Monday, June 05, 2017

Global population growth is African population growth

++Addition++For updated 2017 UN projection figures, see here.


In the comments to the previous post, RC writes:
Are you implying an increased anthropogenic carbon emission from a growing population? If so, it makes more sense to show growth by total population, not by percent change.

Also, the regional breakdown should consider per capita carbon emissions, which certainly varies from continent to continent (Africa being the lowest per capita). From an emissions and pop growth perspective, Asia seems to be far more a concern. Though, as Africa develops, their per capita emissions will grow.

If your point is more generally about overpopulation and consequent environmental pressures, that's been a discussion on the left since The Population Bomb in the late 1960's, though not always a popular one.
There's little difference between talking about the growth of the African population and the growth of the global population--Africa is projected to account for a staggering 83% of the nearly 4 billion net additional humans that will be added to the world in the next 85 years.

As noted previously, my guess is that actual population growth on the dark continent will be higher than those predictions (barring Malthusian catastrophe or game-changing technological breakthrough), as they're based on the assumption that Africa will become comparable to the rest of the developed world in a century. That's how the UN gets TFR figures for Africa that are almost indistinguishable from anywhere else in the world by 2100.

If my higher estimate comes to pass, we'd also expect the per capita emissions of the (even) larger African population to be lower, since population growth will occur in place of the formally anticipated but unrealized development.

On the other hand, we'll likely have experienced The Camp of the Saints squared by the end of the century. It's hard to predict how that will play out, but a lot of Africa's burgeoning population will find its way out of Africa and into more developed places, specifically Europe and North America (because Asia will largely refuse to allow them in). The carbon footprint of those migrants will correspondingly be higher than the per capita footprint of people still in Africa.

To speak of "overpopulation" in a generic sense is to avoid the African elephant (Boo! Hiss!) in the room. The left used to talk about overpopulation. As it has become politically incorrect to do so it's not something that's done so much anymore:

It's said that the 20th century was the American Century and that the 21st century will be the Chinese Century. It may yet, though, be the African Century:


Anonymous said...

Keep them out of Europe, but figure out how to let them invade the Arab world. Profit.

Black Death said...

There's an old saying that all wars are caused by population pressures. A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but still mostly true. The exploding sub-Saharan African population bodes ill for the world.

Remember Paul Ehrlich and "The Population Bomb?" That was all the rage back in the 1970's, but the lefties and their MSM allies don't seem to talk about it very much anymore. Right now, in terms of population, China and India are the biggies:

China and India is the two most populated country of the world. China is the most populated country with approximately 1.39 billion people in 2014. India is second most populated country with approximately 1.27 billion people in 2014. China and India together account for 36.41% of total world population 7,243,784,121. Among Asian countries combine share of both country is 61.07%.

In 2014, population of China is 126 million more than India. Due to higher population growth of India, population difference between these two country is coming down quickly. And in 2028, India will be the world most populated country of world with approximately 1.45 billion people. Population of China and India will decline after 2031 and 2064, respectively.

in 1950, population of China was 543 million. While, population of India was 376 million. China crossed one billion mark in 1982 and India in 1998. By 2033, India will cross the 1.5 billion mark.

Both country have lower female population compare to male. According to world bank 2013, Female population sharing of India is slightly greater than China. Female account for 48.29% of total India's population. For China this figure is 48.17%. In the list of 193 countries, India is at 185th place and China is at 186th place.

Population growth (2013) of India is 1.2% while Population growth of China is 0.5%. Fertility rate (2012) of India is 2.5 and of China is 1.7.

Population density of India is 367 person per square km compare to 142 of China. So, India is 2.58 times more dense than China. China is 4th and India is 7th largest country in terms of area.


In spite of all the recent blather about the Paris climate accords, these countries still have terrible pollution problems. I've visited both recently, and the air in the big cities is so bad you can barely breathe.

It seems a massive aid project to help the sub-Saharan nations to reduce fertility would be in order, but good luck with that.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Feed a Million starving blacks, and you get Three Million starving blacks. This isn't charity. Teach a man to fish and all that rot huh? How about this? Do not feed the animals. This isn't a question of "education". These idiots are Stone Age savages. Its not culture its an IQ thing. Send Bonzo to College at your peril. This is just sad. Why are you all lying? Nobody believes this anymore. These are either savages or some primordial ape-like monster. Stop feeding them. They are like Tribbles. Violent, and perpetually angry Tribbles.

Audacious Epigone said...


Not much reason for them to head to the Arab world. If it became enticing enough that'd kill two birds with one stone, though--no more MENA invasion into Europe!

Black Death,

The agreement doesn't hold any country to account for anything and has zero enforcement mechanisms attached to it. As the Derb put it this weak, it's nothing more than virtue-signalling on a global scale.


Your first sentence seems to me effectively indisputable.