Thursday, April 23, 2015

African abundance

Riffing off Steve Sailer's prime example of an instance where a picture is worth a thousand words, in 1950 sub-Saharan Africa's population density was on par with that of contemporary Idaho (8 people per square kilometer). By the turn of the next century, UN population projections predict that Africans will be packed in more tightly (170 p/sqkm) than people in New York are today. That shakes out to more than a twenty-fold increase in 150 years, a mere six or seven generations.

Europe's population density, in contrast, is projected to remain nearly static over that same period of time, from 24 p/sqkm in 1950 to 28 p/sqkm in 2100, or from today's Mississippi density to that of West Virginia.

Take a moment to dwell on this. In 1950, there were three times as many Europeans in any given place in Europe as there were black Africans in sub-Saharan Africa. In less than a century, there will over six times as many black Africans in any given place in sub-Saharan Africa as there will be Europeans in Europe.

Put in another way, at the close of the 21st century it is estimated that for every one extant descendant of a European alive in 1950, there will be more than 18 living descendants of a sub-Saharan African living at the same time. This is a veritable Darwinian rout.

Parenthetically, the contrast is even starker than it appears at first blush, since over the intervening 150 years net migration has been and will continue to be from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. In other words, in the year 2100 virtually all of those 170 p/sqkm in sub-Saharan Africa will be black Africans. A lot of those 28 p/sqkm in Europe, in contrast, will be of non-European ancestry.

For some reason I'm not confident that a twenty-fold increase in sub-Saharan Africa's vibrancy over a century and a half is going to be enough to incentivize black Africans to stay put. Excepting Europe's abrupt (and politically unthinkable) adoption of Israeli-style perimeter security on a continental scale, how does camp of the saints not become the story of the 21st century?

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Africa needs a one child policy. Social cohesion there is uh, not sufficient for that kind of density. They are adapted to a very sparse population density. If they are packed in too tightly, they just kill one another. The problem with Africans is that unlike the Chinese, you can't generally teach them stuff easily and even if you do sell them on a concept such that they actually believe it, they lack the discipline to put it into practice. The Chinese need to take over Africa and rule it. We tried it, but we are too empathetic and that is not good for them generally. Sure there are bright Africans with self discipline who can and do better, but the fraction of them is way too small to address the challenges facing Africa.

Anonymous said...

To see how misguided intellectuals are, consider this from a Harvard school of Public Health article:

"Rapid population growth poses daunting challenges for Africa

"The world’s population is predicted to reach 10.1 billion by 2100, according to a United Nations report released May 3, 2011. Much of the growth is expected to occur in Africa, where the population could triple to 3.6 billion by the end of the century.

The figures for Africa are the most “disconcerting aspect” of the UN report, according to David Bloom, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Economics and Demography and Chair, Department of Global Health and Population at HSPH. He joined four other experts for an online discussion of the report onThe New York Times website.

“It took humankind more than 50,000 years to reach 1 billion, and now Africa alone will be adding more than that number in just four decades,” Bloom writes.

Bloom says that the projected population growth poses immense challenges for Africa. “The first and most urgent is the challenge of absorbing large numbers into productive employment. Failure to do this will sink Africa more deeply into a poverty trap and could be a major source of social and political instability,” he writes. The second challenge, says Bloom, is to reduce fertility by making contraception more available to delay childbearing or to limit the number of children. “It also involves moderating the high rates of desired fertility seen in much of Africa, which will naturally occur as the status and education of women improve and couples increasingly recognize that they will be better off with smaller families,” he writes."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/population-control-africa-david-bloom/


Look at the likely false assumptions. They predict that the things will just happen because that is what happened among European and East Asian populations. But should we really believe that will happen in Africa?

Toddy Cat said...

Prediction; African population densities will never get that high. Something Terrible will happen first. My money's on a huge epidemic, but it could be massive war, total anarchy, or something else we haven't thought of, but it will happen. Africa is simply not capable of supporting anything like that density of population, and most Africans will be in no position to get to Europe.

As for African wildlife, I hope that there are plenty of them in zoos in Europe, America, and Asia, because there aren't going to be many left there...

jeffknee said...

Modern medicine vaccines and GMO agricultural science -- two things denied by greens who also believe in "science" of climate change -- and science of water management (also denied), are to be thanked for a fruitful Africa. Ethiopia included. But the side effect of industry and development (and birth control) making a consumer friendly middle class in 3rd world is more pollution incl CO2 emissions. The same globalist socio-economic powers UN, World Bank, Wall Street, Washington, IMF and Chinese investors who claim to be anti-CO2 are also pushing more development, why? A: the 3rd world must agree to use newly patented energy tech. in return for free trade and investment agreements from developed world.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jeffknee,

You think China will require emissions controls in Africa in return for increasing trade with the continent?

anon said...

we love you ebola chan

Dmitry said...

Sorry to bother and sorry for being off topic.

A while ago Scott Alexander used a study to proclaim that the differences in crime rate between blacks and whites are completly explained by poverty http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Im sceptical but have no further information to counter his argument, I would be very grateful if you could clarefie that for me?

Dmitry said...

Here is another such study http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/Homicide.pdf

Dmitry said...

and another one: http://www88.homepage.villanova.edu/lance.hannon/Forthcoming%20in%20the%20Journal%20of%20Poverty.pdf

Anonymous said...


"A while ago Scott Alexander used a study to proclaim that the differences in crime rate between blacks and whites are completly explained by poverty http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Im sceptical but have no further information to counter his argument, I would be very grateful if you could clarefie that for me?"


I will clear that up for you.

Black crime causes poverty not vice versa.

Dmitry said...

"black crime causes poverty"

Have you looked at the studies?

They seem to show that whites who are equaly poor as blacks have similar crime rates....

This would mean that "white crime causes poverty" as well wouldnt it?

Anonymous said...

"This would mean that "white crime causes poverty" as well wouldnt it?"

Yes.

Laziness also causes poverty as does stupidity combined with surliness.

Do we really need studies to tell us that folks who go to work and save their money, and cooperate with family and in the community do better than those who steal, or lay about, or quarrel with everyone?

When five black guys apply for a job and two have been arrested, two have been fired for cause and one has a stable work history, who will the employer choose?

Come on. This is not complicated. Crime, laziness, disagreeable attitude, etc. contribute to poverty. I mean if you have a kid who is dumb and has a low paying job but is otherwise trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, do you kick him out of the house? Or do you work together and share expenses to have a better life?

No rocket science here. Just basic social function.

I mean, the study just uses some truth and some distortion and some false premises and voila, a conclusion, but not a conclusion from cause. Rather it is a conclusion carefully crafted to blame trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent folks for the anti social behavior of low social functioning people.

Dmitry said...

Thing is that in other countries that are poorer then the USA the crime rate is lower, one could ofcourse say that only the trash of US society is poor because the country as such is so rich but still the fact that poor whites and poor blacks suposedly have the same crimerate shows that people of all racial groups in the USA react in the same way if in similar conditions and would make diferences between the races harder to believe in. I would realy like to see what the owner of this blog who seems to know statistics well would say about this.

Anonymous said...

Not sure what crime you are referring to, but here is a link on murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Anonymous said...

"still the fact that poor whites and poor blacks suposedly have the same crimerate shows that people of all racial groups in the USA react in the same way if in similar conditions and would make diferences between the races harder to believe in."

why?

If poor whites and poor blacks have the same crime rate, it does not follow that the same fraction of whites are poor.

For example. Let's say 10% of whites and 30% of blacks are poor and have similar crime rates. How exactly is that similar in general? 10% dysfunction is not equal to 30% dysfunction, even though within the 10% and the 30% dysfunction may be similar.

It sure is a hell of a lot easier for nine normal people to deal with one pain in the ass person than it is for seven normal people to deal with three. For all Hillary's whining about black predators being incarcerated en masse, it would be worse if they weren't. And it would be worst for blacks. What is worse than an abusive absentee father, brother, son? Well that would be a present abusive father, brother or son. Duh.

Anonymous said...

"people of all racial groups in the USA react in the same way if in similar conditions"

not reacting, acting

also, what similar conditions?

The condition is the result of the action. The action is crime. The result is poverty. High black crime leads to high black poverty.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dmitry,

That result seems suspect, since it would, by extension, mean that given equivalent SES, Hispanics are considerably less criminally prone than either whites or blacks are (Hispanic per capita wealth and black per capita wealth are nearly the same in the US, though blacks are for more criminally prone than Hispanics are).

Dmitry said...

Thank oyu very much for answering!

Yes I had a similar thought about hispanics (I think there are included in some of this studies).

Have you ever encountered this "racial invariance hypothesis" before? Im surprised leftists dont use it more often in their arguments.

Maybe you or someone else good in statistics (sadly Im lacking in this field) could concider analyzing the "racial invariance hypothesis" and the studies asociated with it?