NationStates Jolt Archive

1) Europe's population is obviously declining. Currently the only country in Europe to have a birthrate above replacement level is Albania.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1766268,00.html

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8804/e02worldpopdistr1jb.gif

2) USA's birth rate is close to replecement (Total fertility rate:2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.)) level but...


White women and non-Hispanic White women had fertility levels significantly below the replacement level, averaging 1.9 and 1.8 births per woman respectively.


http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf (page 3)

3) Canada : Total fertility rate: 1.61 children born/woman (2006 est.)
Australia: Total fertility rate: 1.76 children born/woman (2006 est.)
New Zealand: Total fertility rate: 1.79 children born/woman (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

4)Of course there are whites outside Europe, North America, Aus&NZ but majority of whites is in these areas so any gains outside these areas(if any) wont be enough to cover the loss in Europe, etc...

5)So, what does sub-replacement birth level means?

Sub-replacement fertility is a fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an area's population. In industrialized countries with low child mortality, sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children per woman's life time. 2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace the parents, with one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the mortality of children who do not reach the age of 15, which is the defined age when the fertility rate is calculated.
The two main effects of sub-replacement fertility are population decline and population ageing. Population decline and ageing will occur in any society with sub-replacement fertility that does not see enough immigration to make up for the natural decrease. According to current trends this situation is the future for most of the countries of Europe and East Asia, most of which are reluctant to accept large numbers of immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?

What's wrong with this?

Who cares?

Humanity will continue.

This is from the thread that was locked:


You don't get it at all. The white population is growing and continues to grow. You're the one denying gravity. You are relying on predictions when they continue to not come true.

In 2002, 2.1 Million white people died in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf

At the same, white births in the US 3.2 Million. That means that population growth of white people is obvious due to births in the US and not immigration.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf

Also, if you look at the chart on page 35 you'll see that the number of births per 1000 women of birthing age is higher than it was 20 years ago. You'll also notice that it's been fairly stable for the last twenty years. You know what that means. You're wrong. White people aren't in decline. AT ALL. You are looking at statistic that is skewed because of an aging population, but when looiking at women at childbearing age, the rate of women giving live birth has not decreased for twenty years. That means if the population was going to decline it would have done it already.


1) White people aren't in decline? AT ALL? Do you deny that native populations decline in many european countries?

2) The whites in USA might be increasing for now but that's because the birth rate used to be above replacement level. When it falls below replacement level, the population will grow old and eventually decline. If trends continue. That was what I was saying, if current trends continue. Besides, is the current gain in USA's white population enough to replace what's being lost in Europe? And Are you actually claiming that you, who I'm guessing has got no training in population matters, disputing that scientific calculations about replacement birth level is false?

Who cares if the "native" *cough* bullshit *cough* populations decrease?

Result: White population declines fast. Period
Who cares there's no real difference between white and black.

EDIT: Also it won't be fast.



So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?
the trends don't matter, borders should be opened more. Yes. Make it cheaper to have children and to be a stay at home parent and allow and encourage immigrants who want to work.

1) White people aren't in decline? AT ALL? Do you deny that native populations decline in many european countries?

Basic math Mr "Not-too-bright". Decline numerically only occurs when a population SHRINKS. Percentage wise, all it means is that there are just more immigrants than people being born per annum. Unless you can shrink the pregnancy cycle by 75%, it's not going to change.

Besides, you've demonstrated quite clearly in the older thread that you're little more than a xenophobe who would fit right in with the KKK.

As to the unlikely event of caucasian people declining to non-existant numbers, who cares? Only lunatic alarmists who are racists only bother about something like that. The Aztecs were once top dogs in their part of the world. Who cares about them now?

It will be the same with caucasian people. If they were being actively rounded up and put into death camps, that would be a different story, but natural decline? Not worth bothering about.

If you're that worried, go build a cloning lab and start repopulating your 'aryan' race.

<snip> Are you still harping on about this? Get over it already. Jeez.

Im definitly NOT siding with Ny Nordland, but there is a point being made here.
You can argue a policy of mass immigration is good because there is no real difference between "races", we are all human at the end of the day. That's absolutely true. But, one of the most beautiful things about the human race is its many facets - different cultures, languages, appearances.
I think it would be wrong to say it wouldnt matter if people with white skin (or any other colour) were to disappear from the world.
What we should be working towards is a situation where the whole world is equal in rights and resources. Then there would not be a need for people to leave their home countries on a large scale, and cultural diversity would be preserved. By this I dont mean cultures should stay static, I mean the world should be prevented from merging into uniformity.
That said I dont think there is any danger of Europe or anywhere else loosing its identity any time soon, although there are exceptions - the Netherlands being the prime example. Immigration is a good thing, but it should be kept under control.

Alot of people are telling you not to care about it.

But I want to ask WHY you care about the numbers of white to black or whatever. We're all just humans (in case you havent noticed).

I'm not even getting involved in this one.

The white ethnicity but due to globalism, 'white civilisation' (not how I would describe it, but if we're talking racism, I'll use a racist terminology) is expanding globally, by this I mean the whole package of Western values including liberalism, democracy and tolerance.

And seeing as Race is a socially-manipulated illusion and skin colour is simply absurd as any kind of distinctifying feature, then I ultimately take solace in the fact that even if my decedents are outnumbered by everyone elses, that everyone follows the wisdom of my anticedents.

The worlds population is estimated to be about 6 530 000 000 and counting...

Yup, we need more people fast! :rolleyes:

Some appreciation for the inherent humour in a bunch of guys sitting on their asses, discussing what can be done to counter the population decline, on an internetforum, please...

Here's my contribution: :D

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?
Why should anything be "done" about it? Whites are choosing to have fewer children, which invariably results in better parenting and better education for children. Eventually, other minority groups will be following suit and the general trend will be below replacement levels.

Some appreciation for the inherent humour in a bunch of guys sitting on their asses, discussing what can be done to counter the population decline, on an internetforum, please...

Here's my contribution: :D
Just one more reason why you're so annoying! :D

Some appreciation for the inherent humour in a bunch of guys sitting on their asses, discussing what can be done to counter the population decline, on an internetforum, please...

Here's my contribution: :D

What's the kewl thing to do? Write dozens of pages of rp'ing? Or are you saying we should debate things standing up? Surely many political stuff are discussed on this internet forum by sitting on our asses. I guess you cant be saying political stuff should only be debated by politicians.

What's the kewl thing to do? Write dozens of pages of rp'ing? Or are you saying we should debate things standing up? Surely many political stuff are discussed on this internet forum by sitting on our asses. I guess you cant be saying political stuff should only be debated by politicians.
No, it means you should be getting off your arse and start breeding.

No, it means you should be getting off your arse and start breeding.

LOL. Is that an offer?

LOL. Is that an offer?
Not at all. I'm not the one who finds it a problem.

Not at all. I'm not the one who finds it a problem.

So you'd be ok if Netherlands gets a muslim majority?

So you'd be ok if Netherlands gets a muslim majority?

This is a problem why?


Oh wait, I forgot. Muslims = Evil...

So you'd be ok if Netherlands gets a muslim majority?

Would you be happy if the Netherlands had a majority population of white Muslims? There is such a phenomenon, before you claim otherwise.
I'm not white, yet I am a native to Europe. I wonder where I'd end up in your bullshitistics.

So you'd be ok if Netherlands gets a muslim majority?
Yep, I'm living with lots of Muslims in my neighbourhood already and they're fine people. So why should it be a problem?

This is a problem why?


Oh wait, I forgot. Muslims = Evil...

Yeah you are right. I'm sure muslim-majority Netherlands would be even more progressive. Just look at all those muslim countries. They'd allow gay marriages like iran, allow women to wear shorts like saudi arabia and allow christian men to marry muslim women like in egypt and muslims to convert christianty and not punish it by death like afghanistan.

Yeah you are right. I'm sure muslim-majority Netherlands would be even more progressive. Just look at all those muslim countries. They'd allow gay marriages like iran, allow women to wear shorts like saudi arabia and allow christian men to marry muslim women like in egypt and muslims to convert christianty and not punish it by death like afghanistan.

...What?

Do you take the time to research your claims before making them?

...What?

Do you take the time to research your claims before making them?

All those things I mentioned is illegal in those countries...

...What?

Do you take the time to research your claims before making them?

It's much easier to hate people if you don't actually research them or their culture and just use generalities.

It's much easier to hate people if you don't actually research them or their culture and just use generalities.

It's easier to be naive when you are so ignorant. Oh, and I dont hate muslims. I just dont want them in europe (except bosnians).

The rate of population increase is declining. Not the actual population level. Using deliberately misleading vocabulary in an attempt to further your position is evidence of a weak argument.

It's easier to be naive when you are so ignorant.

So you presume that just because these practicies occur in Iran and suchb, they would automatically occur in a Western country, where there would still be a sizable number of non-Muslims, and more than likely a far different culture and government style?

The rate of population increase is declining. Not the actual population level. Using deliberately misleading vocabulary in an attempt to further your position is evidence of a weak argument.

Read again.


Sub-replacement fertility is a fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an area's population. In industrialized countries with low child mortality, sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children per woman's life time. 2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace the parents, with one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the mortality of children who do not reach the age of 15, which is the defined age when the fertility rate is calculated.
The two main effects of sub-replacement fertility are population decline and population ageing. Population decline and ageing will occur in any society with sub-replacement fertility that does not see enough immigration to make up for the natural decrease. According to current trends this situation is the future for most of the countries of Europe and East Asia, most of which are reluctant to accept large numbers of immigrants.

So you presume that just because these practicies occur in Iran and suchb, they would automatically occur in a Western country, where there would still be a sizable number of non-Muslims, and more than likely a far different culture and government style?

And you presume netherlands will be the same when 70% of its population is muslim(if current trends continue, sometime at future)?

Yeah you are right. I'm sure muslim-majority Netherlands would be even more progressive. Just look at all those muslim countries. They'd allow gay marriages like iran, allow women to wear shorts like saudi arabia and allow christian men to marry muslim women like in egypt and muslims to convert christianty and not punish it by death like afghanistan.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you live in the Netherlands? No? Then try actually living here before you make stupid statements.

And you presume netherlands will be the same when 70% of it population is muslim(if current trends continue, sometime at future).

I do, in fact. Outside of the influence of the more radical mullahs and leaders, in countries that do have other races/nationalities/religions, I do think that the Netherlands will be the same.

1) Europe's population is obviously declining. Currently the only country in Europe to have a birthrate above replacement level is Albania.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1766268,00.html

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8804/e02worldpopdistr1jb.gif

2) USA's birth rate is close to replecement (Total fertility rate:2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.)) level but...



http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf (page 3)

3) Canada : Total fertility rate: 1.61 children born/woman (2006 est.)
Australia: Total fertility rate: 1.76 children born/woman (2006 est.)
New Zealand: Total fertility rate: 1.79 children born/woman (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

4)Of course there are whites outside Europe, North America, Aus&NZ but majority of whites is in these areas so any gains outside these areas(if any) wont be enough to cover the loss in Europe, etc...

5)So, what does sub-replacement birth level means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?

A decline in birth rate is one of the best possible things that could happen. I think we should all be delighted to see these trends, and should do everything in our power to encourage people to limit their families to replacement levels or lower. The human population of this planet is already 3 billion more than it should be.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you live in the Netherlands? No? Then try actually living here before you make stupid statements.

I know that the things I mentioned are illegal in those countries. I was being sarcastic.

A decline in birth rate is one of the best possible things that could happen. I think we should all be delighted to see these trends, and should do everything in our power to encourage people to limit their families to replacement levels or lower. The human population of this planet is already 3 billion more than it should be.

Be careful what you wish for. Research what sub-replacement birth level may cause...

And you presume netherlands will be the same when 70% of it population is muslim(if current trends continue, sometime at future).
if current trends continue, current trends never continue.
:)

I do, in fact. Outside of the influence of the more radical mullahs and leaders, in countries that do have other races/nationalities/religions, I do think that the Netherlands will be the same.

Ok, we can never know the future. But just look at muslim countries, like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc...

Be careful what you wish for. Research what sub-replacement birth level may cause...
I have, extensively, and I have concluded that replacement level birth rates are actually far too high. Ideally, the human population on this planet should be less than half of what it currently is. However, attaining zero population growth would be an excellent start.

Read again.

I read the article just fine. It hasn't happened yet. The white population hasn't begun declining. It may, years down the road, but it hasn't yet. You're just a racist who is scared that you'll no longer be allowed to be openly racist.

I read the article just fine. It hasn't happened yet. The white population hasn't begun declining. It may, years down the road, but it hasn't yet. You're just a racist who is scared that you'll no longer be allowed to be openly racist.
It's so amazing to me...our planet is being throttled by overpopulation, but there are people so petty and selfish that they are willing to destroy their own childrens' future in order to maintain some perceived racial majority.

It's so amazing to me...our planet is being throttled by overpopulation, but there are people so petty and selfish that they are willing to destroy their own childrens' future in order to maintain some perceived racial majority.

But....but....


'Dem darkies 'n Mooslems might wanna come over here an' take ahr land and jobs!

Nomatter what race it is a birth rate of 1.7 shows social decline in any society. People arent having kids for some reason. Most likely this is because of a decline in morality in the population. Morals are a key aspect, Ranging from Abortion and birth controls to the decline in the marraige rates. All in all this decreases any population over time. My real question is how many men who fertalize the women are of an opposite ethnicity. Thier is no data to show any diffrence. While if you see a diffrence among races it is most likely in america immigrants still carry over the large family model from developing countries.

-Proud son of a father and mother of 6 children:cool:

But....but....


'Dem darkies 'n Mooslems might wanna come over here an' take ahr land and jobs!
OOoooo, scaaaaarrrrrry brown people!!!!!!! They're coming to suuuck your bloooooodd!!!!!

Nomatter what race it is a birth rate of 1.7 shows social decline in any society. People arent having kids for some reason. Most likely this is because of a decline in morality in the population. Morals are a key aspect, Ranging from Abortion and birth controls to the decline in the marraige rates. All in all this decreases any population over time. My real question is how many men who fertalize the women are of an opposite ethnicity. Thier is no data to show any diffrence. While if you see a diffrence among races it is most likely in america immigrants still carry over the large family model from developing countries.

-Proud son of a father and mother of 6 children:cool:

*scoff* Apart from the blindingly obvious bullshit, what is an opposite ethnicity?

But....but....


'Dem darkies 'n Mooslems might wanna come over here an' take ahr land and jobs!

An' deir out breedin' us too. Wes got to do somtin'

Billy Bob Bubba Jenkins Jr.

An' deir out breedin' us too. Wes got to do somtin'

Billy Bob Bubba Jenkins Jr.

Uhhh....


Uhhh....

*Lightbulb*

We need's ta build a wall!

Uhhh....


Uhhh....

*Lightbulb*

We need's ta build a wall!
A perfect plan!

It is a well-known fact that the white man invented ladders, and that inferior brown-people brains are not able to figure out the opperation of our splendid Aryan wall-scaling technology.

Yes, it sure is good that we non-xenophobes don't resort to ridiculous stereotypes to get our points across.

Yes, it sure is good that we non-xenophobes don't resort to ridiculous stereotypes to get our points across.

Well, facts and reasoning don't work; they just ignore it or call us naive. So we might as well have some fun whilst we're at it.

Yes, it sure is good that we non-xenophobes don't resort to ridiculous stereotypes to get our points across.It's equally good to see that there are still some utterly humorless people in the world, who are unable to tell the difference between "getting a point across" and "making a joke."

Well, facts and reasoning don't work; they just ignore it or call us naive. So we might as well have some fun whilst we're at it.
Shhh, you're being INTOLERANT! You aren't allowed to make jokes about racists, because that would make you as bad as the racists! Or something...I'm not really clear on how that reasoning is supposed to work, but I've been scolded for being too flippant with racists in the past.

Whoa. Seems I touched a nerve. I didn't attack any of you guys, yet you feel there is something you have to defend?

Nomatter what race it is a birth rate of 1.7 shows social decline in any society. People arent having kids for some reason. Most likely this is because of a decline in morality in the population. Morals are a key aspect, Ranging from Abortion and birth controls to the decline in the marraige rates. All in all this decreases any population over time. My real question is how many men who fertalize the women are of an opposite ethnicity. Thier is no data to show any diffrence. While if you see a diffrence among races it is most likely in america immigrants still carry over the large family model from developing countries.

-Proud son of a father and mother of 6 children:cool:
Let's get something sorted out here: there is no such thing as race! If humans of different colors were mutally infertile, then there would be different species, but since it's fairly obvious to everyone that different "races" can have viable offspring, they're all just one species.

Declining birth rates have little to do with "morality" and everything to do with simple economics. One child is expensive. Five children are all but prohibitve.

- Proud father of five children, and grandfather of eight!

Whoa. Seems I touched a nerve. I didn't attack any of you guys, yet you feel there is something you have to defend?

Common sense? Non-xenophobia? And how is it stereotyping when there actually are people who want to build a wall?

A perfect plan!

It is a well-known fact that the white man invented ladders, and that inferior brown-people brains are not able to figure out the opperation of our splendid Aryan wall-scaling technology.
LMAO! You're a frakkin' trip! :D

Whoa. Seems I touched a nerve. I didn't attack any of you guys, yet you feel there is something you have to defend?
Freshman Psych rears its ugly head yet again. :)

I have, extensively, and I have concluded that replacement level birth rates are actually far too high. Ideally, the human population on this planet should be less than half of what it currently is. However, attaining zero population growth would be an excellent start.


Idealy half ???? For what reason SHOULD it be half??? Overpopulation will never be a problem thanks to the greatest human resource: The Human Mind... Bridges will be built, mountains can be moved, and we will one day be able to reverse the flow of the great rivers.Hell, We already whent to the moon. Humanity will servive in the end, Children are our future never say they are the problem.

This thesis i believe of course all falls on your assumption that humans are like animals, which we are not. We are unique among the creatures of humanity, we do not die off as population increases. Ever heard of apartment buildings? Europe may be getting overcrowded but the rest of the world is not. As long as economic inceases occur thanks to capitalism and a moral society is in place then humanity will never need to fear an increase in babies born.

LMAO! You're a frakkin' trip! :D
I assume you are not laughing at my disgraceful stereotyping, because that would be WRONG. It was wrong of me to exploit well-known stereotypes to construct a humorous parody of racist ideology, and it is equally wrong of you to find anything remotely funny about it. There is absolutely nothing funny about people who believe that the key to civilization is the melanin content of human skin cells.

Shame on Bottle. Shame, shame, shame...

Common sense? Non-xenophobia? And how is it stereotyping when there actually are people who want to build a wall?

I've heard there actually are blacks who commit crimes.

I've heard there actually are blacks who commit crimes.
Blacks? What is blacks?

EDIT: nevermind I googled it:
http://www.blacks.co.uk/blacks.storefront/default.aspx
It's a shop.

Ok, we can never know the future. But just look at muslim countries, like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc...
or indonesia


ooooo does that mean that if we get to look like indonesia the climate will be more moderate and we can have really nice beaches? maybe we'll all start wearing batik fabrics... maybe we'll all wear sarongs...

I've heard there actually are blacks who commit crimes.
Yep, and whittes and greens and purples.
What's your point?

As long as economic inceases occur thanks to capitalism and a moral society is in place then humanity will never need to fear an increase in babies born.

Right, because capitalism and "morality" can increase the amount of non-renewable resources we have.

Let's get something sorted out here: there is no such thing as race! If humans of different colors were mutally infertile, then there would be different species, but since it's fairly obvious to everyone that different "races" can have viable offspring, they're all just one species.

Declining birth rates have little to do with "morality" and everything to do with simple economics. One child is expensive. Five children are all but prohibitve.

- Proud father of five children, and grandfather of eight!

I happen to agree with you i believe in a color blind society, but if you look at neighborhoods it is many times based on ethnic lines in cities ( picture NY as an example). Hence thier are diffrent communities where thier are certain amounts of population.

Five children are all but prohibitve. ![/B]

I will have to disagree with you on that. Poor people have a higher birthrate than the rich. This is a basic fact which trumps your logic. I am not saying they as a group is less moral but morality does play a factor because of that rich social community to which morals are formulated,(just look at all the actors as an example) I also go on the assumption the decision to have children is based on morals, not economic standing at the time.

Blacks? What is a black?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Kelvan/sirius_black.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Kelvan/HalfdanSvarti.jpg

EDIT:Better picture

Idealy half ???? For what reason SHOULD it be half??? Overpopulation will never be a problem thanks to the greatest human resource: The Human Mind... Bridges will be built, mountains can be moved, and we will one day be able to reverse the flow of the great rivers.Hell, We already whent to the moon. Humanity will servive in the end, Children are our future never say they are the problem.

This thesis i believe of course all falls on your assumption that humans are like animals, which we are not. We are unique among the creatures of humanity, we do not die off as population increases. Ever heard of apartment buildings? Europe may be getting overcrowded but the rest of the world is not. As long as economic inceases occur thanks to capitalism and a moral society is in place then humanity will never need to fear an increase in babies born.
Why yes! And hippos will dance in the streets, while samlon glide swiftly through the sewers.

There is a little thing called carrying capacity, you know. Estimates of population range from 10 billion down to one billion, depending on which viable socioeconomic/environmental structure is used.

This decline is actually good. The population can only grow so much until there's an ecological disaster.

I've heard there actually are blacks who commit crimes.

...


Yes....?

2) The whites in USA might be increasing for now but that's because the birth rate used to be above replacement level. When it falls below replacement level, the population will grow old and eventually decline. If trends continue. That was what I was saying, if current trends continue. Besides, is the current gain in USA's white population enough to replace what's being lost in Europe? And Are you actually claiming that you, who I'm guessing has got no training in population matters, disputing that scientific calculations about replacement birth level is false?
Actually, births by whites declines by 18,000 last year in the US.

It's so amazing to me...our planet is being throttled by overpopulation, but there are people so petty and selfish that they are willing to destroy their own childrens' future in order to maintain some perceived racial majority.
My thoughts exactly!

PS: Is this the Aryan Ladder?
http://www.wkozak.com/Colour%20Drawings%20GIF/Ladder%20Brocken72.gif

Idealy half ???? For what reason SHOULD it be half??? Overpopulation will never be a problem thanks to the greatest human resource: The Human Mind... Bridges will be built, mountains can be moved, and we will one day be able to reverse the flow of the great rivers.Hell, We already whent to the moon. Humanity will servive in the end, Children are our future never say they are the problem.

Let's say we all want a world where every human person has a European standard of living. They aren't riding around with a fleet of Humvees, but they have plenty of everything they need as well as a good number of personal luxuries.

Let us further assume that we want this lifestyle to be sustainable. That is, we want to make sure that the Earth's resources are being replenished at the same rate we deplete them, so that future generations will be able to enjoy this same level of comfort. We assume that we care enough about our children to want to pass on to them a world that is at least as good, if not better, than the world we received.

If we assume that this is our shared vision, then we currently are 3.5 billion humans over our budget. The planet Earth cannot sustain more than about 2.5 billion humans at a European standard of living, due to the physical limitations of this planet. This is even assuming that all of our considerable technology and inovation has been brought to bear in the most efficient way possible...at our current level of advancement and application of technology, the carrying capacity would actually be closer to 1.5 billion humans.


This thesis i believe of course all falls on your assumption that humans are like animals, which we are not.

That assumption is both utterly unfounded and utterly incorrect.


We are unique among the creatures of humanity, we do not die off as population increases.

By definition, no animal population is "dying off" if its population is increasing. Humans are not unique in that respect.


Ever heard of apartment buildings? Europe may be getting overcrowded but the rest of the world is not. As long as economic inceases occur thanks to capitalism and a moral society is in place then humanity will never need to fear an increase in babies born.
Unfortunately, this is simply untrue. Yes, we can stack many many humans on top of one another. However, those humans must eat, drink, and breathe. The planet Earth contains a finite amount of space and a finite amount of resources. We currently are consuming both space and resources at a rate that the Earth cannot sustain. With every generation, we hand down a more depleted and endangered planet to our children. I believe that is irresponsible.

I will have to disagree with you on that. Poor people have a higher birthrate than the rich. This is a basic fact which trumps your logic. I am not saying they as a group is less moral but morality does play a factor because of that rich social community to which morals are formulated,(just look at all the actors as an example) I also go on the assumption the decision to have children is based on morals, not economic standing at the time.

Damn, your "morality" glasses you see everything through are almost as thick as Ny Nordland's "race" glasses.

And I'm willing to bet that Eut mean't that 5 children are impossible to raise while providing sufficiently for them. Yes, poor people have a higher birthrate than the rich, but they also are unable to adequately provide for these children.

Don't assume just because you view everything through the prism of "morals" that everyone else does. You may base your procreation on morals, but many base it on economic standing.

Right, because capitalism and "morality" can increase the amount of non-renewable resources we have.


Non renweable resources like what.....Water? Soon gasoline will be obsolute, the one society is most dependent on and we will start using water. What other resource are you talking about? Gold coper Tin? Coal? Easy solutions with Capitalism. Thier is a whole universe full of atoms of gold coper and tin. The only diffrence is that we will never get off non renewable resources until thier is a demand to. From this demand methods of synthesis or finding ALTERNATE METHODS or MATERIALS will be found to satisfy the function of the previous non renewable resource. As a challenge I wish you could name one non renewable resource that is and will always be a necesity to human kind that it is possible for humans to deplete in the realm of earth, and then one that limits us to our solar system.

Non renweable resources like what.....Water? Soon gasoline will be obsolute, the one society is most dependent on and we will start using water. What other resource are you talking about? Gold coper Tin? Coal? Easy solutions with Capitalism. Thier is a whole universe full of atoms of gold coper and tin. The only diffrence is that we will never get off non renewable resources until thier is a demand to. From this demand methods of synthesis or finding ALTERNATE METHODS or MATERIALS will be found to satisfy the function of the previous non renewable resource. As a challenge I wish you could name one non renewable resource that is and will always be a necesity to human kind that it is possible for humans to deplete in the realm of earth, and then one that limits us to our solar system.

You've got an idea for a car that runs on water?

Non renweable resources like what.....Water? Soon gasoline will be obsolute, the one society is most dependent on and we will start using water. What other resource are you talking about? Gold coper Tin? Coal? Easy solutions with Capitalism. Thier is a whole universe full of atoms of gold coper and tin. The only diffrence is that we will never get off non renewable resources until thier is a demand to. From this demand methods of synthesis or finding ALTERNATE METHODS or MATERIALS will be found to satisfy the function of the previous non renewable resource. As a challenge I wish you could name one non renewable resource that is and will always be a necesity to human kind that it is possible for humans to deplete in the realm of earth, and then one that limits us to our solar system.

So your solution is to not worry about it, and let our children and grandchildren figure it out? Doesn't that seem a bit irresponsible to you?

Non renweable resources like what.....Water? Soon gasoline will be obsolute, the one society is most dependent on and we will start using water. What other resource are you talking about? Gold coper Tin? Coal? Easy solutions with Capitalism. Thier is a whole universe full of atoms of gold coper and tin. The only diffrence is that we will never get off non renewable resources until thier is a demand to. From this demand methods of synthesis or finding ALTERNATE METHODS or MATERIALS will be found to satisfy the function of the previous non renewable resource. As a challenge I wish you could name one non renewable resource that is and will always be a necesity to human kind that it is possible for humans to deplete in the realm of earth, and then one that limits us to our solar system.
My biology teachers are crying right now.

So your solution is to not worry about it, and let our children and grandchildren figure it out? Doesn't that seem a bit irresponsible to you?
Fuck no! In the future, human kind will invent magical beans or some shit, and those will solve all our problems! We will evolve beyond the need for water! We'll all sprout polution gills that will allow us to breathe smog with ease! Chocolate candies will rain down from clouds of intergalactic gold molecules!

[QUOTE=Bottle][QUOTE]

where does this data that we need half the amount of people to keep at a european standard of living comming from?

China is proving your thesis all wrong. They have 1 billion people, occording to you thier standard of living should be shot, but ist is not. It is on the RISE, GROWING at a phenominal rate. This is thanks to the introduction of capitalism to china. Technology is solving thier population of overcrowding for china and so your theory is debunked. Capitalism is the cause of standard of living increases and thier is no limit.

You do make an intresting point as to the matter of air avalibility, how do we solve that is an intresting prospect of too much CO2. Well All i can really say is that if we can cause global warming and alter the enviorment to suite our needs then we can do that with the veary air we breath. The limits of Humanities ingenuity are endless.

Personally I do not ever want a european standard of living I am searching for all men to have the oportunity of a rich CEO standard of living in America.

You've got an idea for a car that runs on water?


ever heard of a hydrogen powerd car, or amn ethenol powerd car, or a pure electric car that runs on a battery which can be charge by outlets run by river dams or nuclear plants generating power for that car. Look into it. Now that thiers a demand people are grabing hybrids like crazy.

where does this data that we need half the amount of people to keep at a european standard of living comming from?

China is proving your thesis all wrong. They have 1 billion people, occording to you thier standard of living should be shot, but ist is not. It is on the RISE, GROWING at a phenominal rate. This is thanks to the introduction of capitalism to china. Technology is solving thier population of overcrowding for china and so your theory is debunked. Capitalism is the cause of standard of living increases and thier is no limit.
They are also using resources - finite resources at an unsustainable rate.

So your solution is to not worry about it, and let our children and grandchildren figure it out? Doesn't that seem a bit irresponsible to you?

The only thing you might need to worry about is air polution and that is something we can solve.

where does this data that we need half the amount of people to keep at a european standard of living comming from?

In all honesty, it has come from years of study in the biological sciences, as well as an active personal interest in contained ecosystems. I don't mean for that to sound like I'm trying to show off or claim I'm smarter than anybody else (though I fear it does sound that way anyhow). I just happen to care a great deal about this subject, so I have put a lot of time and effort into studying it.


China is proving your thesis all wrong. They have 1 billion people, occording to you thier standard of living should be shot, but ist is not. It is on the RISE, GROWING at a phenominal rate. This is thanks to the introduction of capitalism to china. Technology is solving thier population of overcrowding for china and so your theory is debunked. Capitalism is the cause of standard of living increases and thier is no limit.

How does that prove my thesis wrong?

Perhaps you should state what you think my thesis is. I think you may not understand what I have been saying, so let's try to clear it up.


You do make an intresting point as to the matter of air avalibility, how do we solve that is an intresting prospect of too much CO2. Well All i can really say is that if we can cause global warming and alter the enviorment to suite our needs then we can do that with the veary air we breath. The limits of Humanities ingenuity are endless.

Our ingenuity is limited by physical laws. It is also limited by our own mortality; at the rate we are going, this planet will not be able to sustain human life long enough for us to develop the kind of techology you are describing.


Personally I do not ever want a european standard of living I am searching for all men to have the oportunity of a rich CEO standard of living in America.
Why am I not surprised. I do not share your gluttonous impulse, however, and I would prefer to not destroy a planet in order to give myself a few fleeting comforts.

I have a really, really good idea. Why not think about this for a moment - Why not get over it?

Possibly the population is in decline in Europe because Europe is already oversaturated, or possibly women realise that a career and childcare are hard to both have at once, and they don't really want a child or two, but they do want some disposable income. What's wrong with that?

And the world's population is also going to decline massively in about twenty year's time anyway, due to the baby-boomers dying off. That and the one-child policy in China really kicking in.



And enough of your ridiculously racist, small-minded beliefs, Ny.

Non renweable resources like what.....Water?

You mean the fresh water that we're running out of too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Iwimi.jpg

They are also using resources - finite resources at an unsustainable rate.
Also, I don't know that China is really a place we should hold up as a shining example, considering how many of their people starve to death each year. Tell those people that China is doing super and capitalism is solving all their problems.

Of course, the US isn't really doing much better. But most Americans don't believe that there are literally MILLIONS of children starving in our country at this very moment.

Also, I don't know that China is really a place we should hold up as a shining example, considering how many of their people starve to death each year. Tell those people that China is doing super and capitalism is solving all their problems.

Of course, the US isn't really doing much better. But most Americans don't believe that there are literally MILLIONS of children starving in our country at this very moment.
True that.

You mean the fresh water that we're running out of too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Iwimi.jpg


fresh water can be treated my friend its just a matter of will power

ever heard of a hydrogen powerd car, or amn ethenol powerd car, or a pure electric car that runs on a battery which can be charge by outlets run by river dams or nuclear plants generating power for that car. Look into it. Now that thiers a demand people are grabing hybrids like crazy.

You can't find hydrogen lying around; you have to produce it. And you need power to produce it. As for ethanol powered cars, I don't know much about them, but I think you'll need more than a winery or two to get enough ethanol for the world do drive such cars. Which means industrial ethanol production, which means natural gas.

As for power from hydroelectric water plants, well it wreaks havoc on the wildlife in and around the river you dam. Not to mention that getting water is already a problem in large parts of the world. Apart from that it works fine, but we'll ned a LOT more of it if we were to make up for coal and oil powerstations AND have power to produce hydrogen for all the cars. At the very least, it would be a mighty expensive project for a capitalist to venture on, while there still is a drop of oil left in the world.

Nuclear powerplants... Well, they're allright, as long as the waste from them doesn't get somewhere it ought not to be. Like in the groundwater, for instance. The big issue, really, is if it is reasonable to think we can keep an increasing amount of radioactive waste safely stored for thousands of years.

fresh water can be treated my friend its just a matter of will power

What does that even mean? We're running out of fresh water.

fresh water can be treated my friend its just a matter of will power

Because will power is the source of alchemy?

Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen a... Fanatical humanist?

Why am I not surprised. I do not share your gluttonous impulse, however, and I would prefer to not destroy a planet in order to give myself a few fleeting comforts.

lol yes im just greedy I have dreams of having my mother never having to work again, have a big house and go fishing whenever i want, to do this make 30 million a year by working 70 hour weeks.

I dont believe anything other than air pollution can destroy the planet... The air in the united states is cleaner than it was in 1970's. Thanks to cleaner technologies used. Technology is the way of progress and the way to have prosperity for all humanity

Because will power is the source of alchemy?

I reckon we can turn lead into gold!

Oh no... wait... that won't happen... sorry..

I dont believe anything other than air pollution can destroy the planet... The air in the united states is cleaner than it was in 1970's. Thanks to cleaner technologies used. Technology is the way of progress and the way to have prosperity for all humanity
You realise that carbon dioxide, not dirty air, causes global warming...?

Because will power is the source of alchemy?

Will power is desire/ demand. We have tools such as distillation plants and technology to purfy water in our own homes. I have a filter attached to my sink right now.

Also to contest the idea of alchemy as absurd, you are simply wrong. WE CAN DO IT AND WE HAVE. Ever heard of nuclear chemistry. The spliting of attoms and the smashing of atoms to form larger ones. An element such as Carbon is 2 protons inside of a nucleous away from turning into Oxogen. It has been done, Learn basic chemistry taught in any HIGHSCHOOL and Colledge curiculums. The ancients failed while we suceded by harnessing the power of the atom.

Hmmm... I think this is the first time I've seen a... Fanatical humanist?

More like a fanatical racist.

You realise that carbon dioxide, not dirty air, causes global warming...?

How will global warming "destroy the earth" people will die yes because of rising seas and the world will change which i agree we must stop, BUT the technology is thier to stop it. We just need to use clean air technologies to stop releasing so much CO2 and or grow fields of plants which have above average O2 release rates. Thier are many solutions to the problem, Ifwe have the power to destroy the earth we have the power to fix it or push it in the opposite way. Even with a higher population this is all doable....

YOU ALL NEED TO READ MY WHOLE POSTS, MY ONLY POINT IS THAT HUMANS CAN SOLVE THIER PROBLEMS... KYOTO FOR EXAMPLE SHOWS WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO HALT GLOBAL WARMING.

More like a fanatical racist.


Racist sir???? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IVE EVER SAID???

Also to contest the idea of alchemy as absurd, you are simply wrong. WE CAN DO IT AND WE HAVE. Ever heard of nuclear chemistry. The spliting of attoms and the smashing of atoms to form larger ones. An element such as Carbon is 2 protons inside of a nucleous away from turning into Oxogen. It has been done, Learn basic chemistry taught in any HIGHSCHOOL and Colledge curiculums. The ancients failed while we suceded by harnessing the power of the atom.

Oh man, that gave me the best laugh I'd had all week, thanks!

Do you have any idea how crude our "power of the atom" is? We split atoms by doing the microscopic equivalent of banging them together. We create new elements by running atoms into each other at high speed, banging them together harder, and they don't exist for even a 1/100 of a second.

To even think about using some kind of scientific alchemy as a practical alternative to all of our problems, we'd have to make it cost-effective and much more technologically practical, and no one has the time, money, or inclination to make that kind of a long term investment.

lol yes im just greedy I have dreams of having my mother never having to work again, have a big house and go fishing whenever i want, to do this make 30 million a year by working 70 hour weeks.

I dont believe anything other than air pollution can destroy the planet... The air in the united states is cleaner than it was in 1970's. Thanks to cleaner technologies used. Technology is the way of progress and the way to have prosperity for all humanity

You are a fool. The lack of water is easily the largest problem. People need water to live, remember.

Although in my opinion what needs to happen is for Africa to be left alone for a few years, and then hopefully turned into a rainforest again, so that CO2 levels go down.

*snip*
Funny how the world's largest CO2 producer isn't a signatory to the Kyoto agreement...:rolleyes:

Racist sir???? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IVE EVER SAID???

I think he thought I meant someone else. Anyway, I like how you have no objection to being called a "fanatical humanist":D

1) Europe's population is obviously declining. Currently the only country in Europe to have a birthrate above replacement level is Albania.You have grossly misinterpreted the data you have presented. According the CIA World Factbook, the EU's current birth rates are 10/1,000 (I'll assume this means 10.00) and death rates are 10.01/1,000. If we assume these rates are equal across all ethnicities will remain as they are, then it would take about 700 years for the the white ethnic group to decline to half its current level.

Your image gives no key and so is completely useless. Nor do you attempt to explain what the numbers mean. Actually I think perhaps you say implicity that they are the proportion of the world's population in each continent. In which case your conclusion is faulty. You cannot infer from those numbers that the population of Europe is declining, only that the population of Europe, relative the rest of the world is declining.

Since your keen to examine relative populations then lets go a calculation. If we assume the only ethnic group currently in the EU to be white and that all immigrants are not of the white ethnic groups. Then at current immigration rates (1.5/1,000) it would take over 430 years for non-white ethnic groups to equal that of the white ethnic groups.

From my understanding of the World Factbook's definition of fertility rates, it can represent two things. a) population growth b) population aging. However, since we have already established that based on birth rates and death rates that the population of the EU is declining insignificantly, then it is logical to assume that the median age of the population of the EU is getting older. This seems a logical assumption as Europe was only recently involved in WWII, the result of which caused the male population of fighting age to decline and for a baby boomer generation to be born. Since the baby boomer generation birthrates have since fallen back to normal. So there is abnormal swell in age distribution of Europe which is gradually getting older. This is the reason for low fertility rates.

So all in all I think you are presenting a situation that doesn't exist.

Birth rates, death rates and immigration rates were all sourced from the CIA World Factbook 2006.

You can't find hydrogen lying around; you have to produce it. And you need power to produce it. As for ethanol powered cars, I don't know much about them, but I think you'll need more than a winery or two to get enough ethanol for the world do drive such cars. Which means industrial ethanol production, which means natural gas.

Nuclear powerplants... Well, they're allright, as long as the waste from them doesn't get somewhere it ought not to be. Like in the groundwater, for instance. The big issue, really, is if it is reasonable to think we can keep an increasing amount of radioactive waste safely stored for thousands of years.


Im not gunna contend with your second paragraph because for me i was just exposing a possibility of water power.

Ethenol doesnt necisarily mean natural gas or oil. Ethenol can be extracted from plant and animal matter, namely BIOMASS. living things contain alot of energy. Living things are also what eventually turn into oil over millions of years.

Yes I agree the question is how do you keep humans away from the stuff for millions of years. One solution is this mountain that supposedly is going to be geologicly stable for thousands of years so here in the US thier stuffing the waste thier. !/2 the waste can be recycled anyway but US laws on the stuff are nuty cause of National security and "dangers" of nuclear waste recycling.

MY ONLY POINT IS THAT HUMANS CAN SOLVE THIER PROBLEMS

You are right, it is physically possible for humans to solve most of their problems. It's technically possible for every human being to lay down their arms, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. However, that, much like your ideas, don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

1) Europe's population is obviously declining. Currently the only country in Europe to have a birthrate above replacement level is Albania.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1766268,00.html

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8804/e02worldpopdistr1jb.gif

2) USA's birth rate is close to replecement (Total fertility rate:2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.)) level but...



http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf (page 3)

3) Canada : Total fertility rate: 1.61 children born/woman (2006 est.)
Australia: Total fertility rate: 1.76 children born/woman (2006 est.)
New Zealand: Total fertility rate: 1.79 children born/woman (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

4)Of course there are whites outside Europe, North America, Aus&NZ but majority of whites is in these areas so any gains outside these areas(if any) wont be enough to cover the loss in Europe, etc...

5)So, what does sub-replacement birth level means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?
So what else is new. This has been going on for over a decade already.
Heck, the British are now importing American embryos just to keep their population up now.

Oh man, that gave me the best laugh I'd had all week, thanks!

Do you have any idea how crude our "power of the atom" is? We split atoms by doing the microscopic equivalent of banging them together. We create new elements by running atoms into each other at high speed, banging them together harder, and they don't exist for even a 1/100 of a second.

To even think about using some kind of scientific alchemy as a practical alternative to all of our problems, we'd have to make it cost-effective and much more technologically practical, and no one has the time, money, or inclination to make that kind of a long term investment.

PRACTICAL IS THE KEY... PRACTICALITY comes with demand. When thier is a high enough demand for gold to which we have no more thier will be those who seek for a cheaper better option, we can solve problems. I dont believe that is a viable solution but i was simply contesting your assertion that alchemy is impossible which it is not.

Oh man, that gave me the best laugh I'd had all week, thanks!

Do you have any idea how crude our "power of the atom" is? We split atoms by doing the microscopic equivalent of banging them together. We create new elements by running atoms into each other at high speed, banging them together harder, and they don't exist for even a 1/100 of a second.

To even think about using some kind of scientific alchemy as a practical alternative to all of our problems, we'd have to make it cost-effective and much more technologically practical, and no one has the time, money, or inclination to make that kind of a long term investment.

As for "surgically" adding or removing one or to protons from a core, no we have no way of doing that. The best we can do is hope that some naturally occuring unstable isotope to jump two protons down or one proton up and thereby end up at some element that we need. The "when" and "how" with the jumping is out of our control, and we're likely to just end up with a new unstable isotope that degenerates further.

Heavier elements than iron are created in any reasonably large quantity in novas and supernovas. It seems somewhat optimistic to hope that science will ever reach a point where it can simulate the rather extreme environment inside a star with a mass much larger than our solar system as it comes crashing together because it's run out of lighter elements to fuse for energy.

EDIT: Quoted for agreement. I agree with you, quotee.

You are right, it is physically possible for humans to solve most of their problems. It's technically possible for every human being to lay down their arms, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. However, that, much like your ideas, don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell of happening.
I have said nothing other than humans can solve problems and have sugested TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BUT ARENT PRACTICLE other than ethenol powerd cars.

My original post dealt with population, but now evearyone is off topic, i will bring us back. Technology will solve the overpopulation problem. That was my assertian because technology solves problems.

PRACTICAL IS THE KEY... PRACTICALITY comes with demand. When thier is a high enough demand for gold to which we have no more thier will be those who seek for a cheaper better option we can do it.

Yes, and to make it practical takes investment, not demand. Without the resources to make it practical, science can talk all it wants, but still do nothing.

To get investment in today's capitalist society, an investestor wants a technology that will make money for him within his lifetime. The kind of technology you have been talking about is so far in the future no investor would live to see a profit. It just isn't good business.

Besides, today's economic powers have incentive to surpress that kind of technology. When this new alchemic device can produce gold and diamonds from dirt, how do you think the prices on such goods will do? They'll plummet faster than a pigeon set on fire. That says nothing of the interests who make money from controlling any kind of resource, like steel or coal.

technology solves problems.

Technology can also create problems.

Racist sir???? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IVE EVER SAID???

Uh? I was talking about the thread starter.

It will come back...not to worry. Populations bounce up and down all the time.

Technology is the way of progress and the way to have prosperity for all humanity
This is true. Of course, we also need stable democratic states, but that's where most of the technological inovations appear anyway.

Ethenol doesnt necisarily mean natural gas or oil. Ethenol can be extracted from plant and animal matter, namely BIOMASS. living things contain alot of energy. Living things are also what eventually turn into oil over millions of years.

Yes I agree the question is how do you keep humans away from the stuff for millions of years. One solution is this mountain that supposedly is going to be geologicly stable for thousands of years so here in the US thier stuffing the waste thier. !/2 the waste can be recycled anyway but US laws on the stuff are nuty cause of National security and "dangers" of nuclear waste recycling.

Biomass is quite good, I don't think it'll solve the world's problems, I'm afraid.

And what the hell can you do with recycled nuclear waste?

Put Cadmium in solar panels or conveyer belts, maybe, but the stuff's amazingly radioactive and there aren't too many ways to deal with radioactive things, sadly.

This is true. Of course, we also need stable democratic states, but that's where most of the technological inovations appear anyway.

Sorry for the double post, but why do they need to be democratic states?

If every country in the world as run by a benevolent dictator then loads more would get done.

What should be done?
Absolutely fuck-all. Nazi symp.

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?

As long as this situation was not forced onto the whites than I don't know what to say. If the level of consumption is more important than the level of fertility (among whites) than its their decision. The Japanese are in worse condition than whites because there is a huge gap between the young (minority) and the elderly (majority). I don't really think this issue is a huge thing, for one thing, white folks are still the majority of their nations and soon, other non-whites will catch up to whites (lower fertility rates) as they head up the ladder of success. Canada's (my country) attitude and solution towards population decline (especially concerning the baby-boomers) is to open the borders, and bring in more people around the world. The Canadian government can't tell its citizens to have more babies, but it will give incentives to couples who have babies. Besides, in the West, we're only good as long as we got money in our pockets and willing to spend it, so the color of your skin don't matter :D

Sorry for the double post, but why do they need to be democratic states?

If every country in the world as run by a benevolent dictator then loads more would get done.
Take any dictatorship you want and then compare it with the stable democracies of the world (practically North America and Western Europe). You'll see that the general trend is for technological inovations to appear in the democracies.

Also, what is a benevolent dictator? One that does not shoot you if you try to remove him from power and turn your country into a democracy? I've never heard of this type of dictator. Another factor that goes against dictatorships is that power corrupts. A dictator may not be too "evil" in the begining, but there is a fair chance that after a few decades of being told how smart and good he is by the yes-men surrounding him (and a powerfull person will always atract such people like sh*t attracts flies) he would turn into an egocentrical megalomaniac. Another "job hazard" dictators face - especially after a few attempts to remove them from power - is the onset of paranoia, which may lead to purges and the elimination of all the capable officials in a position of power. Overall, I'd say dictatorships are not conducive to the apparition of a responsible and capable ruling elite.

Idealy half ???? For what reason SHOULD it be half??? Overpopulation will never be a problem thanks to the greatest human resource: The Human Mind...

The human mind? You mean the same human mind that is somehow hoping for limitless oil and scoffs at economically workable alternatives? The same human mind that somehow concieves an invisible bearded man will protect people from STDs simply by screwing virgins?

THAT human mind?

The glass isn't half empty in your scenario. You're saying that glass isn't yours....and demanding a full one :p

This is from the thread that was locked:



1) White people aren't in decline? AT ALL? Do you deny that native populations decline in many european countries?

And in many they aren't. The overall effect is that white people are not in decline. You have never once demonstated that they are. You posted the 'declining' population in the US and I proved the population is growing. Keep denying the evidence.

2) The whites in USA might be increasing for now but that's because the birth rate used to be above replacement level. When it falls below replacement level, the population will grow old and eventually decline. If trends continue. That was what I was saying, if current trends continue. Besides, is the current gain in USA's white population enough to replace what's being lost in Europe? And Are you actually claiming that you, who I'm guessing has got no training in population matters, disputing that scientific calculations about replacement birth level is false?
No, it isn't. You keep saying that. The number of births of women of childbearing age has been stable for twenty years. Look at the table. Your figures are extrapolations and clearly wrong. The births per 1000 women is slightly higher than 20 years ago and just about as high as it's been in decades. The population is growing and continues to grow in the US and there is no indication of a change. The births per 1000 people is the ACTUAL birth rate. It is not a projection and it proves you wrong.

1) Europe's population is obviously declining. Currently the only country in Europe to have a birthrate above replacement level is Albania.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1766268,00.html

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8804/e02worldpopdistr1jb.gif

2) USA's birth rate is close to replecement (Total fertility rate:2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.)) level but...



http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-548.pdf (page 3)

3) Canada : Total fertility rate: 1.61 children born/woman (2006 est.)
Australia: Total fertility rate: 1.76 children born/woman (2006 est.)
New Zealand: Total fertility rate: 1.79 children born/woman (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

4)Of course there are whites outside Europe, North America, Aus&NZ but majority of whites is in these areas so any gains outside these areas(if any) wont be enough to cover the loss in Europe, etc...

5)So, what does sub-replacement birth level means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?

You're numbers have been continually debunked. The fertility numbers you are looking at are guesses. They are wrong. I've proven them wrong. Keep ringing that bell and maybe someone will eventually care.

You have grossly misinterpreted the data you have presented. According the CIA World Factbook, the EU's current birth rates are 10/1,000 (I'll assume this means 10.00) and death rates are 10.01/1,000. If we assume these rates are equal across all ethnicities will remain as they are, then it would take about 700 years for the the white ethnic group to decline to half its current level.

Your image gives no key and so is completely useless. Nor do you attempt to explain what the numbers mean. Actually I think perhaps you say implicity that they are the proportion of the world's population in each continent. In which case your conclusion is faulty. You cannot infer from those numbers that the population of Europe is declining, only that the population of Europe, relative the rest of the world is declining.

Since your keen to examine relative populations then lets go a calculation. If we assume the only ethnic group currently in the EU to be white and that all immigrants are not of the white ethnic groups. Then at current immigration rates (1.5/1,000) it would take over 430 years for non-white ethnic groups to equal that of the white ethnic groups.

From my understanding of the World Factbook's definition of fertility rates, it can represent two things. a) population growth b) population aging. However, since we have already established that based on birth rates and death rates that the population of the EU is declining insignificantly, then it is logical to assume that the median age of the population of the EU is getting older. This seems a logical assumption as Europe was only recently involved in WWII, the result of which caused the male population of fighting age to decline and for a baby boomer generation to be born. Since the baby boomer generation birthrates have since fallen back to normal. So there is abnormal swell in age distribution of Europe which is gradually getting older. This is the reason for low fertility rates.

So all in all I think you are presenting a situation that doesn't exist.

Birth rates, death rates and immigration rates were all sourced from the CIA World Factbook 2006.

It should be pointed out that fertility rates are a guess because they can't possibly know the number of children currently fertile women will have. The real numbers indicate a different trend, one based on real numbers and not hypothetical numbers.

Take any dictatorship you want and then compare it with the stable democracies of the world (practically North America and Western Europe). You'll see that the general trend is for technological inovations to appear in the democracies.

Are you sure? Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR shortly after WWII. Both of them yielded tremendous strides in modern technology. Granted, that was because they had real/idealogical enemies that required advances in military technology that eventually trickled down, but neither country was really democractic.

I would say that the biggest drive for technological innovations is neccessity. And in most cases, the need to get that edge is usually greatest in times of strife.

Of course, this requires that one has the resource and knowledge base to innovate, but that's a logistic issue.

Are you sure? Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR shortly after WWII. Both of them yielded tremendous strides in modern technology. Granted, that was because they had real/idealogical enemies that required advances in military technology that eventually trickled down, but neither country was really democractic.

I would say that the biggest drive for technological innovations is neccessity. And in most cases, the need to get that edge is usually greatest in times of strife.

Of course, this requires that one has the resource and knowledge base to innovate, but that's a logistic issue.
1) I was wise enough to say "the general trend". :)

2) The USSR generally relied on the West to invent something and then copied it. Their greatest achievement is, IMO, the T-34 tank. But that's not a radical invention (it's not like they invented tanks) and, paradoxically, it's succes on the Eastern Front was given by it's relative primitiveness: it was rugged and rudimentary, but because of that it was also easy to mass produce, it faired well on the difficult roads of Russia and even an illiterate peasant could learn how to drive it (traits which are the exact opposite of the more sofisticated German tanks).

3) Instead of thinking how much Germany advanced while being a dictatorship, think how much more they could have achieved if they hadn't driven away so many of their scientists. They did well, but would have faired even better as a democracy.

Are you sure? Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR shortly after WWII. Both of them yielded tremendous strides in modern technology. Granted, that was because they had real/idealogical enemies that required advances in military technology that eventually trickled down, but neither country was really democractic.

I would say that the biggest drive for technological innovations is neccessity. And in most cases, the need to get that edge is usually greatest in times of strife.

Of course, this requires that one has the resource and knowledge base to innovate, but that's a logistic issue.

USSR was lagging further and further behind the West in technology. Among other things, because there was, quite obviously, little commercial incentive to develop new technology and because demand wasn't really factored into the production process. The exception being, of course, the arms industry, which the state had a very pressing interest in developing.

Around 1980, there were 100 000 computers in the Soviet Union. The United States made 5 000 000 a year.

It's unreasonable to use Nazi Germany as an example, as you do, as they didn't last very long. Though to be fair, private corporations had a lot more room in Nazi Germany than in the USSR. Their interest in technological development in the arms industry is only logical, as they were the most aggressive part in a massive world war.

1) I was wise enough to say "the general trend". :)

There haven't really been that many noteworthy dictatorships. The DDR and USSR are probably good examples.

2) The USSR generally relied on the West to invent something and then copied it.

Not true. The opposite is actually true is many cases, but the information about these Soviet inventions only ever came out after espionage, and even then the politics of it meant that it got "we did it first" media coverage.

Their greatest achievement is, IMO, the T-34 tank. But that's not a radical invention (it's not like they invented tanks) and, paradoxically, it's succes on the Eastern Front was given by it's relative primitiveness: it was rugged and rudimentary, but because of that it was also easy to mass produce, it faired well on the difficult roads of Russia and even an illiterate peasant could learn how to drive it (traits which are the exact opposite of the more sofisticated German tanks).

IS-2s were better. And I'd disagree and say "Tetris". Or the AK-47 (the West's never done better than that).

3) Instead of thinking how much Germany advanced while being a dictatorship, think how much more they could have achieved if they hadn't driven away so many of their scientists. They did well, but would have faired even better as a democracy.

They could have fared even, even better if Operation Paperclip didn't take most of Germany's sodding scientists to the USA.

They could have fared even, even better if Operation Paperclip didn't take most of Germany's sodding scientists to the USA.
I was actually talking about all the scientists who had fled Hitler's Germany. And no, they didn't flee just because of his anti-Jewish sh*t. With them, who knows, he might just have won the war (or at least he might have prolonged it).

White people have to be the only ethnic group on the planet that has so many members of it who are convinced of their own non-uniqueness as a people. I can't picture a Japanese person, or an African saying: "Well, it doen't matter what happens to us...because everybody else in the world is EXACTLY the same as us!!!" That's analogous to saying that all owls are the same- so who cares what happens to spotted owls, because snowy owls can always replace them, since, y'know, they're all owls.

White people have to be the only ethnic group on the planet that has so many members of it who are convinced of their own non-uniqueness as a people. I can't picture a Japanese person, or an African saying: "Well, it doen't matter what happens to us...because everybody else in the world is EXACTLY the same as us!!!" That's analogous to saying that all owls are the same- so who cares what happens to spotted owls, because snowy owls can always replace them, since, y'know, they're all owls.

Except for the part where spotted and snowy owls are separate species.

Except for the part where spotted and snowy owls are separate species.

Yeah, you're right. How about: we'll replace dalmatians with giant schnausers, since they're all just dogs. Nothing unique about any of them!

Fuck no! In the future, human kind will invent magical beans or some shit, and those will solve all our problems! We will evolve beyond the need for water! We'll all sprout polution gills that will allow us to breathe smog with ease! Chocolate candies will rain down from clouds of intergalactic gold molecules!
LMAO! You're on a real roll today, ain't ya! :D

Yeah, you're right. How about: we'll replace dalmatians with giant schnausers, since they're all just dogs. Nothing unique about any of them!
Better replace the giant schnausers with chihuahuas. There's no difference between them, right? ;)

the world's population is also going to decline massively in about twenty year's time anyway, due to the baby-boomers dying off.
Sure wish I could stick around and see that! Sigh.

Yeah, you're right. How about: we'll replace dalmatians with giant schnausers, since they're all just dogs. Nothing unique about any of them!

Or, if we notice a decline in dalmatians (an actual decline, that is, not like the fake one here) we don't make a fuss about it, cuz it's not that big a deal? Why would we bother replacing dalmatians, there's no point in it.

You have grossly misinterpreted the data you have presented. According the CIA World Factbook, the EU's current birth rates are 10/1,000 (I'll assume this means 10.00) and death rates are 10.01/1,000. If we assume these rates are equal across all ethnicities will remain as they are, then it would take about 700 years for the the white ethnic group to decline to half its current level.

Your image gives no key and so is completely useless. Nor do you attempt to explain what the numbers mean. Actually I think perhaps you say implicity that they are the proportion of the world's population in each continent. In which case your conclusion is faulty. You cannot infer from those numbers that the population of Europe is declining, only that the population of Europe, relative the rest of the world is declining.

Since your keen to examine relative populations then lets go a calculation. If we assume the only ethnic group currently in the EU to be white and that all immigrants are not of the white ethnic groups. Then at current immigration rates (1.5/1,000) it would take over 430 years for non-white ethnic groups to equal that of the white ethnic groups.

From my understanding of the World Factbook's definition of fertility rates, it can represent two things. a) population growth b) population aging. However, since we have already established that based on birth rates and death rates that the population of the EU is declining insignificantly, then it is logical to assume that the median age of the population of the EU is getting older. This seems a logical assumption as Europe was only recently involved in WWII, the result of which caused the male population of fighting age to decline and for a baby boomer generation to be born. Since the baby boomer generation birthrates have since fallen back to normal. So there is abnormal swell in age distribution of Europe which is gradually getting older. This is the reason for low fertility rates.

So all in all I think you are presenting a situation that doesn't exist.

Birth rates, death rates and immigration rates were all sourced from the CIA World Factbook 2006.

I dont think your numbers are correct. Can you explain how you came up with them?
And how do you explain these projections?


France is facing the problem that dare not speak its name. Though French law prohibits the census from any reference to ethnic background or religion, many demographers estimate that as much as 20-30 per cent of the population under 25 is now Muslim. The streets, the traditional haunt of younger people, now belong to Muslim youths. In France, the phrase "les jeunes" is a politically correct way of referring to young Muslims.

Given current birth rates, it is not impossible that in 25 years France will have a Muslim majority. The consequences are dynamic: is it possible that secular France might become an Islamic state?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/26/do2601.xml

Right, because a religious majority suddenly causes a theocracy?

Right, because a religious majority suddenly causes a theocracy?

Also, are these kids Muslim or just Middle Eastern? And does Ny Nordland recognize that they're not mutually inclusive terms?

And in many they aren't. The overall effect is that white people are not in decline. You have never once demonstated that they are. You posted the 'declining' population in the US and I proved the population is growing. Keep denying the evidence.


No, it isn't. You keep saying that. The number of births of women of childbearing age has been stable for twenty years. Look at the table. Your figures are extrapolations and clearly wrong. The births per 1000 women is slightly higher than 20 years ago and just about as high as it's been in decades. The population is growing and continues to grow in the US and there is no indication of a change. The births per 1000 people is the ACTUAL birth rate. It is not a projection and it proves you wrong.

My figures are correct, I've given links, please dont sink that low.


From 2000 to 2050, the non-Hispanic, white population would increase from 195.7 million to 210.3 million, an increase of 14.6 million or 7 percent. This group is projected to actually lose population in the 2040s and would comprise just 50.1 percent of the total population in 2050, compared with 69.4 percent in 2000.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html

As you can see the inrease is 14.6 million in 50 years and that's DESPITE the huge amounts of immigration to USA. And it'll loose population in 2040's, again, DESPITE the huge amounts of immigration to USA. You may think 2040 is a long time away but population trends are like global warming. It doesnt take just a year to reverse or stop global warning.

You're numbers have been continually debunked. The fertility numbers you are looking at are guesses. They are wrong. I've proven them wrong. Keep ringing that bell and maybe someone will eventually care.

Are you praying? You keep repeating same thing after and after. And I laughed at your suggestion that fertility numbers are guesses. It's not hard actually. All new born babies are registered. And the goverment knows the population of country and hence the females. So they do the mathematical wonders of simple division.

It should be pointed out that fertility rates are a guess because they can't possibly know the number of children currently fertile women will have. The real numbers indicate a different trend, one based on real numbers and not hypothetical numbers.

Ok, you know better than cia/US cencus breau. I'm sure your resources are greater...

Are you praying? You keep repeating same thing after and after. And I laughed at your suggestion that fertility numbers are guesses. It's not hard actually. All new born babies are registered. And the goverment knows the population of country and hence the females. So they do the mathematical wonders of simple division.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Somehow I imagine he'd prefer pot, kettle, white.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Very clever...:rolleyes:

Somehow I imagine he'd prefer pot, kettle, white.
No. No pots or kettles. Teacups. :p

Right, because a religious majority suddenly causes a theocracy?

A religious majority that discourages birth control is a danger simply because of that same very selfish/ignorant aspect of their character. And if we're considering Muslims, then yes, I think it's obvious that the danger of a theocracy isn't completely unheard of.

A religious majority that discourages birth control is a danger simply because of that same very selfish/ignorant aspect of their character. And if we're considering Muslims, then yes, I think it's obvious that the danger of a theocracy isn't completely unheard of.

...Wait, now Islam is selfish and ignorant?

I dont think your numbers are correct. Can you explain how you came up with them?
And how do you explain these projections?Very well. In my previous post I stated my assumption to simplify calculations. I assumed a current 100% white population, and that birth rates, death rates and immigration rates would not change.

it would take about 700 years for the the white ethnic group to decline to half its current level
Population growth rate = birth rates - death rates
= 10.00/1000 - 10.01/1000
= -0.01/1000
= -0.1%
=> This means that a population left will be 99.9% of the previous population.
=> After one year the population will be 99.9% of original
=> After ten years the population will be 0.999^10 (99.0%) of the original
Equation to find time required to get 50% of original population.
0.999^x = 0.5
ln(0.999^x) = ln(0.5)
xln(0.999) = ln (0.5)
x = ln (0.5)/ln(0.999)
x = 692.8 years

it would take over 430 years for non-white ethnic groups to equal that of the white ethnic groups
Immigration rate = 1.5/1000
If the native population were to stay the same and for population growth rate of the immigrant population equal 0.00%, then it would take 667 years for the immigrant population to equal the native population.
1.5/1000 * x = 1
x = 1000/1.5
x = 666.67

However, the native population is declining so we set both population calculations to be equal - I couldn't figure out how to do this calculation so I used graphs to get an approximation. Using excel to plot to both equations on the same graph and they cross at approximately 430 years.
y = x * 1.5/1000 => 430 * 1.5/1000 = 0.645
y = 0.999^x => 0.999^430 = 0.650

The decimal given the two equations above is the percentage of population.

...Wait, now Islam is selfish and ignorant?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/25/uzbek_pres_wideweb__430x315.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/25/uzbek_pres_wideweb__430x315.jpg

I never knew Islam looked like one guy.

I never knew Islam looked like one guy.

Please don't make me explain the picture.

NY, they don't understand (or even care about) the point you are trying to make. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Please don't make me explain the picture.

I'd rather you did. All the picture tells me is some old guy likes to put his fist up in the air and...Is the president of Uzbekistan?

NY, they don't understand (or even care about) the point you are trying to make. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Indeed. His time is wasted upon us, and best spent elsewhere.

I'd rather you did. All the picture tells me is some old guy likes to put his fist up in the air and...Is the president of Uzbekistan?


HIS NAME IS "ISLAM".

HIS NAME IS "ISLAM".

Ah. He needs a nametag. You know, "Hello, my name is Islam"? One of those things.

Indeed. His time is wasted upon us, and best spent elsewhere.
I just don't see the point in making a second thread about this if no one is willing to listen.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/25/uzbek_pres_wideweb__430x315.jpg
Really, last I knew Karimov wasn't really much of a muslim and clamped down excessively on any religious activity in Uzbekistan. Karimov is a Soviet leader pretending to be a democratically elected president. This should say enough about his views on religion and religious beliefs he holds, if any.

I just don't see the point in making a second thread about this if no one is willing to listen.

Yup, he should definitly not bother telling us. I'm sure he's got places to go that are much more receptive.

Both are incorrect:

1) Your first result: You assume that birth rate and death rate are stable. This is a wrong assumption. If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease. Hence you can not take -0.01/1000 as a constant. Besides -0.01/1000 does not equal -0.1%.

2) Your second result: You take immigrant levels annually. As if immigrants cease to exist after they enter the country. Yes annual immigration rate is 1.5/1000, but there are already immigrants inside and they grow too (more than native population). 430 is the year needed IF the immigrant population in the country didnt reproduce.

Very well. In my previous post I stated my assumption to simplify calculations. I assumed a current 100% white population, and that birth rates, death rates and immigration rates would not change.

it would take about 700 years for the the white ethnic group to decline to half its current level
Population growth rate = birth rates - death rates
= 10.00/1000 - 10.01/1000
= -0.01/1000
= -0.1%
=> This means that a population left will be 99.9% of the previous population.
=> After one year the population will be 99.9% of original
=> After ten years the population will be 0.999^10 (99.0%) of the original
Equation to find time required to get 50% of original population.
0.999^x = 0.5
ln(0.999^x) = ln(0.5)
xln(0.999) = ln (0.5)
x = ln (0.5)/ln(0.999)
x = 692.8 years

it would take over 430 years for non-white ethnic groups to equal that of the white ethnic groups
Immigration rate = 1.5/1000
If the native population were to stay the same and for population growth rate of the immigrant population equal 0.00%, then it would take 667 years for the immigrant population to equal the native population.
1.5/1000 * x = 1
x = 1000/1.5
x = 666.67

However, the native population is declining so we set both population calculations to be equal - I couldn't figure out how to do this calculation so I used graphs to get an approximation. Using excel to plot to both equations on the same graph and they cross at approximately 430 years.
y = x * 1.5/1000 => 430 * 1.5/1000 = 0.645
y = 0.999^x => 0.999^430 = 0.650

The decimal given the two equations above is the percentage of population.

Really... etc

Who cares? My joke was reliant upon his name. Now let's get back to discussing the other joke in this thread.

...Wait, now Islam is selfish and ignorant?

No. People who don't believe in birth control and have too many children are selfish and ignorant - AND - at this time the groups that are having too many children are Catholics (no surprise) and Muslims - AND - almost every single country that is comprised of a majority of religious Muslims is a theocracy or sham democracy.

You can examine those facts and the one opinion however you want, but don't misconstrue my words. When I insult religion, I insult all religions equally, though I skew my condescension and vitriol toward the conservative sects of every religion.

No. People who don't believe in birth control and have too many children are selfish and ignorant - AND - at this time the groups that are having too many children are Catholics (no surprise) and Muslims - AND - almost every single country that is comprised of a majority of religious Muslims is a theocracy or sham democracy.
You can examine those facts and the one opinion however you want, but don't misconstrue my words. When I insult religion, I insult all religions equally, though I skew my condescension and vitriol toward the conservative sects of every religion.

So, what does that make your plans, then?

No. People who don't believe in birth control and have too many children are selfish and ignorant - AND - at this time the groups that are having too many children are Catholics (no surprise) and Muslims - AND - almost every single country that is comprised of a majority of religious Muslims is a theocracy or sham democracy.
You can examine those facts and the one opinion however you want, but don't misconstrue my words. When I insult religion, I insult all religions equally, though I skew my condescension and vitriol toward the conservative sects of every religion.

Your facts are incorrect like your claims. Catholic countries in Europe got one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Even lower than northern europe.

Your facts are incorrect like your claims. Catholic countries in Europe got one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Even lower than northern europe.

I know that. But unless I have my statistics messed up, in the Western Hemisphere and in Africa neglect of birth control by Catholics is still prevalent and causing an increase in birth rates.

And what claims? I admitted that my qualifications for ignorance and selfishness were "opinions."

I know that. But unless I have my statistics messed up, in the Western Hemisphere and in Africa neglect of birth control by Catholics is still prevalent.
In Africa a neglect that AIDs exists is also a reason safe-sex and birth-control do not take place. Catholic beliefs have a part, but so do older tribal beliefs. In some ways, AIDs acts as an odd form of population control in Africa.

In Africa a neglect that AIDs exists is also a reason safe-sex and birth-control do not take place. Catholic beliefs have a part, but so do older tribal beliefs. In some ways, AIDs acts as an odd form of population control in Africa.

AIDS is a form of population control. Another one of nature's miraculous counterattacks on ignorance that make me wonder whether the really was some sort of intelligent design (nah).

AIDS is a form of population control. Another one of nature's miraculous counterattacks on ignorance that make me wonder whether the really was some sort of intelligent design (nah).
They blame it on us...they say we invented AIDs to decimate their populations. Somehow, I don't think so. What surprises me is the widespread belief in Africa that AIDs is not even an issue.

So, what does that make your plans, then?

What do you mean by "plans"? "Plans" implies that I have the power to effect change outside of my small sphere of influence.

Both are incorrect:

1) Your first result: You assume that birth rate and death rate are stable. This is a wrong assumption. If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease. Hence you can not take -0.01/1000 as a constant. Besides -0.01/1000 does not equal -0.1%.

2) Your second result: You take immigrant levels annually. As if immigrants cease to exist after they enter the country. Yes annual immigration rate is 1.5/1000, but there are already immigrants inside and they grow too (more than native population). 430 is the year needed IF the immigrant population in the country didnt reproduce.1) You're right it's even less, which would make the new time to for popluation to reduce to half its original 69,300 years. Beside the point is that the population is decreasing so slowly that ANYTHING could happen before the white population becomes the minority. I had to use a constant figure for population growth rates as neither you nor the world factbook provide a figure for the rate of change of population growth rates.

Please provide a logical argument to back up this statement 'If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease.'. Common sense would indicate that the reverse would happen. After a period of population decline the population would then begin to rise again. Population growth rates after wars and epidemics are higher than average for that time. For instance, the baby boomer generation.

2) Sorry, I forgot to state that. The assumption is immigrant family birth rates were at replacement levels. Perhaps a fairer assumption is that they would be assimilated into the host country within one generation and then experience the same birth rates and death rates. Since immigration rates are over 100-fold the population growth rate the difference that population growth rates would make to the non-white ethnic group population is insignificant.

Who cares? My joke was reliant upon his name. Now let's get back to discussing the other joke in this thread.Crap, with the seriousness that Ny Nordland was posting I wasn't expecting to find a jokes in here. Ack. I apoligize for my crappy sense of humour at this time of night.

1) You're right it's even less, which would make the new time to for popluation to reduce to half its original 69,300 years. Beside the point is that the population is decreasing so slowly that ANYTHING could happen before the white population becomes the minority. I had to use a constant figure for population growth rates as neither you nor the world factbook provide a figure for the rate of change of population growth rates.

Please provide a logical argument to back up this statement 'If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease.'. Common sense would indicate that the reverse would happen. After a period of population decline the population would then begin to rise again. Population growth rates after wars and epidemics are higher than average for that time. For instance, the baby boomer generation.

2) Sorry, I forgot to state that. The assumption is immigrant family birth rates were at replacement levels. Perhaps a fairer assumption is that they would be assimilated into the host country within one generation and then experience the same birth rates and death rates. Since immigration rates are over 100-fold the population growth rate the difference that population growth rates would make to the non-white ethnic group population is insignificant.

1)
Czech Republic:
Birth rate:
9.02 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
10.59 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.21 children born/woman (2006 est.)

Germany:
Birth rate:
8.25 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
10.62 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.39 children born/woman (2006 est.)

If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease. Czech Republics birth rate is higher than Germany even though its total fertility rate is lower. Why? Because Germany's population growth is under replacement level for longer time.
Basically the older the population gets under sub-replacement level, the more deaths and less births. Hence you cant take it as a constant.

What do you mean by "plans"? "Plans" implies that I have the power to effect change outside of my small sphere of influence.
You never know. :) Personally, I am ambitious.

You never know. :) Personally, I am ambitious.

While looking at czech rep., interesting stuff:

Religions: Roman Catholic 26.8%, Protestant 2.1%, other 3.3%, unspecified 8.8%, unaffiliated 59% (2001 census)

While looking at czech rep., interesting stuff:

Religions: Roman Catholic 26.8%, Protestant 2.1%, other 3.3%, unspecified 8.8%, unaffiliated 59% (2001 census)
I meant with regard to gaining enough power to influence things ;)

The Czech Rep birth rate is worrying though.

I meant with regard to gaining enough power to influence things ;)

The Czech Rep birth rate is worrying though.

Yeah, so is Germany's.

1)
Czech Republic:
Birth rate:
9.02 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
10.59 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.21 children born/woman (2006 est.)

Germany:
Birth rate:
8.25 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
10.62 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.39 children born/woman (2006 est.)

If birth rate per women stays below replacement level for long times, death rate will increase, birth rate will decrease. Czech Republics birth rate is higher than Germany even though its total fertility rate is lower. Why? Because Germany's population growth is under replacement level for longer time.
Basically the older the population gets under sub-replacement level, the more deaths and less births. Hence you cant take it as a constant.Poor example. I'll take it as common knowledge that the German population has been declining for while, but I do not know of the Czech population so you will have to provide some evidence that Birthrates have only recently dipped below replacement levels.

You have still made no logical link between your findings and your data. You have made a very bad analytical arguement of 'if A, then B, because A'. This is a big no no. For example a similar argument would be 'if you have water in your glass then you can drink of water, because you have water in your glass'. What you have failed to do is make a link between A and B. A good arguement would be 'if you have water in your glass then you can have a drink as your arm is capable of lifting the glass to your lips so that you may drink. So, please, explain why prolonged sub replacement birth rates will cause birth rates to sink even lower.

Honestly, who gives a shit whether there's white people or not in a few hundred years? There's a far more dire question - will there be any people at all in a few hundred years - that should be looked at instead.

Worrying about the continuity of 'race' is just a lot of useless backwater tomfoolery at best.

Yeah, so is Germany's.
I wonder if either are going to do anything about it.

I wonder if either are going to do anything about it.

Remember reading in the news that Merkel or someone suggested they should cut the pensions of those without children. Makes sense. They dont leave anyone to support them. Germany gets a lot of covarage in Norway btw...

Remember reading in the news that Merkel or someone suggested they should cut the pensions of those without children. Makes sense. They dont leave anyone to support them. Germany gets a lot of covarage in Norway btw...
Is she going to try raise the birth-rates at all?

I will be in Sweden as of next year, so I anticipate to hear more of its southern neighbour.

Poor example. I'll take it as common knowledge that the German population has been declining for while, but I do not know of the Czech population so you will have to provide some evidence that Birthrates have only recently dipped below replacement levels.

You have still made no logical link between your findings and your data. You have made a very bad analytical arguement of 'if A, then B, because A'. This is a big no no. For example a similar argument would be 'if you have water in your glass then you can drink of water, because you have water in your glass'. What you have failed to do is make a link between A and B. A good arguement would be 'if you have water in your glass then you can have a drink as your arm is capable of lifting the glass to your lips so that you may drink. So, please, explain why prolonged sub replacement birth rates will cause birth rates to sink even lower.

Because there will be less people who can give birth per 1000 population as population ages. But this proves that your calculations are wrong much better:


Japan's population, currently 127,417,224, experienced a high growth rate during the 20th century, as a result of scientific, industrial, and social changes. Population growth has more recently decreased, because of falling birth rates and almost no net immigration. High sanitary and health standards produce a life expectancy exceeding that of any other nation in the world. The population started declining in 2005, as the 1.067 million births were exceeded by the 1.077 million deaths. Assuming current birth and death rates, the 2005 population of 127 million will decline to 100 million in 2050, and 64 million in 2100--and keep falling.

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

As you can see, roughly, the time of halving is 100 years and Japan's birth rate death rate subtraction number is higher then EU.

Japan:
Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Now, satisfied?

Is she going to try raise the birth-rates at all?

I will be in Sweden as of next year, so I anticipate to hear more of its southern neighbour.

They are working on it. But not working hard enough...

Because there will be less people who can give birth per 1000 population as population ages. But this proves that your calculations are wrong much better:


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

As you can see, roughly, the time of halving is 100 years and Japan's birth rate death rate subtraction number is higher then EU.

Japan:
Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Now, satisfied?

Again, this is a projection. It requires a lot of extrapolation and there is little evidence it is accurate.

Again, this is a projection. It requires a lot of extrapolation and there is little evidence it is accurate.

It is a projection. My whole debate is based on "if current trends continue". And You arent qualified enough to claim "there is little evidence it is accurate." yourself. Post links/evidences if you want to dispute.
Btw, the quotation was a direct evidence that Japan doesnt get any immigrants...

They are working on it. But not working hard enough...
I hope this changes.

I hope this changes.

As you can see, many people are ignorant about the degree of population decline in Europe. So politicians havent got much pressure.

My figures are correct, I've given links, please dont sink that low.

Links don't matter. They don't bear out in reality. I showed that the ACTUAL birth rate of women who CAN bear children (are of that age group) has not changed for twenty years. It's actually up. I told you a fertility rate is a guess because many woman have not reached an age where they can no longer have children.

Meanwhile, you don't address my figures at all because it is clear you cannot understand them.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html

As you can see the inrease is 14.6 million in 50 years and that's DESPITE the huge amounts of immigration to USA. And it'll loose population in 2040's, again, DESPITE the huge amounts of immigration to USA. You may think 2040 is a long time away but population trends are like global warming. It doesnt take just a year to reverse or stop global warning.

Again, you are using projections. The fact is that white population in the US is increasing. There are more white births that white deaths TODAY. There are as many white women of childbearing age having children as ever. So in percentage the same number of children are born every year.

Links don't matter. They don't bear out in reality. I showed that the ACTUAL birth rate of women who CAN bear children (are of that age group) has not changed for twenty years. It's actually up. I told you a fertility rate is a guess because many woman have not reached an age where they can no longer have children.

Meanwhile, you don't address my figures at all because it is clear you cannot understand them.



Again, you are using projections. The fact is that white population in the US is increasing. There are more white births that white deaths TODAY. There are as many white women of childbearing age having children as ever. So in percentage the same number of children are born every year.

What figures have you posted? You just posted there were more births than deaths in 1 year.

Are you praying? You keep repeating same thing after and after. And I laughed at your suggestion that fertility numbers are guesses. It's not hard actually. All new born babies are registered. And the goverment knows the population of country and hence the females. So they do the mathematical wonders of simple division.
Yes, but it guess on how many children will have in their lifetime. The actual birthrates WHICH I POSTED have not changed in 20 years. This is why the population continues to grow. There is an aging population, but it doesn't change the fact that women still have to go through their childbearing years and the same percentage of those women are having children as always. Given this, the only way for the population to decrease is for women to suddenly start dying at unprecedented rates before they complete their childbearing years.

Again, you claim immigration explains the growth of the US white population, but you haven't proved it. You claim the population should be declining, but it's not. You claim the fertility rates are declining, but I've shown that birthrates have been stable for 20 years. You've been thoroughly debunked and you just keep ringing that bell.

What figures have you posted? You just posted there were more births than deaths in 1 year.
Wow, someone is having trouble reading. Hmmmm... I guess I didn't point you to a table in a PDF that shows the birthrates of the white population in the US for the last 20 years.

As you can see, many people are ignorant about the degree of population decline in Europe. So politicians havent got much pressure.

Or perhaps most people require actual evidence instead of guesses that have been wrong for 100 years.

Yes, but it guess on how many children will have in their lifetime. The actual birthrates WHICH I POSTED have not changed in 20 years. This is why the population continues to grow. There is an aging population, but it doesn't change the fact that women still have to go through their childbearing years and the same percentage of those women are having children as always. Given this, the only way for the population to decrease is for women to suddenly start dying at unprecedented rates before they complete their childbearing years.

Again, you claim immigration explains the growth of the US white population, but you haven't proved it. You claim the population should be declining, but it's not. You claim the fertility rates are declining, but I've shown that birthrates have been stable for 20 years. You've been thoroughly debunked and you just keep ringing that bell.

What is the actual birth rate? Birth number per 1000 population?

1. I'm white. I'm alive. Who cares what colour people are when I'm old or dead?

2. With regards to Germany...well, the problem has been known for some time, but there is little the government can do about it. If having lots of kids simply isn't en vogue, then that's the result.
I've got a hunch that these articles would already have been posted, but they talk about exactly that:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,414520,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,414451,00.html

3. And even if the majority of people living in Germany are from other countries - who cares? The only reasons this could be bothering people is either if they are racists, or if they believe that ethnicity has some effect on how you see the world. As long as the Basic Law stands in Germany and people adhere to it, I don't care what colour people's skin is.

Or perhaps most people require actual evidence instead of guesses that have been wrong for 100 years.
I agree with him if he is correct though. I will do my own research on the matter to see what findings I can come to.

Yes, but it guess on how many children will have in their lifetime. The actual birthrates WHICH I POSTED have not changed in 20 years. This is why the population continues to grow. There is an aging population, but it doesn't change the fact that women still have to go through their childbearing years and the same percentage of those women are having children as always. Given this, the only way for the population to decrease is for women to suddenly start dying at unprecedented rates before they complete their childbearing years.

Again, you claim immigration explains the growth of the US white population, but you haven't proved it. You claim the population should be declining, but it's not. You claim the fertility rates are declining, but I've shown that birthrates have been stable for 20 years. You've been thoroughly debunked and you just keep ringing that bell.


What is the actual birth rate? Birth number per 1000 population?

Well? It was a yes or no question, shouldnt take long to answer...

Well? It was a yes or no question, shouldnt take long to answer...

...It wasn't a yes or no question...the respone would be some kind of number or ratio.

Ny Nordland,

Your other thread on this same topic ran to 60+ pages of non-stop debunking of every point you raised, and then it got locked, and less than 24 hours later, you're back with the same crap? Are you a masochist, or are you trying to win a bet or something?

Oh, and you're still wrong because:

1) You're talking about a "white race," which you conflate with European culture.
(A) "Race" is a meaningless construct in cultural terms. There is no such thing as a culturally identifiable race or racially identifiable culture, of any color.
(B) White people -- as a whole group -- are not dwindling in numbers. If they are doing so in some places, they are not doing so in others. So as long as you continue to talk about white people as a whole, you will continue to be wrong.

2) The numbers you keep posting are an illusion. Population growth for all races was abnormally high over the 20th century, so much so that it will not be sustainable over another 100 years. Reductions in birth rates at this time are only corrections back towards a normal growth rate. It does not mean that the populations do not continue to grow, only that they will do so at a slower rate until a normal level is reached. Then population growth rates will probably start going up again.

Your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of population dynamics and a misreading of data, all in an attempt to promote a bogus argument against immigration (one of your pet issues, and as I pointed out in the last thread, immigration has nothing to do with white population levels, anyway).

...It wasn't a yes or no question...the respone would be some kind of number or ratio.

I'm asking if the actual birth rate is birth number per 1000 population or birth number per women.

Ny Nordland,

Your other thread on this same topic ran to 60+ pages of non-stop debunking of every point you raised, and then it got locked, and less than 24 hours later, you're back with the same crap? Are you a masochist, or are you trying to win a bet or something?

Oh, and you're still wrong because:

1) You're talking about a "white race," which you conflate with European culture.
(A) "Race" is a meaningless construct in cultural terms. There is no such thing as a culturally identifiable race or racially identifiable culture, of any color.
(B) White people -- as a whole group -- are not dwindling in numbers. If they are doing so in some places, they are not doing so in others. So as long as you continue to talk about white people as a whole, you will continue to be wrong.

2) The numbers you keep posting are an illusion. Population growth for all races was abnormally high over the 20th century, so much so that it will not be sustainable over another 100 years. Reductions in birth rates at this time are only corrections back towards a normal growth rate. It does not mean that the populations do not continue to grow, only that they will do so at a slower rate until a normal level is reached. Then population growth rates will probably start going up again.

Your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of population dynamics and a misreading of data, all in an attempt to promote a bogus argument against immigration (one of your pet issues, and as I pointed out in the last thread, immigration has nothing to do with white population levels, anyway).

Muravyets,

You always make arguments as if you are an expert. Yet you never back your claims up. You wrote a whole page about your "results" but no links nor proof. You arent qualified enough to disprove the links I have posted...

Pure data from the World Fact book...

Look to both ends of the age of the population to see if the society is stable or not, compare children to retirees as a segment of the population…

Germany and Italy are declining while Mexico is growing
(total population numbers, 106,202,903 (July 2005 est. Mexico, 82,431,390 July 2005 est., Germany, and 58,103,033 July 2005 est. Italy)

Germany
Age structure:
0-14 years: 14.4% (male:6,078,885; female:5,766,065)
15-64 years: 66.7% (male:28,006,268; female:27,003,958)
65 years and over: 18.9% (male:6,359,776; female:9,216,438) (2005)

Italy
Age structure:
0-14 years: 13.9% (male:4,166,213; female:3,919,288)
15-64 years: 66.7% (male:19,554,416; female:19,174,629)
65 years and over: 19.4% (male:4,698,441; female:6,590,046) (2005)

Mexico
Age structure:
0-14 years: 31.1% (male:16,844,400; female:16,159,511)
15-64 years: 63.3% (male:32,521,043; female:34,704,093)
65 years and over: 5.6% (male:2,715,010; female:3,258,846) (2005)



For other compares, of in-between countries:

France
Age structure:
0-14 years: 18.4% (male:5,717,761; female:5,440,060)
15-64 years: 65.2% (male:19,784,749; female:19,752,432)
65 years and over: 16.4% (male:4,084,193; female:5,876,983) (2005)

Sweden
Age structure:
0-14 years: 17.1% (male:791,215; female:747,621)
15-64 years: 65.5% (male:2,990,436; female:2,904,873)
65 years and over: 17.4% (male:677,161; female:890,468) (2003)


I don't know about the overall trend for the entire group of European ancestry peoples in the world, but it is true that some populations are declining and maintained with immigration rates alone, while others seem to be stable in population rate but increasing from imigration rates. I understand where the eastern European countries will have problems with retirement age populations needing resources that aren't being replaced by working people, but who knows what might happen there, the Soylent Green option is always available as a quick solution to those problems (:p j/k).

Muravyets,

You always make arguments as if you are an expert. Yet you never back your claims up. You wrote a whole page about your "results" but no links nor proof. You arent qualified enough to disprove the links I have posted...
And you seem to enjoy ignoring my actual points while attributing other people's points to me. Is that because you have no answer to my points?

I never disproved or debunked your points because I didn't have to. Other people did it before me. Why should I duplicate their work? It was right there in the thread that got locked (and rightly so) for all of us to read, including you.

My points in that thread, and the two points that your remarks, above, are not actually answering, are based on the work of posters like Jocabia, Baratstan and others who did directly debunk and disprove your claims in that other thread. That's why I didn't present evidence. It had already been presented, and I was using it.

But perhaps you couldn't follow the relationship between arguments presented by multiple posters, or maybe you didn't even realize you had been debunked. Are you as lazy at reading as you repeatedly claimed to be at writing? (You're not all that lazy at writing, btw, seeing as how much effort you put into keeping these pointless arguments going.)

Well? It was a yes or no question, shouldnt take long to answer...

It's not a yes or no question and I was at a seminar which makes it much more difficult to reply. If you're going to be an ass, perhaps you shouldn't do so when you simply didn't read my multiple posts describing the birth rates. If you want me to explain things to you AGAIN, then you better be more patient. Because you decided to be rude, find it yourself. It's in the post that tells you to look at the table. I don't cater to people who can't be arsed to read my posts and then bitch at me because I've got engineering work to do.

I'm asking if the actual birth rate is birth number per 1000 population or birth number per women.

It's the number of births per woman of childbearing age. It's a tell-tale designation of whether the number of children women are having on average is declining and it's based on real-time figures and not extrapolations. It has not declined for 20 years.

It is a projection. My whole debate is based on "if current trends continue". And You arent qualified enough to claim "there is little evidence it is accurate." yourself. Post links/evidences if you want to dispute.
Btw, the quotation was a direct evidence that Japan doesnt get any immigrants...

I posted them. You were unable to understand them. I've shown that fertility rates are not an accurate method of analyzing the growth rate of a population and I showed why. Your reply was that you don't know what a birth rate is or understand the hundreds of pages of evidence I presented.

And, no, the quotation said no such thing. It is talking about NET immigration. Again, this is concept you don't understand. We keep explaining it to you and you keep arguing like it's different than it is. NET means immigration minus emmigration. It means that they may get many immigrants but they get an equal number of emmigrants. You keep denying this FACT.

Result: White population declines fast. Period

So what do you think about this trends? Can it be reversed? What should be done?


I think we should round the white women up into camps, as the white race is obviously an endangered species, and force inseminate them to build up their numbers.

That, or we should grab white girls right out of high school, set them up in their own apartments and support them for life as long as they squirt out a kid a year until they reach them end of their fertility.

Then, we should implant them with test tube babies and let them bear kids until they are worn out by age fifty.

Idealy half ???? For what reason SHOULD it be half??? Overpopulation will never be a problem thanks to the greatest human resource: The Human Mind... Bridges will be built, mountains can be moved, and we will one day be able to reverse the flow of the great rivers.Hell, We already whent to the moon. Humanity will servive in the end, Children are our future never say they are the problem.

This thesis i believe of course all falls on your assumption that humans are like animals, which we are not. We are unique among the creatures of humanity, we do not die off as population increases. Ever heard of apartment buildings? Europe may be getting overcrowded but the rest of the world is not. As long as economic inceases occur thanks to capitalism and a moral society is in place then humanity will never need to fear an increase in babies born.

Yes, because we can live in the oceans, apparently, or you're planning on pouring concrete over and building on every square inch of the planet, because we can have an infinite number of humans squashed onto the surface of the planet.

It might work for angels dancing on the head of a pin; it won't for humans.

Because there will be less people who can give birth per 1000 population as population ages. Great, that's an excellent point. However, I will go back to your first critism of my calculations - that birth rates and death rates are stable. Declining populations, especially where there is an upwards shift in the median age causes significant economical problems as less workers become available to provide the population with goods and services. This will cause costs to increase faster than wages. There will finally come a point when having children becomes economically viable despite the high costs in bringing up a child. The family unit will become strong again as way of pooling incomes and reducing living costs.

This population growth cycle has to happen at some point. Populations can't continue growing forever, there must at some point come a time when populations will decline only to grow again. All in much the same way as the business cycle works.

But this proves that your calculations are wrong much better:


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

As you can see, roughly, the time of halving is 100 years and Japan's birth rate death rate subtraction number is higher then EU.

Japan:
Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Now, satisfied?Not it doesn't. You have given conflicting data. How can birth rates be higher than death rates if the total number of births was exceded by the total number of deaths? This is why we take wikipedia articles with a pinch of salt.

Actually I'll make it simpler. The introductory paragraph says the population is declining. The 'basic facts' section says population growth was positive in both 2005 and 2006. The same section says there was no net immigration. So the population growth is not due to immigration.

You also keep skipping between examples to suit your needs. I have tried to concentrate solely on the EU as you say you are concerned by population decline in Europe. Well let's have a look at the stats. The list of countries in Western Europe with birth rates higher than death rates is as follows: Ireland, UK, Finland, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal and even your precious Norway . The three major countries that have death rates higher than birth rates are Sweden, Italy and Germany. All have total fertility rates lower than 2, because when you have a great medical system get a greater Life expectancy which causes the median age of the population to get older. Which, incidently is one of the factors that effect fertility rates.

I think the population is declining in the West because the elves are leaving Middle-Earth.

I think the population is declining in the West because the elves are leaving Middle-Earth.

*lol
Considering that the two Norwegian guys I know do look distincly like elves, I'd say that's the most likely explanation.
:D

population decline i'll believe it when i see it. i'm all for it of course. earth's human population is at least 20 times optimal.

so far the only thing verified to be declining as far as i can see is the rate at which the rate of increase has been increasing.

but we are kind of like a yeast or algea bloom that is bound to implode sooner or later one way or another.

i hope not too painfully but there's no guarantee of that either.

a lot of people living in cities in the developed parts of the world are probably gonna get real hungry when the oil actualy runs out or starts getting close enough to doing so as makes no difference.

i don't think we ougt to do anything as inanely draconian was what hitler tried to pull, but i do think lowering ALL human fertility accross the board without bias or exception would be a VERY good idea. that and stop worshipping the automoble and using combustion to generate energy, which is a silly thing to do anyway but i'll stop with that before i get any further off on the related topic that gives this one context and meaning.

=^^=
.../\...

Great, that's an excellent point. However, I will go back to your first critism of my calculations - that birth rates and death rates are stable. Declining populations, especially where there is an upwards shift in the median age causes significant economical problems as less workers become available to provide the population with goods and services. This will cause costs to increase faster than wages. There will finally come a point when having children becomes economically viable despite the high costs in bringing up a child. The family unit will become strong again as way of pooling incomes and reducing living costs.

This population growth cycle has to happen at some point. Populations can't continue growing forever, there must at some point come a time when populations will decline only to grow again. All in much the same way as the business cycle works.

Not it doesn't. You have given conflicting data. How can birth rates be higher than death rates if the total number of births was exceded by the total number of deaths? This is why we take wikipedia articles with a pinch of salt.

Actually I'll make it simpler. The introductory paragraph says the population is declining. The 'basic facts' section says population growth was positive in both 2005 and 2006. The same section says there was no net immigration. So the population growth is not due to immigration.

You also keep skipping between examples to suit your needs. I have tried to concentrate solely on the EU as you say you are concerned by population decline in Europe. Well let's have a look at the stats. The list of countries in Western Europe with birth rates higher than death rates is as follows: Ireland, UK, Finland, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal and even your precious Norway . The three major countries that have death rates higher than birth rates are Sweden, Italy and Germany. All have total fertility rates lower than 2, because when you have a great medical system get a greater Life expectancy which causes the median age of the population to get older. Which, incidently is one of the factors that effect fertility rates.


You know wiki is usually correct. I'm sure you can verify the data from other resources too, because the fact that Japan's population is declining is well known. And it's not conflicting. The population of Japan will decline because births per women is below 2.1. Now, why I gave you the Japan example? It was the proof of that under subreplacement levels, birth rate will fall(less people who can give birth), death rate will rise.(more old people because population ages). Hence, eventhough Japan records more births than deaths now, this will change. That's why Japan's population will decline if trends continue. That's why you cant take the subtraction number of BR and DR as a constant.

*lol
Considering that the two Norwegian guys I know do look distincly like elves, I'd say that's the most likely explanation.
:D

Is that a compliment? The elves in LOTR movies were usually cute...

Or perhaps most people require actual evidence instead of guesses that have been wrong for 100 years.

They arent guesses. They are calculations of what'll happen if current trends continue. It's math, not astrology...

Irelands population is increasing for the first time in 150 years, but mostly due to incoming Poles, Lithuanians, Chinese, and Sub-Saharan Africans. The total effect of this - we can buy really good Asian and African food really cheap. Though sadly Phil Lynott no longer makes as much sense (when he became big he was a black, charismatic rock star in a country with next to no black people. How cool is that)

I posted them. You were unable to understand them. I've shown that fertility rates are not an accurate method of analyzing the growth rate of a population and I showed why. Your reply was that you don't know what a birth rate is or understand the hundreds of pages of evidence I presented.

You arent qualified enough to conclude "fertility rates are not an accurate method of analyzing the growth rate of a population". Besides you havent showed why...Here's your post


You don't get it at all. The white population is growing and continues to grow. You're the one denying gravity. You are relying on predictions when they continue to not come true.

In 2002, 2.1 Million white people died in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf

At the same, white births in the US 3.2 Million. That means that population growth of white people is obvious due to births in the US and not immigration.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf

Also, if you look at the chart on page 35 you'll see that the number of births per 1000 women of birthing age is higher than it was 20 years ago. You'll also notice that it's been fairly stable for the last twenty years. You know what that means. You're wrong. White people aren't in decline. AT ALL. You are looking at statistic that is skewed because of an aging population, but when looiking at women at childbearing age, the rate of women giving live birth has not decreased for twenty years.That means if the population was going to decline it would have done it already.


The first sentence is correct, but conclusions are wrong. Why? Because as population ages the ratio of young/adults will decrease. Hence the ratio of women at childbearing age will decrese. Hence there will be less births per overall populatin even if births per women at childbearing age remains stable.


And, no, the quotation said no such thing. It is talking about NET immigration. Again, this is concept you don't understand. We keep explaining it to you and you keep arguing like it's different than it is. NET means immigration minus emmigration. It means that they may get many immigrants but they get an equal number of emmigrants. You keep denying this FACT.


But I'm telling you Japan doesnt give mass emigration. So NET immigration is a number VERY CLOSE to real immigration. I have further proved this by showing you ethnicities in japan. A country whose residents are 99% ethnic japanese doesnt receive significant amounts of immigration.

Hmmm...Either some people finally understood white population is declining/will decline or they are busy.

Hmmm...Either some people finally understood white population is declining/will decline or they are busy.

Or they really really want this topic to sink.

Or they really really want this topic to sink.

Our Survey Says:


DING!

Our Survey Says:


DING!

Hehe...Family Feud, nice.

Our Survey Says:


DING!

Oh really? :rolleyes:

Oh really? :rolleyes:

Ya, rly

Oh really? :rolleyes:

http://www.orlyowl.com/yarly.jpg

You beat me to it, but I win.

good we need less fucking people anyways.:mad:

http://www.orlyowl.com/yarly.jpg

You beat me to it, but I win.

Hooo, how cute! :p

Originally Posted by Dinaverg
http://www.orlyowl.com/yarly.jpg

You beat me to it, but I win.
http://www.orlyowl.com/nowai.jpg

[IG]http://www.orlyowl.com/nowai.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.orlyowl.com/puhlease.jpg

http://www.orlyowl.com/puhlease.jpg
http://www.orlyowl.com/dead.jpg

[IG]http://www.orlyowl.com/dead.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.orlyowl.com/haha.jpg

http://www.orlyowl.com/haha.jpg
http://www.orlyowl.com/notamused.jpg

[IG]http://www.orlyowl.com/notamused.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.orlyowl.com/liar.jpg

http://www.orlyowl.com/liar.jpg
http://www.orlyowl.com/thisround.jpg

If you want to spam, create your own thread...

[IG]http://www.orlyowl.com/thisround.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.orlyowl.com/k.jpg

If you want to spam, create your own thread...

Hey, this conversation is far more intelligent and meaningful than what this topic started with.

but natural decline? Not worth bothering about.

So I take it you have no problem with population declines through natural accurances like droughts or locust?

So I take it you have no problem with population declines through natural accurances like droughts or locust?

Not really, no. I mean, sure we can try to help people through natural disasters, and I'd rather they didn't happen, as they tend to cause discomfort for those involved. In this case, it's what, white people not having a lot of kids? Big woop.

Not really, no. I mean, sure we can try to help people through natural disasters, and I'd rather they didn't happen, as they tend to cause discomfort for those involved. In this case, it's what, white people not having a lot of kids? Big woop.

Yeah, it's none of your concern, since you are non-white.

Yeah, it's none of your concern, since you are non-white.
Don't you mean non-racist?

Yeah, it's none of your concern, since you are non-white.

Says who? It doesn't matter who has how many kids by ehnicity, considering the only qualifing difference seems to be amount of melanin in the skin. The only thing that changes is Vitamin D production and a slightly different likelyhood of skin cancer, not something worth worrying about.

Yeah, it's none of your concern, since you are non-white.

I'm white as a lilly and I really couldn't care less.

I'm white as a lilly and I really couldn't care less.

Lily (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/taxonomy/plants/spermatophyta/angiosperms/monocotyledonae/liliaceae/Day%20Lily/JSC%20970702%20Day%20Lily%202.jpg)

Course...Maybe you meant a Water Lily (http://www.english-country-garden.com/a/i/flowers/water-lily-3.jpg) sort of thing. *shrug* How should I know?

Lily (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/taxonomy/plants/spermatophyta/angiosperms/monocotyledonae/liliaceae/Day%20Lily/JSC%20970702%20Day%20Lily%202.jpg)

Course...Maybe you meant a Water Lily (http://www.english-country-garden.com/a/i/flowers/water-lily-3.jpg) sort of thing. *shrug* How should I know?

It's an expression, although it never made any sense to me. White as a sheet, perhaps?

It's an expression, although it never made any sense to me. White as a sheet, perhaps?

Sheets (http://images.allergybuyersclub.com/img/be-ds-sheet-colors-stacked2.jpg)

Hmmm...White as really white stuff?

White as a ghost (http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/images/spook.gif)

White as a ghost (http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/images/spook.gif)

Ghost
...

Recon (http://www.sg.hu/kep/2001_11/ghost_recon_bemutato_05.jpg)

Silence of opposition is deafening...:D