographically.

In certain developed countries like Japan and Germany, it's expected to stay flat or even decline. In the coming decades, these countries could face a demographics crisis as society fails to produce enough adults to care for the elderly.

Towards 2050, the entire developed world is expected to contribute only three percent of the projected global growth.

In developing countries, populations are expected to explode. In Africa alone, the population is expected to grow 1.1 billion, or 49 percent of the global projected growth, by 2050.


http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189522/20110729/population-growth-billion-developing-2050.htm

OnePercent
Monday, August 1st, 2011, 01:35 AM
Are We Prepared as World Population is Set to Breach 7 Billion Soon?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189799/20110731/world-population-prepared-seven-billion-united-nations-japan-and-germany-2050.htm

The world population is expected to breach seven billion this year, which is more than twice the number of people that lived on the earth just 50 years ago, according to recent projections by the United Nations.

The population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050 and 10.1 billion by 2100. For the next forty years, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added: 97 percent of the growth will be in developing regions.

The numbers are drastically larger than anything the earth has experienced before - and scientists are very concerned about the impact this surplus of humans will have on the world. Namely, they are unsure whether the planet can actually sustain that many people.

The global population growth is expected to be highly uneven geographically.

In Africa alone, the population is expected to grow 1.1 billion, or 49 percent of the global projected growth, by 2050. Population is doubling every 20 years in some parts of Africa, making it impossible for communities to keep up with the growing demand for housing, roads, schools, and health clinics.

In certain developed countries like Japan and Germany, the growth rate is expected to stay flat or even decline. In the coming decades, these countries could face a crisis as society fails to produce enough adults to care for the elderly.

By 2050, the entire developed world is expected to contribute only three percent of the projected global growth.

"Although the issues immediately confronting developing countries are different from those facing the rich countries, in a globalized world, demographic challenges anywhere are demographic challenges everywhere," argues David Bloom of the Harvard School of Public Health.

The population growth began to accelerate with industrialization around 1750. The world reach one billion people in 1800 and two billion in 1925. The numbers grew dramatically in the last 50 years from three million to seven million and peaked in the mid-1960s at a growth rate of two percent per year.

“In the 1960s and 1970s, people expected a population bomb. Now, we have mini-bombs going off in the most fragile parts of the world. Issues of inequality and poverty may spill over from less-developed countries, which will not be good for their neighbors or the rest of the world,” Bloom told Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, global life expectancy is also expected to rise from age 69 this year to 76 in 2050. Nearly a quarter of the world's population is expected to be over 60 by then, which is about double the proportion it is today.

According to researchers, in 2011, nearly 135 million people will be born and 57 million will die. That's a net increase of 78 million people. The longer life spans and lower death rates play a role in explaining population growth; the variable that will make the greatest difference in how many people will live on earth in 100 years is fertility rates.

For example: If every woman had two babies, the world's population would remain as it is.

Yet, the global average is 2.5 births per woman. That's down from five in 1950, but the number varies drastically by geographic location.

To help meet the coming global demographics shift in all parts of the world, mankind needs to "tackle some tough issues ranging from the unmet need for contraception among hundreds of millions of women and the huge knowledge-action gaps we see in the area of child survival, to the reform of retirement policy and the development of global immigration policy," said Bloom.


Scary stuff indeed.

Frostbite
Monday, August 1st, 2011, 01:53 AM
Someone should send the third world condoms.

OnePercent
Monday, August 1st, 2011, 05:16 AM
So basically the world population is going to climb approximately 1 billion people every ten years...does anyone else hear a bomb ticking?

Fiona
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Can anyone explain why we are not pouring contraception pills into these places? Why can't this be done. Those women would jump at the chance to get the giood stuff.

Hersir
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 02:56 PM
Someone should send the third world condoms.


Can anyone explain why we are not pouring contraception pills into these places? Why can't this be done. Those women would jump at the chance to get the giood stuff.


Because it's against their cultures.
Norway tried sending condoms to Africa, but they ended up cooking soup on them.

OnePercent
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:01 PM
It is an unpleasant reality but it is imperative that the western world steps back from the impending population crisis in Africa and allows nature to take its course. I believe that this may very well be the defining issue of our times, because there are going to be many leftists in our governments who are going to push very hard for us to open our doors to allow these suffering Africans into our countries. This cannot be allowed to occur, not only because it will mean the end of our culture but also because the enormous burden of third world consumers could very easily mean the end of our entire civilization. We cannot feed the world, no matter how much some people want this to be so, and any attempt to do so will only result in our demise along with the millions Africans who cannot feed themselves.

Mööv
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 11:12 PM
It is an unpleasant reality but it is imperative that the western world steps back from the impending population crisis in Africa and allows nature to take its course. I believe that this may very well be the defining issue of our times, because there are going to be many leftists in our governments who are going to push very hard for us to open our doors to allow these suffering Africans into our countries. This cannot be allowed to occur, not only because it will mean the end of our culture but also because the enormous burden of third world consumers could very easily mean the end of our entire civilization. We cannot feed the world, no matter how much some people want this to be so, and any attempt to do so will only result in our demise along with the millions Africans who cannot feed themselves.


Nicely said. The whole problem with Africa arose not because Africans developed over time to be the breeding machines they are out of food scarcity and large palette of diseases striking them which all kept them at normal population levels but because we started sending them food, medication, etc. without trying at the same time to tame their habit earned over time as a means of adaptability to the environment.

Fiona
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 12:10 AM
It is an unpleasant reality but it is imperative that the western world steps back from the impending population crisis in Africa and allows nature to take its course. I believe that this may very well be the defining issue of our times, because there are going to be many leftists in our governments who are going to push very hard for us to open our doors to allow these suffering Africans into our countries. This cannot be allowed to occur, not only because it will mean the end of our culture but also because the enormous burden of third world consumers could very easily mean the end of our entire civilization. We cannot feed the world, no matter how much some people want this to be so, and any attempt to do so will only result in our demise along with the millions Africans who cannot feed themselves.


I don't think compassion will affect our governments' decisions or ever does.

I think leftists don't have any real power. It's just conservatives who want cheap labour and easily boosted GDP from increased market (due to increase of people) who import migrants. The middle left and right are aware that negroes make poor workers. They will continue to bring in Arabs, Mexicans and East Indians, and Asians.

I don't know if that's positive or not.

Where the left is dangerous, is when the non-white people have moved here, the leftists make sure they get more rights and advantages than the white population.

To clarify: The right brings in the greater market base (people). The left equalizes them with the existing populace,

Let me know what you think?

TXRog
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Wow! This is really discouraging news.

So the entire world's population will increase nearly 50% in the next40 years and in those countries whose people contribute nothing but chaos, disease, famine, crime, civil war, pain and suffering - including in every single country they immigrate to.

Time to start a mass sterilization program on the entire African continent with of course exception being given to my Germanic brothers and sisters who live there.

Fiona
Friday, August 5th, 2011, 01:10 AM
Wow! This is really discouraging news.

So the entire world's population will increase nearly 50% in the next40 years and in those countries whose peoples who contribute nothing but chaos, disease, famine, crime, civil war, pain and suffering - including in every single country they immigrate to.

Time to start a mass sterilization program on the entire African continent with of course exception being given to my Germanic brothers and sisters who live there.

We seem to spend more money on allowing them to continue by providing them with food and medicine than we do on our own growing abortion industry.


Terrifying

Frostbite
Saturday, August 6th, 2011, 05:20 AM
Ironically sending them aid has done more harm then good. Now they have more and more children they can't care for, and when they starve we send them MORE aid.

I've read some news articles about the famine in Somalia and anytime someone suggested giving the people birth control everyone flipped out and said that was racist.

Gall-Gaidheal
Saturday, August 6th, 2011, 05:47 AM
Ironically sending them aid has done more harm then good. Now they have more and more children they can't care for, and when they starve we send them MORE aid.

I've read some news articles about the famine in Somalia and anytime someone suggested giving the people birth control everyone flipped out and said that was racist.

In Mozambique 20 million condoms are sold a year, which comparing to sexual active men, that means they're using 5 a year, however most of them are used as Footballs.

This was all off Pangea's day video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErYcScPcaHg)

Meritocrat
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 12:40 AM
Any aid given to third world nations should be tied to strict birth control methods implemented by the recipient government (such as a one child only policy).

I think they should receive no aid, but if the aid was used to stop their population growth, I could accept it.

OnePercent
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 07:10 AM
I don't think compassion will affect our governments' decisions or ever does.

I think leftists don't have any real power. It's just conservatives who want cheap labour and easily boosted GDP from increased market (due to increase of people) who import migrants. The middle left and right are aware that negroes make poor workers. They will continue to bring in Arabs, Mexicans and East Indians, and Asians.

I don't know if that's positive or not.

Where the left is dangerous, is when the non-white people have moved here, the leftists make sure they get more rights and advantages than the white population.

To clarify: The right brings in the greater market base (people). The left equalizes them with the existing populace,

Let me know what you think?

I think that in the case of African immigrants it is really the leftists and compassion-driven elements (namely Christian outreach organizations) of our soceity that are going to be the primary drivers of refugee immigration. You said it yourself, right-wing capitalists know that negroes make horrible employees. Besides, businesses already a steady supply of cheap trainable labor from places like Mexico and Central America for now so they really don't need to bother dealing with the primitive and practically untrainable masses that are liable to come from Africa.

On the other hand, the leftists view them as loyal allies in their cause to destroy western civilization and the campassionate Christian organizations view them as potential Christian converts.

After I noticed a large influx of Somalian immigrants in my area a few years ago I started doing research on refugee immigration, and I found this really awesome site that compiles reports about refugee resettlement programs around the world:

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

Anyway, one of the main discoveries about these resettlement programs, in the United States at least, is that they are almost always being managed by leftist Christian outreach programs who obtain federal funding to assist these refugees by teaching them how to exploit the welfare systems in the regions they are immigrating to. There have been a few instances where corporations (mostly agribusinesses) will sponsor groups of these refgees so they can employ them as workers, but these experiments have generally failed because the African immigrants are usually completely illiterate and incapable of even the most basic training. As a result I think this trend has slowed down alot over the past year or so.

Fiona
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I think that in the case of African immigrants it is really the leftists and compassion-driven elements (namely Christian outreach organizations) of our soceity that are going to be the primary drivers of refugee immigration. .
Lol.I only worked out today actually that the immigration into scandinavia does seem to be more about compassion/leftist refugee bs.

I believe I'm right in regards to the anglo-saxon-celtic countries though.

Sindig_og_stoisk
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Birth control, contraception and one child policies should be the only kind of foreign aid we should be doing in the Third World.

If these countries weren't able to live of Western foreign aid, they would be forced to ensure their own development. Like China is doing.

And they would inevitably need to educate, empower and put their women to work , which would mean a one child policy. Like China is doing.

Our first priority must be to put in place a generation of politicians who understand that immigration into the West is no solution to any of the problems of the Third World. This only means that the problems will find their way here to our world and turn the entire world into Somalia.

Then we can begin discussing how the Third World should be fixed.

BritishLad
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 03:38 PM
africas making nearly half of the world's population growth, things are gettin beyond a joke now

velvet
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 04:49 PM
The numbers are drastically larger than anything the earth has experienced before - and scientists are very concerned about the impact this surplus of humans will have on the world. Namely, they are unsure whether the planet can actually sustain that many people.

The answer is: no.

When anywhere is a massive surplus of wild animals, hunters are sent out to regulate the population. Just with humans, the most destructive animal to environment (and its fellow humans), no one sees the need to stop this mad growth.

How the world will look like when that 9billion is reached and nature prevented time and again to solve the parasite problem herself, can well be seen in the 1973 end-time movie Soylent Green. It is visionary in more than this sense alone.

Scary is highly understated :-O

TXRog
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 06:59 PM
I just read somewhere about the Canadian journalist who was abducted, abused and raped in Somalia. She was later released and gave birth to her rape child.

Now she is going back to Somalia to help these "poor and impoverished people", having started a foundation and all she requires is $60 million (!!) to build schools for the children. So even best case scenario is these kids get educated and then what? There is no infrastructure that would provide jobs for these now educated individuals. The best they can hope for is to become warlords and establish their own "gangs."

As long as there are people like this woman who seriously lack common sense and are rational beings, continued aid will be given to these primitive cultures/countries and the manifest problems there will only continue to worsen.

Here is the latest video link on this crazy woman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkd7ou_former-freelance-alberta-journalist-amanda-lindhout-who-was-held-prisoner-15-months-by-islamic-somal_news

It is obvious this woman is craving serious attention.

Meritocrat
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 09:25 PM
I just read somewhere about the Canadian journalist who was abducted, abused and raped in Somalia. She was later released and gave birth to her rape child.

Now she is going back to Somalia to help these "poor and impoverished people", having started a foundation and all she requires is $60 million (!!) to build schools for the children. So even best case scenario is these kids get educated and then what? There is no infrastructure that would provide jobs for these now educated individuals. The best they can hope for is to become warlords and establish their own "gangs."

As long as there are people like this woman who seriously lack common sense and are rational beings, continued aid will be given to these primitive cultures/countries and the manifest problems there will only continue to worsen.

Here is the latest video link on this crazy woman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkd7ou_former-freelance-alberta-journalist-amanda-lindhout-who-was-held-prisoner-15-months-by-islamic-somal_news

It is obvious this woman is craving serious attention.

This is clearly a victim of mental disease. No rational person could come to her conclusion.

Fiona
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 10:46 PM
I just read somewhere about the Canadian journalist who was abducted, abused and raped in Somalia. She was later released and gave birth to her rape child.

Now she is going back to Somalia to help these "poor and impoverished people", having started a foundation and all she requires is $60 million (!!) to build schools for the children. So even best case scenario is these kids get educated and then what? There is no infrastructure that would provide jobs for these now educated individuals. The best they can hope for is to become warlords and establish their own "gangs."

As long as there are people like this woman who seriously lack common sense and are rational beings, continued aid will be given to these primitive cultures/countries and the manifest problems there will only continue to worsen.

Here is the latest video link on this crazy woman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkd7ou_former-freelance-alberta-journalist-amanda-lindhout-who-was-held-prisoner-15-months-by-islamic-somal_news

It is obvious this woman is craving serious attention.I just want my head back in the sand again

Frostbite
Sunday, August 7th, 2011, 11:08 PM
I just read somewhere about the Canadian journalist who was abducted, abused and raped in Somalia. She was later released and gave birth to her rape child.

Now she is going back to Somalia to help these "poor and impoverished people", having started a foundation and all she requires is $60 million (!!) to build schools for the children. So even best case scenario is these kids get educated and then what? There is no infrastructure that would provide jobs for these now educated individuals. The best they can hope for is to become warlords and establish their own "gangs."

As long as there are people like this woman who seriously lack common sense and are rational beings, continued aid will be given to these primitive cultures/countries and the manifest problems there will only continue to worsen.

Here is the latest video link on this crazy woman:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkd7ou_former-freelance-alberta-journalist-amanda-lindhout-who-was-held-prisoner-15-months-by-islamic-somal_news

It is obvious this woman is craving serious attention.


Talk about a glutton for punishment :-O

I do my best to stay away from people who would hurt me simply because I am female.

TXRog
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Talk about a glutton for punishment :-O

I do my best to stay away from people who would hurt me simply because I am female.

Isn't the behavior you just described that of a NORMAL rational, cognizant human being, one who also possesses some innate survival instinct/skills that have evolved over tens of thousands of years in human development?

EXAMPLE:

Cave man goes into cave without a few of his friends and forgets his spear and gets mauled by a bear.

NEXT time same caveman goes into cave WITH his friends and REMEMBERS to take his spear with him, or better yet, avoids going into any more unfamiliar caves entirely.

This woman is obviously lacking such instincts, and in my humble opinion is nothing more than a "media whore", craving attention and celebrity status. As many of my Germanic brothers and sisters here on Skadi are aware, I lived and worked in Hollyweird for 16 years and witnessed firsthand this sort of unnatural behavior many, many times. Some people will simply do ANYTHING for attention.

Reminds me of the famous words of Jesus Christ when he was suffering on the cross, and I quote:

"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

This very same remark seems perfectly applicable and appropriate here.

Poor dumb pilgrims.:~(

Fiona
Tuesday, August 9th, 2011, 12:47 AM
^prejudice is a survival instinct. some caves may be empty but there is nothing wrong with a healthy prejudice towards unfamiliar caves.

Thorbrand
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 05:03 PM
The world’s population will reach 7 billion at the end of October. Don’t panic
Oct 22nd 2011 | from the print edition

IN 1950 the whole population of the earth—2.5 billion—could have squeezed, shoulder to shoulder, onto the Isle of Wight, a 381-square-kilometre rock off southern England. By 1968 John Brunner, a British novelist, observed that the earth’s people—by then 3.5 billion—would have required the Isle of Man, 572 square kilometres in the Irish Sea, for its standing room. Brunner forecast that by 2010 the world’s population would have reached 7 billion, and would need a bigger island. Hence the title of his 1968 novel about over-population, “Stand on Zanzibar” (1,554 square kilometres off east Africa).

Brunner’s prediction was only a year out. The United Nations’ population division now says the world will reach 7 billion on October 31st 2011 (America’s Census Bureau delays the date until March 2012). The UN will even identify someone born that day as the world’s 7 billionth living person. The 6 billionth, Adnan Nevic, was born on October 12th 1999 in Sarajevo, in Bosnia. He will be just past his 12th birthday when the next billion clicks over.


That makes the world’s population look as if it is rising as fast as ever. It took 250,000 years to reach 1 billion, around 1800; over a century more to reach 2 billion (in 1927); and 32 years more to reach 3 billion. But to rise from 5 billion (in 1987) to 6 billion took only 12 years; and now, another 12 years later, it is at 7 billion (see chart 1). By 2050, the UN thinks, there will be 9.3 billion people, requiring an island the size of Tenerife or Maui to stand on.

Odd though it seems, however, the growth in the world’s population is actually slowing. The peak of population growth was in the late 1960s, when the total was rising by almost 2% a year. Now the rate is half that. The last time it was so low was in 1950, when the death rate was much higher. The result is that the next billion people, according to the UN, will take 14 years to arrive, the first time that a billion milestone has taken longer to reach than the one before. The billion after that will take 18 years.

Once upon a time, the passing of population milestones might have been cause for celebration. Now it gives rise to jeremiads. As Hillary Clinton’s science adviser, Nina Fedoroff, told the BBC in 2009, “There are probably already too many people on the planet.” But the notion of “too many” is more flexible than it seems. The earth could certainly not support 10 billion hunter-gatherers, who used much more land per head than modern farm-fed people do. But it does not have to. The earth might well not be able to support 10 billion people if they had exactly the same impact per person as 7 billion do today. But that does not necessarily spell Malthusian doom, because the impact humans have on the earth and on each other can change.

For most people, the big questions about population are: can the world feed 9 billion mouths by 2050? Are so many people ruining the environment? And will those billions, living cheek-by-jowl, go to war more often? On all three counts, surprising as it seems, reducing population growth any more quickly than it is falling anyway may not make much difference.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533364/print

Was Malthus right? How do we address this issue now? How does it affect our own racial and cultural preservation? Should we weep for the starving and war afflicted or is this natural wastage? Any thoughts welcome!

Bo
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 05:34 PM
http://www.economist.com/node/21533364/print

Was Malthus right? How do we address this issue now? How does it affect our own racial and cultural preservation? Should we weep for the starving and war afflicted or is this natural wastage? Any thoughts welcome!

If the Western World would stop giving aid to places such as Africa, Asia, South America, and so on then their numbers will dwindle signifigantly. Mother nature is trying to thin their population numbers and we keep interfering. Not to mention their civil/tribal wars that also crop their population, we should stay out of their conflicts.

Thorbrand
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 10:35 PM
Yes, indeed the more that western culture and aid interfere, the worse things become, people breed more, can't feed their children, more aid is needed, etc. As a very general observation in relation to Africa, prior to colonial interventions natural wastage occurred and tribal societies only sustained what was sustainable. If they did not then they died, made war or migrated (and made war and died, ad infinitum) and so things remained more or less balanced. Once colonialism was decried and rejected by the former African colonies the benign (it's a sweeping statement, I know), but the benign support was removed and chaos ensued (and that is Africa) - the genie was out of the bottle as it were. People were westernised (to a degree), became consumers, survived through increased aid and medical care and proliferated, indeed bred and bred again.

I am in favour of a decreased world population and, where necessary, sterilisation drives. The media (as in this article) tend to downplay some of the negative aspects of the growth (it is slowing down, the planet could actually sustain more if managed properly, etc.). However what is more likely imo is that there will be increased waves of forced immigration, war and want. Ultimately we in the west will be swamped. This is not just a prediction it is happening. So the population boom is the tide of invasion. Whilst our governments flap their hands in dismay and vacillate ineffectually (and what could they ever do!) it is going to happen and keep happening.

Here is an article about the invasion in Italy and accompanying image.

See: http://digitaljournal.com/article/305224

Frostbite
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 10:42 PM
It sounds mean, but Natures way of keeping down the population has always been famine, disease etc.

People in Africa or where ever can't feed themselves. You can't have 1 billion+ people in a country. They need birth control. If people really want to help them, they would stop giving them aid to breed and breed.

7 billion+ is unsustainable. Even if there is physically enough room for all those people, they need food and water and shelter and clothes and they're going to want a first world standard of living.

In many places they have to desalinate ocean water because the fresh water sources can't handle increasing populations.

Thorbrand
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 10:51 PM
It sounds mean, but Natures way of keeping down the population has always been famine, disease etc.

This is not mean though because the next generation of starving kids inherits the wasteland their proliferate parents made for them and if things continue as they are (as you point out) not only will we be asked to continue to provide for them but the image I posted above won't just be Italian islands invaded, it will be crowds of people wandering into our towns and villages (what am I saying! That's already happening :thumbdown).

Frostbite
Thursday, October 20th, 2011, 10:58 PM
It's more cruel to feed these people and let them have children that can't be cared for. So they get taken care of by the west and there's another generation of children starving to death.


If you moved all those people to Europe or somewhere else, it will become just like the country they left. If they can't survive in a place as big as Africa, how is a little place like Europe going to handle them? Where is the land for farming going to come from? What about the water?

The West can't take care of the world.

paraplethon
Sunday, October 23rd, 2011, 04:34 AM
How?

Firstly, we must look at what is the most important issue in todays world: "The Economy". It's always the economy; how it is fairing, how it is growing, projections for such, and the need to coddle and massage its fragility as it's the one thing we all rely on to survive. Or so the story goes...

Then a totally different economic paradigm is essential; currently we rely on a system that works by continual growth, and growth at a frenzied rate is always sought after.

Even areas that don't have naturally increasing populations - Australia hasn't for over 30 years, have still seen population increase through rampant immigration - immigration we are continually told is 'great for our economy'. (Population growth=Economic growth) In this example, Australias population has increased from 16.5 million in the mid '80's to over 22 million today.

Change the economy - change the reliance on growth, and change the rampant and rapid expansion of population. Somewhat easier said than done.

Way of Deception
Monday, October 24th, 2011, 12:15 AM
The population of the world is expected to more than double, growing from 7billion to 15billon by 2100, according to the United Nations.

The figure has shocked experts who say the numbers will be catastrophic if realised and claim urgent action is needed to curb growth and save the planet's resources.

Previous UN estimates predicted the population to reach 10 billion people by the end of the century, however the startling new figure will be released in a report by the United Nations Population Fund (Unfpa) later this week.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052431-0E613F3D00000578-202_468x326.jpg


World population will more than double to 15billion by 2100, says UN (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052431/The-world-population-approaching-perfect-storm-swells-15bn-2100.html)

Norrøn
Monday, October 24th, 2011, 12:58 AM
7 billion humans, peek oil, climate changes, riots, bail outs, mass immigration and a West in full decline. And they call my generation the lucky one?:|

Berrocscir
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 07:33 PM
Some 'experts' say it's going to level out - even fall in some countries - I can't see how. It's a timebomb.

Æmeric
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Eventually our people will go bankrupt or there will simply not be enough of us to "save" the poor of the third world & there will be a sharp correction.

paraplethon
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 02:56 AM
Some 'experts' say it's going to level out - even fall in some countries - I can't see how. It's a timebomb.

Western countries some time ago would have levelled out (and some fall in population) if it wasn't for immigration. One of the reasons immigration is pushed so hard is a growing population is a driver for a growing economy, and a growing economy is currently presented the only single viable economic option.

Being the centrality of belief in the economy's position, either: The economy is removed from its central position of most import
The current capitalist (financialist to be more precise) worldview is removed
Or the current system is altered to run at sustainable, zero growth rates


Make no mistake - it's a timebomb for sure. The problem is most assuredly in Africa and Asia though there are examples of halting booming growth in population that aren't limited to only China's 'one child policy'. Look for examples at Iran and Thailand and the Phillipines.

If only India and Africa (as a whole) adopted some of their measures.

Chris Clafton
Sunday, October 30th, 2011, 02:46 AM
Think of it like a rollercoaster. As you ascend slowly on the chain lift, you get a sense of excitement for what is coming, and then the first drop is the big one, and after that the rollercoaster glides through the rest of the course losing speed. I probably should not use the word "excitement" though for what will happen in the future sooner or later.

Frostbite
Sunday, October 30th, 2011, 02:47 AM
It won't be exciting when everyone is starving to death or when there's some sort of plauge.

Thorbrand
Sunday, October 30th, 2011, 05:33 PM
It won't be exciting when everyone is starving to death or when there's some sort of plauge.

yes, which is why we, as Germanics, should be prepared to resist and survive. This does not mean selling up and living in the wilderness in a log cabin or nuclear bunker with 50 years supplies (though living in a log cabin in the wilderness would not be so bad) but rather keeping abreast of demographic changes, where possible, relocating to a place where you can grow or hunt (or both) your own food, learn some new skills (carpentry, shooting, brewing :), etc. etc.). Basically having a plan and the means to execute it.

None of us can predict the future but we can hypothesise a variety of scenarios that population growth and unfettered immigration would inflict on Europe, the antipodes and the north Americas.The growing demand for fuel (and the rise in prices thereof) might suggest it would be a good idea to generate your own. Clean water is going to be increasingly precious, therefore secure a good supply (wells, springs, boreholes) or live in an area with plentiful rainfall (like the pacific northwest or the western coastal regions of the UK). Much of the hypothesised changes would occur over several decades but again selfishness is not an option if we are concerned with preservation, we need to ensure our children and grandchildren are given all natural and technological/knowledge-based advantages.

With regards my original question re: can this trend be reversed...I fear that the simple answer to that is no, certainly not by the current NWO-type governments. Barring some international cataclysm (like a plague), our governments will continue to act in a humanitarian way which will probably continue (aid, condoning successive waves of immigration, etc.) until they are forced to change course by circumstances running out of control and by then it will be too late.

And yes....I do sound like a 'Jeremiah' howling doom! :D

Olavssønn
Sunday, October 30th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Seems like we Europeans truly will have to fight for our lives in the near future, like it or not!
The standards are not going to become any better in the third world overnight, and with their scarily fast population-growth, there will be more and more people wanting to come to Europe.
I'm wondering how far we will let it go. Our race and civilization as a whole has become sick and weak, and the danger is that we won't be able to cure our own weakness and modern sickness before the more savage peoples are completely dominating our living-space.

Hersir
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 09:25 PM
The world population of seven billion will increase to 9.3 billion by 2050, with most of the growth in big cities in Africa and Asia, the UN has projected.

The population division of the UN's Economic and Social Affairs department said the planet's urban population, now at 2.6 billion, will increase to 6.3 billion of a global total of 9.3 billion by 2050.

'The urban areas of the world are expected to absorb all the population growth expected over the next four decades while at the same time drawing in some of the rural population,' the UN said.

The demographic projection is meant as a tool to help government decision makers draw up policies dealing with population growth. The UN said big cities face constant challenges in providing jobs, housing, energy and infrastructure.

The largest increases in urban population are expected in India, China, Nigeria, Indonesia and the United States.

From 2010 to 2050, cities in India will grow by 497 million people, Chinese cities by 341 million, US cities by 103 million, Nigerian cities by 200 million and Indonesian cities by 92 million, the report said.

Source http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2012/04/06/World_population_to_reach_93bn_by_2050_7 36878.html

Meanwhile:


The world's population may be growing at a startling rate, but Western Europe tells another story.

Birthrates across many Western European countries are now at their lowest for years. And the lowest of them all, according to the latest figures from Eurostat, is Germany

Germany's birth rate - which is the number of births per 1,000 inhabitants - is now 7.88. That's down 16% in the last ten years and the lowest in the country's history. Other countries whose rates have also declined include Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.

Meanwhile, the UK and Spain have seen their birthrates rising, as have most of Eastern Europe.

Number of births per 1000 inhabitants:
http://cl.ly/283h3P1L0h041R222H2j/Image%202012-04-09%20at%2010.24.15%20PM.png

2010 article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/19/european-birth-rates-data-germany)

velvet
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 09:38 PM
:mad

Maybe the global warming can hurry up a bit and make the methane reserves explode again.... there're not so many of them in Europe. Would solve one or another problem, no? :(

Hrafn Odinnsson
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 10:20 PM
The next generation of wars are going to be about population control and resource grabbing.

Hersir
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 10:38 PM
The next generation of wars are going to be about population control and resource grabbing.

Don't we already have those wars? USA in Iraq, European nations promised oil if they helped resistance fighters in Libya etc

renownedwolf
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 10:55 PM
IMO in 2050 there will not be anywhere near that amount of people. I'm expecting there to be a massive population crash, whether by war, disease, famine or any number of other reasons.

I think that it needs to happen as well.

hyidi
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 02:08 AM
China / India / Africa they need to control their birth rate. All three nations can only hold a certain amount of people and once those countries are full there is no room for them any where else' certainly not in white countries!!!
Whites are struggling to breed when we are full to the brink with 3rd worlders' we don't need anymore! Whites are on the other end of the scale' Whites need to reproduce more.

I am afraid that when India' China' Africa once full to the brink & with all this open 3rd world immigration to white nations all these nationalities are going to flood our boarders eventually whites are going to be wipe out.

3rd world Human population growth is bad for us the White race.

Granraude
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 02:19 AM
China / India / Africa they need to control their birth rate. All three nations can only hold a certain amount of people and once those countries are full there is no room for them any where else' certainly not in white countries!!!
Whites are struggling to breed when we are full to the brink with 3rd worlders' we don't need anymore! Whites are on the other end of the scale' Whites need to reproduce more.

I am afraid that when India' China' Africa once full to the brink & with all this open 3rd world immigration to white nations all these nationalities are going to flood our boarders eventually whites are going to be wipe out.

3rd world Human population growth is bad for us the White race.

Last time I checked, Africa was a continent with 54 countries.

hyidi
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 02:23 AM
African is still a race of human that belong to Africa. you knew what I meant but thanks for picking up on my mistake.

velvet
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 03:27 AM
To be fair here, China already implemented a strategy to reduce its population (one child policy). For such things to take effect though it takes a human life time (ie, until the thinned generations die), and the rural population also often ignore it, so the success is rather limited, but their population doesnt grow as much as other countries. However.

To the "global" population explosion during the last 40 years, ie a more than doubling from a bit more than 3bio world wide to more than 7bio today, contributed mainly Africa, the Middle East, South America and India.

Land : 1960s : 2008 (in million)
Ethopia : 23,4 : 79,2
Sudan : 14,3 : 42,3
Nigeria : 61,4 : 158,3
Niger : 3,5 : 15,3
Mali 4,7 : 14,5
Gambia : 0,34 : 1,7
Algeria : 11,8 : 34,8
DRC/Zaire : 16,3 : 70,9
Egypt : 30,1 : 79,1
etc

Colombia : 19,2 : 45,9
Brazil : 85,6 : 190,7
etc


The "youngest" (by average population age) countries consequently are in Africa, with Nigeria heading the list with an average of 19 years, followed by Ghana and a lot of other Black African nations where the average age is in the low 20s too.

Imho no one really took this into account yet in those projections. Africans pop out easily up to 15 children, 40 years ago more than 2/3 died as a normal process. Thanks to western "aid", most of them survive today, but their cultures didnt change, so these young generations too will pop out 10+ babies of whom most will survive as well. With that vast number of young people who just start their baby pop out business, world population will grow exponential in the next 20 years. Muslims in Muslim countries also average between 6 and 8 children, so there's another time bomb with a very predictable blow up point. The projection of 9,3 bio by 2050 isnt even close reality if you ask me. Africa alone will add 3-5bio in the next 20 years, minimum.

To reverse this process it will take famines or other natural desasters around the globe. And even then the forecast for the white race is rather dim. :(

hyidi
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 03:25 PM
so these young generations too will pop out 10+ babies of whom most will survive as well. With that vast number of young people who just start their baby pop out business, world population will grow exponential in the next 20 years. Muslims in Muslim countries also average between 6 and 8 children, so there's another time When their countries get full they will be heading over to white nations.


To be fair here, China already implemented a strategy to reduce its population (one child policy)That's a fair statement. China has reacted and done something about this problem.


And even then the forecast for the white race is rather dim. I know' it's a bad future for us. All I can see is that our countries are going to be flooded due to over population of India and Africa and the Middle-east.

Patrioten
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 04:00 PM
With more and more people moving from the rural areas into urban areas one would anticipate serious problems with providing food for these people. The African countries that are experiencing urbanization are also typically the least productive when it comes to agricultural output. China on the other hand will need to increase its agricultural imports and some of that will come from leased agricultural land in Africa which can be seen today, and that food wont be going into African markets. That leaves Europe and the US to increase our food aid or food exports to Africa to sustain the population boom via unsustainable means. European foreign policy is not to allow African populations to regress back to a point where they are self-sufficient, but to alleviate starvation which enables African women to continue making babies as if they were living in a stable situation food-wise when in fact they are living on hand-outs. So there's no impetus for change on their part, and even if there was you have the issue of not having access to or using contraception etc.

I read an article a while back in a Swedish paper which proclaimed that Sweden is going against the current and are recieving fewer refugees in the last year or so compared to other countries (i.e, no need to worry, the immigration problem is going away folks). Meanwhile there's about a billion or so of Africans waiting to be born of which xxx million will be starving and in search of a better place to live. The worst has yet to come as it concerns African immigration into Europe.

OneWolf
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 04:41 PM
(i.e, no need to worry, the immigration problem is going away folks). Meanwhile there's about a billion or so of Africans waiting to be born of which xxx million will be starving and in search of a better place to live. The worst has yet to come as it concerns African immigration into Europe.


No need to worry,the immigration problem is going away?

In the above paragraph you contradicted yourself by saying that the immigration problem is going away folks and then you mention the fact that "millions of Africans will be starving and in search of a better place to live i.e Europe".

To be honest,it seems that your country and or countries are simply putting a
"Band-Aid" on the immigration problem and waiting and or hoping a natural catastrophe will extinguish any future problems from either the Muslim world or Africa or "Western Aid' would cease to flow in the form of medicine and grain.

To be honest,Africans should have to worry about themselves just the same as Muslims should and there honestly should not be any help provided to them in the form of aid.Muslims and to some extent Africans both have countries loaded with resources and both have access to schools so they need to take it upon themselves to better their own kind.Close the borders on them or pester your Government until they do something about it.


Oh,the Sahara would solve a lot of food shortages if you tapped into the aquifers and planted crops...Silly Africans!:D

Patrioten
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 04:51 PM
No need to worry,the immigration problem is going away?

In the above paragraph you contradicted yourself by saying that the immigration problem is going away folks and then you mention the fact that "millions of Africans will be starving and in search of a better place to live i.e Europe".That's my interpretation of the article's message, and it's a message which is repeated over and over in Swedish media. Every year marks the low-point of immigration or refugees according to the media, never mind the actual reality.

Lady Vengeance
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 05:13 PM
European foreign policy is not to allow African populations to regress back to a point where they are self-sufficient, but to alleviate starvation which enables African women to continue making babies as if they were living in a stable situation food-wise when in fact they are living on hand-outs.
Overpopulation is basically a side effect of us having a global its-not-their-fault attitude, which prevents the learning of hard lessons. The "all humans are beautiful snowflakes" retardism is deeply ingrained. We give food hand-outs to the Third World and spoil them stupid, so there simply is no motivation for them to change. And this is really what causes all the big "human disasters" down there. The more overpopulation, the more starvation and suffering, because their ecosystem just can't support the bloated populations they now have.

Pretty ironic, how only the smartest races have this liberal value system and ethics retardation. This sense of empathy used to be a good thing (for the in-group), but in a world where all races are interconnected, it's just a total fucking disaster. Maybe homo sapiens as we know them are an evolutionary dead end.

Patrioten
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 05:30 PM
Pretty ironic, how only the smartest races have this liberal value system and ethics retardation. This sense of empathy used to be a good thing (for the in-group), but in a world where all races are interconnected, it's just a total fucking disaster. Maybe homo sapiens as we know them are an evolutionary dead end.The problem is also the abundance that characterizes the west and which allows the western politicians to act as global philantropists. As you say, empathy in an in-group, under sparse or relatively sparse conditions is beneficial and good.

But it can obviously just as easily be extended to people outside of the group once the resources to do so are plentiful enough. As long as this "side-business" of global philantrophy doesn't seriously compromise, to any obvious degree at least, the abundance at home (in combination with a political system which is built upon, and favors, supra(or non-)tribal ideologies of the individual or the class, at the expense of tribal survival).

Neophyte
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 06:16 PM
Pretty ironic, how only the smartest races have this liberal value system and ethics retardation. This sense of empathy used to be a good thing (for the in-group), but in a world where all races are interconnected, it's just a total fucking disaster. Maybe homo sapiens as we know them are an evolutionary dead end.

I think that it is precisely our well developed intellects that make it possible for us. Our basic instincts are repressed and have to a large extent been banished to the unconscious, and in their place a sterile intellect—that believes just about anything if given half a reason—has risen to prominence.

We need to let our shadow fall over the earth. :P