NationStates Jolt Archive

Silence of opposition is deafening...:D
Maybe nobody can be bothered to argue with a tragically moronic racist...

So there are less people now than 10 years ago? Is this trend set to continue?

Good can't wait maybe that will bring the price of houses down, end poverty and slow down the depletion of our natureal resources. Good thats what I say, any way idoit people that can't seem to get on really don't desrve to live let alone have offspring huh! :eek:

Maybe nobody can be bothered to argue with a tragically moronic racist...

Obviously you didnt read the previous pages or previous thread. This will be my last message to you as your "intelligence level" is clear after your answer...

So there are less people now than 10 years ago? Is this trend set to continue?

Good can't wait maybe that will bring the price of houses down, end poverty and slow down the depletion of our natureal resources. Good thats what I say, any way idoit people that can't seem to get on really don't desrve to live let alone have offspring huh! :eek:

Yep. Good trend, that. Give the earth a bit of a breather.

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

I'm not qualified, based on what? You don't know what you're talking about. Again, fertility rates are an extrapolation of data that requires guesswork. Guesswork can be and often is wrong. In the case of the US, I've shown that birthrates among women of birthing age has not decreased in 20 years.

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.

You have problems with math, I see. If women continue to have the same number of children every year for women of birthing age (which I've shown they do), and the population ages, the ONLY cause can be an expanded life expectancy. An increase in life expectancy CANNOT decrease the population growth. You'll get a population with a higher median age, but you will continue to see the number of births per year increase while the number of deaths per year will always remain less than the number of births. It's basic math and you simply are unable to understand it.


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.
What you're telling me is that you are unwilling to prove this assertion. Considering how many of your assertions have been shown to be false, I'll have to require you to prove this.

Silence of opposition is deafening...:D

Or perhaps after weeks of trying to explain to you that your 'evidence' doesn't match reality, we get tired of trying to teach how populations actually work. I've several times shown you that birth rates are remaining the same and the population continues to grow, but you simply can't understand that unless the birthrate of fertile women decreases or the number (number, here, not percentage) of fertile women decreases the population MUST continue to grow or, at worst, stabilize.

Who cares if the "native" *cough* bullshit *cough* populations decrease?
I certainly don't.

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

Well, I am white, though brown-haired/eyed, and my only concern with diminishing population is whether or not there will be enough young squirts to pay for my Social Security in 20 odd years. As long as they're paying into the system, I don't care whether they're white, black, or purple.

Well, I am white, though brown-haired/eyed, and my only concern with diminishing population is whether or not there will be enough young squirts to pay for my Social Security in 20 odd years. As long as they're paying into the system, I don't care whether they're white, black, or purple.
I'm waiting for the martian immigration wave, that way they'll be GREEN!

Yeah, it's none of your concern, since you are non-white.
I'm so white I damn near glow in the dark. People have gone blind from looking at the sunlight reflecting off of my pasty skin.

Frankly, I'm about 700 times more concerned about getting a sunburn than I am about increasing the "white" population of the Earth. And I really don't care that much about sunburn to begin with.

This thread sucks harder than a shop-vac.

OP, you're such a dick.

let only immegrants who can intergrate into society in. Doctors lawyers surgeons, engeneers.

Start an American Forign legion for those who are not skilled.

let only immegrants who can intergrate into society in. Doctors lawyers surgeons, engeneers.

Start an American Forign legion for those who are not skilled.
America? We're talking about European immigration here.

For the mathematically challenged, I'll explain the birth rate and how an increase in life expectancy (an aging population) has no bearing on it.

Let's say we look at a population of 1000 people. We'll pretend for simplicity that there is no death until 50 and then everyone dies. Also, let's pretend the initial populatio we are analyzing has an exactly equal distribution.

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

Now that makes 300 women of childbearing age (15-45). They would be having approximately 22 live births a year. That makes an effective birthrate (bithrate for childbearing women of .073 per woman We'll look at 10 year increments for simplicity's sake again.

10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people

So 50 years after you look at the initial population you still see an increase in the number of births (and thus the number of people) from 220 to 241. This will result in a constantly growing population of women who can bear children and provided their effective birthrate does not decrease the population will continue to grow in this way.

Now, start again with the same population but the life expectancy suddenly becomes 70 years old.
10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

After fifty years, the number of yearly births has again increased from 220 to 241. Same increase in birth, same steadily increasing population of women who can and do bear children. Same steady increase in population.

Now as you can see the number of women of childbearing age continues to grow in both populations. There is an inflated growth while the population ages to match the new life expectancy after a significant increase. And once it stabilizes you will continue to see population growth (just examine the young population there) while still seeing an much older population.

Unless the women start unnaturally dying off or the women start having less children during their childbearing years (which is not happening and has not happened for twenty years) then the population will continue to grow.

NOTE: So the math would be easy to follow I didn't use a continuous growth but simply calculated every ten years. With continuous growth forumlas a much lower birth rate is necessary to show a growing population.

America? We're talking about European immigration here.

We're not talking about immigration. We're talking about population growth.

We're not talking about immigration. We're talking about population growth.
Oh, yeah. They were still wrong.
>.>

Since there's a chorus building to stem Ny's attempt to imply that only non-whites disagree with him: I'm white, too, and not only don't I care whether I'm the last of my kind, but I am supremely confident that Ny's argument is nothing but a fantasy anyway.

Let's review:

A) Ny started this opera (in another thread) with a classic racist myth: that white people are becoming extinct. The version he posted was in a viciously racist rant from some neo-nazi writer. Responders pointed out the lack of credibility in the source and the fact that this myth has been bouncing around among avowed racists for about 100 years. In response, Ny denied that he is a racist and tried to backpedal from his own source by stating that he didn't know the author was a neo-nazi and that he knew the story was a myth all along. Yet he then continued to try to prove the myth to be true. He is so dedicated to this that he started a new thread when the first one was locked.

Interpretation: Ny is trying to promote a racist myth without being labeled as a racist himself. I don't understand why, though.

B) Ny keeps talking about a "white race" and claiming that it is disappearing. Responders have come back with statistics and reports showing this to be untrue. In response, Ny keeps changing the parameters of this supposed "race." When shown that numbers are not decreasing globally, he points to small localized samplings as if they account for global population. He switches from small scale to large scale when shown that global numbers are and will be in the billions, trying to make that look small by putting it against ever bigger backdrops. His manipulation of "evidence" even went so far that, in his first thread, he kept changing the original post and then claimed that all the arguments that had already been made based on it were invalid because they didn't fit it anymore.

Interpretation: Ny does not have evidence to prove his argument (probably because it is a myth), but he refuses to back down, even though his argument so weak that even other racists are not really trying to defend it.

C) Every now and then, Ny brings up anti-immigration legislation as a possible remedy to the supposed extinction of the white race. It has been pointed out to him that there is no correlation at all between immigration and the number of children white people have. They are two completely different phenomena. There is no way that limiting immigration to any country will result in an increase of births to white women in that country. When this is pointed out, Ny makes comments about not wanting to be a minority in his own country and then drops the argument for a while. He brings it up again later. This is, apparently, an important point for him, but he does not seem to know how to work it into this argument (possibly because it is completely unrelated).

Interpretation: Ny is, apparently, primarily concerned with the presence of non-white people in his immediate vicinity. He doesn't like non-whites moving into Norway. Perhaps he would like to see as many people in his country, but he would prefer them all to be Nordic-looking. So apparently, he wants more Norwegians to be born to replace all the dark-skinned immigrants. I fail to see how such an idea can be anything but a wishful fantasy, as the presence of non-whites has nothing to do with Norwegians' reproductive decisions. And in any event, what may or may not be happening in Norway has nothing at all to do with global white population numbers.

D) Ny often complains about there not being enough white people in the world. I have several times asked him, "enough for what?" and "how many is enough?" He has not answered me. I think he has no answer because his complaint is meaningless. There is no plan for what white people should be doing in the world, so there is no demonstrable need for any particular number of white people to exist.

Interpretation: This is just another expression of Ny's discomfort at sharing space with non-whites.

E) Throughout his argument, Ny promotes other myths popular among racists, especially: (1) He constantly conflates race with culture, although there is no such correlation in reality, as has been shown by several responders over the two threads; and (2) he occasionally implies that the races are significantly different from each other genetically, even though this is has been shown to be false by several responders over the two threads. Yet despite repeatedly raising these ideas, Ny continues to deny that he is a racist.

Interpretation: Ny really doesn't like the word "racist." I don't understand this. Most of the racists I've known were proud of it because they really thought they were right. They even had whole usages in which they tried to reclaim the word from its negative connotations. I don't understand why Ny shies away from it, if he really thinks maintaining racial distinctions is all that important.

F) Finally, Ny resorts to personal attacks or attempts to dismiss his opponents when he cannot answer their arguments. He insults his opponents' intelligence, implies things about their racial backgrounds, and declares them "unqualified" to argue with him -- despite knowing nothing of their qualifications, and despite having posted no qualifications of his own, either.

Interpretation: This is a sign of a weak argument. Ny cannot counter the proofs and evidence that have been presented against him.

Conclusion: Based on the arguments he has presented, it seems that Ny Nordland wants to promote a "Norway for Norwegians" nativist agenda. He attempted to do this by equating it with a global white crisis. However, there is no such crisis. Whatever problems may or may not exist in Norway have nothing to do with the condition of the entire white race, and the myth of white extinction has been debunked several times over. If he was hoping to get white people in general to agree that they need to have more babies and maintain racial segregation by country, then this tactic has failed for him. He needs to find a different one.

I'm not qualified, based on what? You don't know what you're talking about. Again, fertility rates are an extrapolation of data that requires guesswork. Guesswork can be and often is wrong. In the case of the US, I've shown that birthrates among women of birthing age has not decreased in 20 years.


You arent qualified enough because you arent a population expert. You arent qualified to dispute 2.1 per woman is the replacement fertility rate. You arent qualified enough to dispute the fact that if a population's fertility rate is below 2.1 for sometime, it'll start declining. You arent qualified to dispute projections. You may argue that trends might change but that wasnt what you were doing. And it's silly to say "projections wont happen because some of the previous projections were wrong". Why? First of all, the trends might have changed. Secondly, technology advances, science advances, we know more about population trends than we did 100 years ago. Duh! :rolleyes:



You have problems with math, I see. If women continue to have the same number of children every year for women of birthing age (which I've shown they do), and the population ages, the ONLY cause can be an expanded life expectancy. An increase in life expectancy CANNOT decrease the population growth. You'll get a population with a higher median age, but you will continue to see the number of births per year increase while the number of deaths per year will always remain less than the number of births. It's basic math and you simply are unable to understand it.


You are again wrong. And the fact that you keep suggesting like a 10 year old that I dont understand this and that shows how much your arguments are getting weaker. If women continue to have the same number of children every year for women of birthing age (which you've shown they do), and the population ages, the ONLY cause can NOT be an expanded life expectancy. The other cause is when they give birth. If women give birth earlier, the population will be younger than if they give birth later. And


The average age of mothers at first birth increased steadily during the preceding 30 years, to 25.1 years in 2002, an all-time high for the nation. (USA)


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5419a5.htm

In conclusion, white population even in USA (which got one of the highest birthrates in the West) is in declining trend. It'll increase slowly despite white immigration to USA at first but it'll start declining 2040's, and again, despite white immigration IF current trends continue. You might have argued that trends could change but you simply disputed the well established fact of declining population trend.


What you're telling me is that you are unwilling to prove this assertion. Considering how many of your assertions have been shown to be false, I'll have to require you to prove this.

What assertion? That Japan got 99% Japaneese population? I proved it before as I answered your claim before. Not only you repeated your claim again and agian but you also suggested that I dont understand Net immigration. :rolleyes: Or do you mean the fact that Japan doesnt give mass emigration? It's not hard to get actually. Wealthy countries dont give mass emmigration. So japan doesnt give mass emigration, like UK or USA or France, etc...

In conclusion white population is declining/in declining trend. You couldnt prove anything even though you kept claiming you disproved me :rolleyes:. And I'm really getting bored to answer your repeating claims and explaining every little thing to you(like the fact that avarage age of mothers matter). The only amusing thing was your silly little claims about I dont understand, while in fact you havent got a clue.

For the mathematically challenged, I'll explain the birth rate and how an increase in life expectancy (an aging population) has no bearing on it.

Let's say we look at a population of 1000 people. We'll pretend for simplicity that there is no death until 50 and then everyone dies. Also, let's pretend the initial populatio we are analyzing has an exactly equal distribution.

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

Now that makes 300 women of childbearing age (15-45). They would be having approximately 22 live births a year. That makes an effective birthrate (bithrate for childbearing women of .073 per woman We'll look at 10 year increments for simplicity's sake again.

10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people

So 50 years after you look at the initial population you still see an increase in the number of births (and thus the number of people) from 220 to 241. This will result in a constantly growing population of women who can bear children and provided their effective birthrate does not decrease the population will continue to grow in this way.

Now, start again with the same population but the life expectancy suddenly becomes 70 years old.
10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

After fifty years, the number of yearly births has again increased from 220 to 241. Same increase in birth, same steadily increasing population of women who can and do bear children. Same steady increase in population.

Now as you can see the number of women of childbearing age continues to grow in both populations. There is an inflated growth while the population ages to match the new life expectancy after a significant increase. And once it stabilizes you will continue to see population growth (just examine the young population there) while still seeing an much older population.

Unless the women start unnaturally dying off or the women start having less children during their childbearing years (which is not happening and has not happened for twenty years) then the population will continue to grow.

NOTE: So the math would be easy to follow I didn't use a continuous growth but simply calculated every ten years. With continuous growth forumlas a much lower birth rate is necessary to show a growing population.


I havent read it after you claimed "I'll explain the birth rate ". You arent qualified to explain anything unless you work in US Census or something. And we know you dont, because I remember you saying you were an engineer? Or do you suggest you know better than these people, who probably got higher education degrees in revelant areas of study and many years of working experience? You simply think you know better with a 30 minute calculation? :rolleyes:

Since there's a chorus building to stem Ny's attempt to imply that only non-whites disagree with him: I'm white, too, and not only don't I care whether I'm the last of my kind, but I am supremely confident that Ny's argument is nothing but a fantasy anyway.

Let's review:

A) Ny started this opera (in another thread) with a classic racist myth: that white people are becoming extinct. The version he posted was in a viciously racist rant from some neo-nazi writer. Responders pointed out the lack of credibility in the source and the fact that this myth has been bouncing around among avowed racists for about 100 years. In response, Ny denied that he is a racist and tried to backpedal from his own source by stating that he didn't know the author was a neo-nazi and that he knew the story was a myth all along. Yet he then continued to try to prove the myth to be true. He is so dedicated to this that he started a new thread when the first one was locked.

Interpretation: Ny is trying to promote a racist myth without being labeled as a racist himself. I don't understand why, though.

B) Ny keeps talking about a "white race" and claiming that it is disappearing. Responders have come back with statistics and reports showing this to be untrue. In response, Ny keeps changing the parameters of this supposed "race." When shown that numbers are not decreasing globally, he points to small localized samplings as if they account for global population. He switches from small scale to large scale when shown that global numbers are and will be in the billions, trying to make that look small by putting it against ever bigger backdrops. His manipulation of "evidence" even went so far that, in his first thread, he kept changing the original post and then claimed that all the arguments that had already been made based on it were invalid because they didn't fit it anymore.

Interpretation: Ny does not have evidence to prove his argument (probably because it is a myth), but he refuses to back down, even though his argument so weak that even other racists are not really trying to defend it.

C) Every now and then, Ny brings up anti-immigration legislation as a possible remedy to the supposed extinction of the white race. It has been pointed out to him that there is no correlation at all between immigration and the number of children white people have. They are two completely different phenomena. There is no way that limiting immigration to any country will result in an increase of births to white women in that country. When this is pointed out, Ny makes comments about not wanting to be a minority in his own country and then drops the argument for a while. He brings it up again later. This is, apparently, an important point for him, but he does not seem to know how to work it into this argument (possibly because it is completely unrelated).

Interpretation: Ny is, apparently, primarily concerned with the presence of non-white people in his immediate vicinity. He doesn't like non-whites moving into Norway. Perhaps he would like to see as many people in his country, but he would prefer them all to be Nordic-looking. So apparently, he wants more Norwegians to be born to replace all the dark-skinned immigrants. I fail to see how such an idea can be anything but a wishful fantasy, as the presence of non-whites has nothing to do with Norwegians' reproductive decisions. And in any event, what may or may not be happening in Norway has nothing at all to do with global white population numbers.

D) Ny often complains about there not being enough white people in the world. I have several times asked him, "enough for what?" and "how many is enough?" He has not answered me. I think he has no answer because his complaint is meaningless. There is no plan for what white people should be doing in the world, so there is no demonstrable need for any particular number of white people to exist.

Interpretation: This is just another expression of Ny's discomfort at sharing space with non-whites.

E) Throughout his argument, Ny promotes other myths popular among racists, especially: (1) He constantly conflates race with culture, although there is no such correlation in reality, as has been shown by several responders over the two threads; and (2) he occasionally implies that the races are significantly different from each other genetically, even though this is has been shown to be false by several responders over the two threads. Yet despite repeatedly raising these ideas, Ny continues to deny that he is a racist.

Interpretation: Ny really doesn't like the word "racist." I don't understand this. Most of the racists I've known were proud of it because they really thought they were right. They even had whole usages in which they tried to reclaim the word from its negative connotations. I don't understand why Ny shies away from it, if he really thinks maintaining racial distinctions is all that important.

F) Finally, Ny resorts to personal attacks or attempts to dismiss his opponents when he cannot answer their arguments. He insults his opponents' intelligence, implies things about their racial backgrounds, and declares them "unqualified" to argue with him -- despite knowing nothing of their qualifications, and despite having posted no qualifications of his own, either.

Interpretation: This is a sign of a weak argument. Ny cannot counter the proofs and evidence that have been presented against him.

Conclusion: Based on the arguments he has presented, it seems that Ny Nordland wants to promote a "Norway for Norwegians" nativist agenda. He attempted to do this by equating it with a global white crisis. However, there is no such crisis. Whatever problems may or may not exist in Norway have nothing to do with the condition of the entire white race, and the myth of white extinction has been debunked several times over. If he was hoping to get white people in general to agree that they need to have more babies and maintain racial segregation by country, then this tactic has failed for him. He needs to find a different one.


Since you are FAAAAR from objectivity, there is no point reading your "summary". :rolleyes:

I havent read it after you claimed "I'll explain the birth rate ". You arent qualified to explain anything unless you work in US Census or something. And we know you dont, because I remember you saying you were an engineer? Or do you suggest you know better than these people, who probably got higher education degrees in revelant areas of study and many years of working experience? You simply think you know better with a 30 minute calculation? :rolleyes:

So you're saying you aren't capable of addressing my arguments so you're simply going to dismiss them ad hominems. Look whose true colors are showing.

You arent qualified enough because you arent a population expert.

On what do you base that? You don't know anything about me. I've proven time and again I understand population trends better than you do.

You arent qualified to dispute 2.1 per woman is the replacement fertility rate.

I haven't disputed that. This goes to you inability to understand the point.

You arent qualified enough to dispute the fact that if a population's fertility rate is below 2.1 for sometime, it'll start declining.

I am qualified, and I've proven that you're incorrect as I showed that in the US where you claim white birth rate is below replacement levels the birthrate has been the same for 20 years, while the population continued to rise.

You arent qualified to dispute projections.

Again, based on what? I've shown that projections don't match reality. I've shown mathematically that the projections cannot possibly be correct.

You're entire argument is based on ad hominems. Address the arguments or admit you can't. You haven't seen my qualification nor are you capable of seeing them. What you can see are my arguments and you are free to debunk them as I've done to yours. As of yet, you just keep claiming that fertility rates are the only thing necessary to look at when I keep proving that effective birthrates have not changed dramatically for twenty years and they are higher than they were in the 80's.

You may argue that trends might change but that wasnt what you were doing. And it's silly to say "projections wont happen because some of the previous projections were wrong". Why? First of all, the trends might have changed. Secondly, technology advances, science advances, we know more about population trends than we did 100 years ago. Duh! :rolleyes:

I proved the trends haven't changed. That's the point. If the projections didn't work twenty years ago and the birthrate has stayed the same then projections cannot possibly be correct. You continue to prove you don't understand. We haven't changed the way we measure effective birthrate. It hasn't changed at all. If the population of women is not decreasing and during their birthing years they are having the same proportion of children then the trends of 20 years ago should continue. The population has grown for the last twenty years and therefore MUST continue to grow unless you can show a significant decrease in births. You haven't. You can't. Because there isn't one.


You are again wrong. And the fact that you keep suggesting like a 10 year old that I dont understand this and that shows how much your arguments are getting weaker. If women continue to have the same number of children every year for women of birthing age (which you've shown they do), and the population ages, the ONLY cause can NOT be an expanded life expectancy. The other cause is when they give birth. If women give birth earlier, the population will be younger than if they give birth later. And

You're whole argument appearst to be "you're wrong". What's the matter? You don't understand my argument well enough to actually dispute it.

If they give birth earlier, the population will be younger than if they give birth later? What? You don't know what you're talking about. If the same number of children are born to women of childbearing age every year then no matter what age the women who have them are, the only way to increase the average age of the population is to decrease the number of people dying young. That's simple math. And I do mean simple.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5419a5.htm

In conclusion, white population even in USA (which got one of the highest birthrates in the West) is in declining trend. It'll increase slowly despite white immigration to USA at first but it'll start declining 2040's, and again, despite white immigration IF current trends continue. You might have argued that trends could change but you simply disputed the well established fact of declining population trend.

Interesting. I'm not qualified to analyze the data, but you are qualified to make conclusions WITHOUT analyzing the data. Mothers have children at an average age that is higher than before does not age the population so long as the number of births to women of childbearing age remains the same. The age of the population is affected by the number of children introduced to a population by percentage and by the number of people who are dying at various ages. That's it. There are various statistics that are a breakdown of those things or a guess at what those things are going to be, but in its simplest form that is how the age of a population changes.

What assertion? That Japan got 99% Japaneese population? I proved it before as I answered your claim before. Not only you repeated your claim again and agian but you also suggested that I dont understand Net immigration. :rolleyes: Or do you mean the fact that Japan doesnt give mass emigration? It's not hard to get actually. Wealthy countries dont give mass emmigration. So japan doesnt give mass emigration, like UK or USA or France, etc...

The assertion that there is no emmigration or immigration. I'm still waiting for you to show something other than NET. NET is not the actual number. You continue to misunderstand the point. You make guesses at why what you say must be true, but you failed to support it with a simple statistic. Can't find it?

In conclusion white population is declining/in declining trend. You couldnt prove anything even though you kept claiming you disproved me :rolleyes:. And I'm really getting bored to answer your repeating claims and explaining every little thing to you(like the fact that avarage age of mothers matter). The only amusing thing was your silly little claims about I dont understand, while in fact you havent got a clue.
You haven't addressed any of my points. You use ad hominems to dismiss me and then pretend like we have to accept your logical fallacies (look up ad hominem). Address my arguments unless you cannot do so. I'll wait.

By the way, do you know what many engineers do? Particularly in my field? Analyze trends. But keep going, my friends and I are having quite a time.

Since you are FAAAAR from objectivity, there is no point reading your "summary". :rolleyes:
Quitter. :p

Since you are FAAAAR from objectivity, there is no point reading your "summary". :rolleyes:

Again, ad hominems rather than addressing points. At this point you are just trolling.

So you're saying you aren't capable of addressing my arguments so you're simply going to dismiss them ad hominems. Look whose true colors are showing.

And this wasnt an ad hominem? Besides, I answered you...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10918985&postcount=268

The birth rate of European countries is apparently smaller than what it needs to be to sustain their economies...unless they're bringing in all those guest workers just for fun?

I guess you can blame it on the morning after pill or birth control pills etc.
I have 3 children. Only meant to have two. The third one was a surprise.
I am white and an American. So I guess I met the replacement level.
Some countries are too overpopulated IMO. I wish that some of the poorer families had free access to the pill. That would help with overpopulation. When a country is too overpopulated it makes it hard to support,feed,house everyone. Of course some people are religious fanatics and are totally against it. I'm not talking about abortion just preventive measures. :rolleyes:

And this wasnt an ad hominem? Besides, I answered you...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10918985&postcount=268

Your answer is completely ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you dismiss the argument not based on the argument itself but based on making claims about the poster, like saying they aren't white, aren't european, aren't norwegian, aren't qualified to answer or are too biased to even read.

I showed you how a consistent birthrate among women of birthing age makes population trends continue as they are doing and have done for 20 years, and you refused to read the post claiming I'm unqualified. You dismissed the bulk of my other arguments claiming I'm unqualified. I make my living doing research and analyzing it. My qualifications are not available for your perusal but my points are. I suggest you address them and leave off with the ad hominems. They do not help your points or your credibility.

On what do you base that? You don't know anything about me. I've proven time and again I understand population trends better than you do.


Are you a population expert? What's your degree? You got any experience working on a statistic agency like your US Cencus Breau or whatever. I assumed you aren’t “these” because you were talking about you were an engineer or something?


I haven't disputed that. This goes to you inability to understand the point.


If you dispute the fact that population will decline if population's fertility rate goes below 2.1 per women, it means you dispute the whole concept.



I am qualified, and I've proven that you're incorrect as I showed that in the US where you claim white birth rate is below replacement levels the birthrate has been the same for 20 years, while the population continued to rise.


Birth rate hasn’t been same for 20 years. It was same for women who was in childbearing age but...


U.S. BIRTH RATE REACHES RECORD LOW
Births to Teens Continue 12-Year Decline; Cesarean Deliveries Reach All-Time High

The U.S. birth rate fell to the lowest level since national data have been available, reports the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. Secretary Thompson also noted that the rate of teen births fell to a new record low, continuing a decline that began in 1991.

The birth rate was 13.9 per 1,000 persons in 2002, a decline of 1 percent from the rate of 14.1 per 1,000 in 2001 and down 17 percent from the recent peak in 1990 (16.7 per 1,000), according to a new CDC report, "Births: Preliminary Data for 2002." The current low birth rate primarily reflects the smaller proportion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. population, as baby boomers age and Americans are living longer.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030625.html

Now you may say it's all because of baby boomers but that doesn’t change the fact that white population is in declining trend in USA...



Again, based on what? I've shown that projections don't match reality. I've shown mathematically that the projections cannot possibly be correct.

You're entire argument is based on ad hominems. Address the arguments or admit you can't. You haven't seen my qualification nor are you capable of seeing them. What you can see are my arguments and you are free to debunk them as I've done to yours. As of yet, you just keep claiming that fertility rates are the only thing necessary to look at when I keep proving that effective birthrates have not changed dramatically for twenty years and they are higher than they were in the 80's.


Fine, I posted that birth rates are falling too above, as well as fertility rates. I will devide this into 2 posts, because of the size..

I proved the trends haven't changed. That's the point. If the projections didn't work twenty years ago and the birthrate has stayed the same then projections cannot possibly be correct. You continue to prove you don't understand. We haven't changed the way we measure effective birthrate. It hasn't changed at all. If the population of women is not decreasing and during their birthing years they are having the same proportion of children then the trends of 20 years ago should continue. The population has grown for the last twenty years and therefore MUST continue to grow unless you can show a significant decrease in births. You haven't. You can't. Because there isn't one.


As you can see above, birth rate is falling too. "U.S. BIRTH RATE REACHES RECORD LOW" means birth rate is falling. I didn’t post above statistics before because I just assumed you would understand that there’s a direct link between fertility rate and birth rate, so when birth rate falls, fertility rate falls.


You're whole argument appearst to be "you're wrong". What's the matter? You don't understand my argument well enough to actually dispute it.

If they give birth earlier, the population will be younger than if they give birth later? What? You don't know what you're talking about. If the same number of children are born to women of childbearing age every year then no matter what age the women who have them are, the only way to increase the average age of the population is to decrease the number of people dying young. That's simple math. And I do mean simple.


I say you are wrong because you are! You are wrong again, as usual. LOL
Lets see, if for example, every women gives birth at 40, their child will give birth (when children are 20) when they are 60. If they give birth at 20, their child will give birth at 40. So there will be same amount of grandchildren but the grand mothers age will be of different age(60-40). Hence the average time when women first give birth matters and affects the ageing of society. This is simple too, and correct. A more official explanation is below.



Interesting. I'm not qualified to analyze the data, but you are qualified to make conclusions WITHOUT analyzing the data. Mothers have children at an average age that is higher than before does not age the population so long as the number of births to women of childbearing age remains the same. The age of the population is affected by the number of children introduced to a population by percentage and by the number of people who are dying at various ages. That's it. There are various statistics that are a breakdown of those things or a guess at what those things are going to be, but in its simplest form that is how the age of a population changes.


Again, you are wrong. I answered it above and this time I’ll simply quote.


4.5 Change the generations involved in the transfer

One of the effects of population ageing is the potential for increasing the number of generations alive in a family. We may refer to this as increasing the density of generations present. Thus, population ageing creates a situation in which there are more generations present in the household/family to participate in the transfer in a variety of capacities. This could mean that more generations participate directly or that a different mix of generations is involved in intergenerational transfers as population ages. On the other hand, population ageing is frequently associated with fertility decline along a pattern that includes rising average age of mothers at birth, hence diminishing to some extent prospects for coexistence of more generations.


http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpan0039.htm



The assertion that there is no emmigration or immigration. I'm still waiting for you to show something other than NET. NET is not the actual number. You continue to misunderstand the point. You make guesses at why what you say must be true, but you failed to support it with a simple statistic. Can't find it?


I’ve never said that there is NO emigration or immigration. But I said immigration was ALMOST non existent, especially compared to Western countries. Here’s your statistic, again! The fact that Japan is homogenous and got strict anti-immigration laws MEANS there is NO amounts of SIGNIFICANT immigration to Japan.


Japan has a particularly homogenous population -less than 2 percent of the populace is non-Japanese -primarily as a result of strict anti-immigration laws.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/japan/japan.html



You haven't addressed any of my points. You use ad hominems to dismiss me and then pretend like we have to accept your logical fallacies (look up ad hominem). Address my arguments unless you cannot do so. I'll wait.

By the way, do you know what many engineers do? Particularly in my field? Analyze trends. But keep going, my friends and I are having quite a time.

Analyze trends? But you don’t understand about population trends. They aren’t same as in your field. For example, you had got no clue about Average Age of Mothers affect ageing of society.

Are you a population expert? What's your degree? You got any experience working on a statistic agency like your US Cencus Breau or whatever. I assumed you aren’t “these” because you were talking about you were an engineer or something?

Are you? I'm quite well trained in dealing with statistics which is all that we are doing. Meanwhile, address my arguments since a claim that I have a degree in population science won't change my argument.

If you dispute the fact that population will decline if population's fertility rate goes below 2.1 per women, it means you dispute the whole concept.

No, it means that you are extrapolating something that isn't based in reality. I showed you the population is increasing. You further show that you don't get it, because you continue to argue about birthrates in comparison to the entire population instead of birthrates to women of childbearing age.


Birth rate hasn’t been same for 20 years. It was same for women who was in childbearing age but...

But that's the point. I showed in the post you refused to address that even if women of childbearing age decrease in percentage if they are increase in real numbers the population will continue to grow as it has done. The number of children to women of childbearing age are increasing because the number of women of childbearing age are increasing, while the ratio remains the same. The death rate is not increasing so it's obvious that overall the population will continue to grow.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030625.html

Now you may say it's all because of baby boomers but that doesn’t change the fact that white population is in declining trend in USA...

It's not declining. In order for a trend to occur it has to start. You've shown no start to this 'trend'. You are predicting a trend, yet you keep claiming it is already occurring. The fact is that unless you decrease the number of births to women of childbearing age or the number of women who can bear children the number of births will continue to increase while you've shown no indication that the death rate will or should increase.

Fine, I posted that birth rates are falling too above, as well as fertility rates. I will devide this into 2 posts, because of the size..
You don't get it. The birth rates for fertile women is not falling. Unless you can show that the number of women who can have children is falling in real numbers then the number of births and thus the population will continue to increase. That's the real numbers. You are claiming a reverse in this trend, but the numbers don't match your claims.

As you can see above, birth rate is falling too. "U.S. BIRTH RATE REACHES RECORD LOW" means birth rate is falling. I didn’t post above statistics before because I just assumed you would understand that there’s a direct link between fertility rate and birth rate, so when birth rate falls, fertility rate falls.

But the effective birthrate, the birthrate to women of childbearing age is not. I showed you why it makes no difference to the growth of the population unless the effective birthrate declines. You ignored the post because you couldn't address it. Again, percentage of the overall population is effected by life-expectancy. At a time when the life expectancy is 50 the percentage of the population that must bear children MUST be much higher than the percentage if the life expectancy is 80. I showed you why this is. We are facing an increasing life expectancy which is why we are seeing a decrease in the overall birthrates, but if one looks at the women who can have children they are having the same number of children as ever. Thus the current trend will continue and the population will continue to grow.

I say you are wrong because you are! You are wrong again, as usual. LOL
Lets see, if for example, every women gives birth at 40, their child will give birth (when children are 20) when they are 60. If they give birth at 20, their child will give birth at 40. So there will be same amount of grandchildren but the grand mothers age will be of different age(60-40). Hence the average time when women first give birth matters and affects the ageing of society. This is simple too, and correct. A more official explanation is below.

You don't get it. If the numbers of births per women of birthing age remains constant, then the age at which the birth occurs cannot age the population. Becuase the same number of children per woman of childbearing age remains constant.

I'll show you. You see who raises the children does not matter. All that matters is how many children are born. So if we have the same number of children per woman of childbearing age and we spread them evenly among those women the women will be rearing the same number of children always regardless of the average age at which they have children. Thus, unless you address the fact that the birthrate among women of childbearing age is relatively steady then it cannot explain an aging population.

You aren't see it because you aren't looking at statistically, you are looking at a single family. Of course, if one looks it as an overall trend, the families are constantly replenished and it doesn't explain an aging trend.


Again, you are wrong. I answered it above and this time I’ll simply quote.

http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpan0039.htm

And again, you are extrapolating that this means something other than what it does. It does not change the effective birthrate and thus is no reason for a population decline. Your source agrees with me.

I’ve never said that there is NO emigration or immigration. But I said immigration was ALMOST non existent, especially compared to Western countries. Here’s your statistic, again! The fact that Japan is homogenous and got strict anti-immigration laws MEANS there is NO amounts of SIGNIFICANT immigration to Japan.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/japan/japan.html

It doesn't address the point.

In 2003, 5 Million foreign nationals entered Japan. That same year 13 Million left Japan. In a population of 127 Million, I would say that's significant. But perhaps the nation's website is lying. I offered you the opportunity to look up the actual numbers, but you'd rather just keep making claims.

http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/IB/ib-01.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Analyze trends? But you don’t understand about population trends. They aren’t same as in your field. For example, you had got no clue about Average Age of Mothers affect ageing of society.
Oh, I do understand. The average age of mothers increasing is a side-effect according to your source not a cause. It doesn't actually cause an aging society. However, as life expectancy increases the urgency to have children while young decreases. You don't understand the difference between correllation (happening at the same time) and causation (aging mothers causing an aging population). They both have the same cause, an increase in life-expectancy. Only three things can cause an aging population, a decrease in the birthrate to women of childbearing age, which has not occurred, or an increase in life-expectancy or an unusual burst of children that later normalizes (baby-boomers), which of course occurred. The point is that the latter two cannot indicate a coming long-term declining trend unless there is a decrease in the number of women who are of childbearing age in real numbers, which has not occurred.

Meanwhile, since we can only understand the subject with a degree and work experience in the census bureau, you must be working there right? Oh, wait, the only people who are required to have that level of expertise are the people you are arguing against.

What you don't understand is that your sources do not actually say what you think they say? You are drawing conclusions that are not accurate. I showed mathematically why the overall birthrate would decline if life expectancy increased, but the population would continue to grow so long as the effective birthrate remained constant or increased. I showed mathematically why a increase in the age of a birthing mother does not age the population. A population that has a high life expectancy REQUIRES a much lower birthrate than one with a lower life expectancy. This is a fact.

Statistics are simply math. You simply have to understand the nature of statistics and make sure they are accurately collected and applied. Your argument that only someone who is in a field can analyze statistics related to that field belies your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics and explains why you keep misapplying the statistics you are presenting.

For the mathematically challenged, I'll explain the birth rate and how an increase in life expectancy (an aging population) has no bearing on it.

Let's say we look at a population of 1000 people. We'll pretend for simplicity that there is no death until 50 and then everyone dies. Also, let's pretend the initial populatio we are analyzing has an exactly equal distribution.

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

Now that makes 300 women of childbearing age (15-45). They would be having approximately 22 live births a year. That makes an effective birthrate (bithrate for childbearing women of .073 per woman We'll look at 10 year increments for simplicity's sake again.

10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people

So 50 years after you look at the initial population you still see an increase in the number of births (and thus the number of people) from 220 to 241. This will result in a constantly growing population of women who can bear children and provided their effective birthrate does not decrease the population will continue to grow in this way.

Now, start again with the same population but the life expectancy suddenly becomes 70 years old.
10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

After fifty years, the number of yearly births has again increased from 220 to 241. Same increase in birth, same steadily increasing population of women who can and do bear children. Same steady increase in population.

Now as you can see the number of women of childbearing age continues to grow in both populations. There is an inflated growth while the population ages to match the new life expectancy after a significant increase. And once it stabilizes you will continue to see population growth (just examine the young population there) while still seeing an much older population.

Unless the women start unnaturally dying off or the women start having less children during their childbearing years (which is not happening and has not happened for twenty years) then the population will continue to grow.

NOTE: So the math would be easy to follow I didn't use a continuous growth but simply calculated every ten years. With continuous growth forumlas a much lower birth rate is necessary to show a growing population.


I'm going to repeat this post, since it shows mathematically how as long as the number of women of childbearing age continues to increase and the birthrate to those women remains constant even in an aging population they population will increase and continue to do so even while the overall birthrate as a function of the total population goes down. Unless you can analyze this example and address it, then you've shown that you are not in a position to tell me what I do and do not understand.

Again, keep in mind that if I calculated continuously (which is more accurate) you would see a much greater population growth with a lower effective birthrate, but I didn't feel like explaining the math so I kept the numbers simple.

no, this does not mean white population declines. white people are everywhere these days.

white people are everywhere these days.
Yes, everywhere - why, I can't so much as take a bath without having to shoo a few opportunistic white people from my tub first.

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?


HU CAREZ A F!@#???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????

Waits patiently for a reply that actually addresses the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of childbearing does not age a population, the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of a population makes a smaller birthrate have an equal impact to a larger birthrate in a younger population if the effective birthrate remains the same, the evidence that Japan has yearly immigration at 3% of its total population and emmigration at about 8% of its total population, evidence that the rates he is examining don't mean what he thinks they mean, that ad hominems don't address an argument or any of the plethora of other arguments he's dropped.

Waits patiently for a reply that actually addresses the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of childbearing does not age a population, the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of a population makes a smaller birthrate have an equal impact to a larger birthrate in a younger population if the effective birthrate remains the same, the evidence that Japan has yearly immigration at 3% of its total population and emmigration at about 8% of its total population, evidence that the rates he is examining don't mean what he thinks they mean, that ad hominems don't address an argument or any of the plethora of other arguments he's dropped.
Gonna be a long wait. Want me to bring you a pint?

Gonna be a long wait. Want me to bring you a pint?

I suspect I'll get a reply. If past performance is a clue, it's unreasonable to expect it will actually address the evidence presented.

Who cares if the "native" *cough* bullshit *cough* populations decrease?
Europeans should care, because if current trends continue, almost all European countries will be majority-Muslim in fifty or sixty years -- and that is a problem, because a lot of European Muslims aren't so hot on democracy. How tragic it would be if the free world (or at least a good part of it; the U.S. is in pretty good shape, thanks to the Hispanics, Mormons and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews) were defeated by sheer numbers.

Europeans should care, because if current trends continue, almost all European countries will be majority-Muslim in fifty or sixty years -- and that is a problem, because a lot of European Muslims aren't so hot on democracy. How tragic it would be if the free world (or at least a good part of it; the U.S. is in pretty good shape, thanks to the Hispanics, Mormons and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews) were defeated by sheer numbers?

Ah, yes, the scary muslim majority. Uh-huh. First, your statements are only generally true of first- or occasionally second-generation Muslims, but first- and second-generation Muslims will never be in the majority. There is little evidence that once westernized which generally occurs in a couple generations, Muslims will be any different than Christians or any other religious group.

*sings*

Yeah, they were dancin' and singin' and movin' to the groovin'
And just when it hit me somebody turned around and shouted

Play that funky music white boy
Play that funky music right
Play that funky music white boy
Lay down that boogie and play that funky music till you die…

(Or at least 'till this thread dies :cool: )

Ah, yes, the scary muslim majority. Uh-huh. First, your statements are only generally true of first- or occasionally second-generation Muslims, but first- and second-generation Muslims will never be in the majority. There is little evidence that once westernized which generally occurs in a couple generations, Muslims will be any different than Christians or any other religious group.
I hope you're right -- truly, I do, but as we've recently seen (in France in particular, though the issue there is perhaps more ethnicity/national origin, rather than religion as such), Europe has done a pretty poor job of integrating immigrants -- particularly Arab/Berber Muslims.

I think that the current birth rates across Europe are a genuine cause for concern. The proportion of our population will decline while muslims breed like rabbits. Coupled with European governments letting more and more muslims in all the time, this is a recipe for disaster. If muslims ever become a majority in a European country, it can kiss goodbye to it's way of life. Muslims will only pay lip service to ideas like secularism and religious equality when they're in a minority. As soon as they become a majority of the population, the non-muslims there will be living like dogs. Just look at the way a lot of muslims behave in places like France, Scandanavia, Australia, ect. where they go around gang raping non-muslim girls. And they're not even in the majority there!

What we need is a program to drastically increase birth rates among the native population of Europe. It can be done, Hitler proved that. While I wouldn't approve of the more extreme measures that the Führer introduced, he showed us what can be done if the political will is there.

But the effective birthrate, the birthrate to women of childbearing age is not. I showed you why it makes no difference to the growth of the population unless the effective birthrate declines. You ignored the post because you couldn't address it. Again, percentage of the overall population is effected by life-expectancy. At a time when the life expectancy is 50 the percentage of the population that must bear children MUST be much higher than the percentage if the life expectancy is 80. I showed you why this is. We are facing an increasing life expectancy which is why we are seeing a decrease in the overall birthrates, but if one looks at the women who can have children they are having the same number of children as ever. Thus the current trend will continue and the population will continue to grow.



You don't get it. If the numbers of births per women of birthing age remains constant, then the age at which the birth occurs cannot age the population. Becuase the same number of children per woman of childbearing age remains constant.

I'll show you. You see who raises the children does not matter. All that matters is how many children are born. So if we have the same number of children per woman of childbearing age and we spread them evenly among those women the women will be rearing the same number of children always regardless of the average age at which they have children. Thus, unless you address the fact that the birthrate among women of childbearing age is relatively steady then it cannot explain an aging population.
<snip>


You wrote 2 big posts. I wont answer them point by point as your claims are, as usual, only ridiculous. And I will disprove all of them in this post. But first...

Note: Quoted from Moderation thread.


Look, discuss this in the thread. He reached a decision and this has nothing to do with it. Scientists disagree all the time, so dispute the evidence as I have or drop it. The evidence is in the thread for you to analyze. Do so - there, in the thread. Not here.


LOL. I'm sure the people in US Cencus would be proud if they heard you call them scientist. They just analyze the data and make predictions with simple mathematic calculations. The thing is, because you arent an expert on population, you cant understand their calculation. You simply arent qualified enough to dispute thier projections. And do you honestly thing they ignored the data you showed me? (Since you only provided one data, yes, I'm talking about birth rate in women in fertility ages) And They are hardly suggesting any theory or hypothesis that'll shake the scientific community. If you think you single handedly disproved the calculations and projections of a whole goverment agency, maybe you should give them a call. Maybe they'll ofer you money. Maybe your "advanced" calculation which I dont bother to answer would be the way to predict population changes. Maybe when we apply your calculation to Europe, we'd "know" many countries in Europe actually havent got declining populations but their people keep getting abducted by aliens. :rolleyes:


Now your 2 long posts...All your assumptions and "results" are dependent on only 1 data. That is the birth rate in women in fertility ages havent changed in 20 years. Although I offered many other data which you rejected, you always took your data as a point of reference in your assumptions. Now, the thing is, white women werent reproducing enough to replace population 20 years ago in the first place!


The American fertility rate fell to replacement level in 1972

http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html#70

So even if their birth rate remained stable in 20 years, they have never made enough children to sustain the population. This is one of the reasons that the percentage of fertile women vs overall population is declining (as I proved). Now you may argue that the population is naturally increasing, so it cant be correct(as you claimed, in this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10919996&postcount=281, which again shows your ABSOLUTE lack of understanding of this issue). Yes, the population is increasing. But the thing is, increase rate is slowing and it'll eventually be negative, meaning the population will decline. Hence The US Cencus Breau projects:


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

The projected decline in 2040's will be absolute. Meaning white population will decline DESPITE immigration. It might actually begin declining before but might be covered by white immigration to USA.
Here, another example how a growing population might be in a declining trend.


With 127.1 million people, Japan is the ninth most populous country in the world. In 1970, the population stood at 104 million. At the current growth rate of 0.2 percent annually, the population would double in 347 years. Because the total fertility rate is 1.3 births per woman, considerably lower than the replacement level of 2.1, however, the rate of growth will diminish each year as the gap between births and deaths narrows. Infant mortality is currently 3.4 deaths per 1000 births, one of the lowest in the world. If the trends of the last few decades continue, the population is expected to begin declining after 2015, return to 124 million by 2020, drop to 120 million in 2025 and to 101 million by 2050.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/japan/japan.html

Finally, this post debunks ALL your claims, "results", assumptions in this thread and in the previous thread (angry white female). White population in USA IS in a declining trend, even if USA got one of the highest birth rate/fertility rate in the West. And white population is in a declining trend/declining in all of the West.


It doesn't address the point.

In 2003, 5 Million foreign nationals entered Japan. That same year 13 Million left Japan. In a population of 127 Million, I would say that's significant. But perhaps the nation's website is lying. I offered you the opportunity to look up the actual numbers, but you'd rather just keep making claims.

http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/IB/ib-01.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2119rank.html


Yes, as I said, I debunked everything you said in this thread and the last. That includes your claims about Japan, which was really funny. Are you a reall engineer? Either your math really sucks or you were blinded by your ambition to prove me wrong. I am not sure about the first, but in second, again, you failed. I'll explain after this quote...


Waits patiently for a reply that actually addresses the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of childbearing does not age a population, the mathematical evidence that an increase in the average age of a population makes a smaller birthrate have an equal impact to a larger birthrate in a younger population if the effective birthrate remains the same, the evidence that Japan has yearly immigration at 3% of its total population and emmigration at about 8% of its total population, evidence that the rates he is examining don't mean what he thinks they mean, that ad hominems don't address an argument or any of the plethora of other arguments he's dropped.


If these numbers were the emigration and immigration numbers as you suggested and this trend continued, Japan would loose roughly 8 million people a year. This would show in Japan's page in CIA, in migration statistics, as there would be a NET emigration. But as you clearly remember the migration rate was 0/1000 people, suggestiong there is no net emigration. After you accused me several times of not understanding NET immigration, I guess it is YOU who dont understand about NET emigration. LOL.
And again if Japan lost roughly 8 million people in a year as you suggested in bolded areas, Japan would loose rougly 80 million people in 10 years. :eek: These two were the reasons that I suggested "Either your math really sucks or you were blinded by your ambition to prove me wrong." Because this claims, as usual, are only ridiculous.


evidence that the rates he is examining don't mean what he thinks they mean


HAHA. Funny, coming from you. They dont mean what YOU think they mean. Number of Foreign nationals entering japan doesnt mean immigration. It could be tourists (probably most of them were), bussiness men to do bussiness, temporary students, etc. Again, Number of Japaneese nationals leaving japan doesnt mean they are emigrating. It can be japaneese tourists going overseas, or again bussinessmen, etc. Actually this is very solid but I'll prove it even futher. If you did bother to scroll down just a bit you'd see that as of 2003, the number of registered foreigners was roughly 2 million. Again this is a small number compared to population of Japan and is the numerical proof of percentage proof I gave you long time before. (That is Japan got 99% Japaneese population.) Again, you are WRONG! As I said,

Finally, this post debunks ALL your claims, "results", assumptions in this thread and in the previous thread (angry white female). :D

Ah, yes, the scary muslim majority. Uh-huh. First, your statements are only generally true of first- or occasionally second-generation Muslims, but first- and second-generation Muslims will never be in the majority. There is little evidence that once westernized which generally occurs in a couple generations, Muslims will be any different than Christians or any other religious group.

Since you arent european, you are far from to conclude the effects of muslim-majority in Europe.

I think that the current birth rates across Europe are a genuine cause for concern. The proportion of our population will decline while muslims breed like rabbits. Coupled with European governments letting more and more muslims in all the time, this is a recipe for disaster. If muslims ever become a majority in a European country, it can kiss goodbye to it's way of life. Muslims will only pay lip service to ideas like secularism and religious equality when they're in a minority. As soon as they become a majority of the population, the non-muslims there will be living like dogs. Just look at the way a lot of muslims behave in places like France, Scandanavia, Australia, ect. where they go around gang raping non-muslim girls. And they're not even in the majority there!

What we need is a program to drastically increase birth rates among the native population of Europe. It can be done, Hitler proved that. While I wouldn't approve of the more extreme measures that the Führer introduced, he showed us what can be done if the political will is there.
Oh dear... :(

You wrote 2 big posts. I wont answer them point by point as your claims are, as usual, only ridiculous. And I will disprove all of them in this post. But first...

Note: Quoted from Moderation thread.

LOL. I'm sure the people in US Cencus would be proud if they heard you call them scientist. They just analyze the data and make predictions with simple mathematic calculations. The thing is, because you arent an expert on population, you cant understand their calculation.

You keep saying this as if it's true, but you haven't demonstrated that it is. I've shown how the calculation works and how population projections work. The only one who has demonstrated a collossal lack of understanding of the math is you. THis is why people have repeatedly come into the thread and called your points debunked. They understand the math I presented whereas you don't.

You simply arent qualified enough to dispute thier projections.

Again, prove it or stop claiming this. You aren't prepared to look at my qualifications. My arguments are available for you to address, so address them or admit that you can't. Interesting enough when I publish papers they don't even ask for my credentials unless I'm a doctor in my field. That's because when my peers review my work, they can actually analyze the data and see if I'm correct so they don't care what credentials I have. If I have no credentials and the data is right, the fact that I have no credentials doesn't change it. If I have credentials and the data's wrong, then the fact that I have credentials doesn't change it. Generally, the only people that ever cling to the credentials arguments do so because they can't defeat the information on demonstrated points so they resort to ad hominems. Now, who does that seem like? I think his name rhymes with Ordland.

And do you honestly thing they ignored the data you showed me?

Yes, I think like many they mistakes in their work. There are all kinds of reasons for this. One might be that they are a government entity and have a political reason for their conclusion. Another might just be an error. I love how you try to claim your source is infallible since you can't actually address my arguments.

(Since you only provided one data, yes, I'm talking about birth rate in women in fertility ages) And They are hardly suggesting any theory or hypothesis that'll shake the scientific community.

No, of course they don't. They present what we all know, the birthrate of white women who are capable of having children hasn't decreased for twenty years.

If you think you single handedly disproved the calculations and projections of a whole goverment agency, maybe you should give them a call. Maybe they'll ofer you money.

Actually, I do it all the time. They do offer me money. The VA was paying several hundred dollars for us to correct their practices. It's what my company does primarily. I just came from a seminar where one of our employees demonstrated a product that he was told was impossible by the national weather service just five years ago. Now, they're paying him to implement it.

Meanwhile, I didn't disprove the entire agency. Your source is a paper by a select few of them. The paper's produced by small groups within my company do not necessarily reflect the views of everyone. Some within my company have produced papers that were eventually disproven by others in my company.

Two days ago when someone was discussing the "new and improved" decontaminant for biological attacks we pointed out that it left a sulfate residue that breaks down concrete. They'd been testing and selling it for months and we discovered a problem with the science that they hadn't considered and it took us a few moments to notice.

Generally, in science it's rare to get a universal or even close to universal agreement on predictions. When those predictions are contrary to current data it's even less likely. They rely on explaining the current trends in a way that is more complicated and less likely than other explanations that I've given. I don't know why they went with the less likely predictions, but again there are dozens of reasons why this might be.

Maybe your "advanced" calculation which I dont bother to answer would be the way to predict population changes. Maybe when we apply your calculation to Europe, we'd "know" many countries in Europe actually havent got declining populations but their people keep getting abducted by aliens. :rolleyes:

You haven't shown declining populations in general. You've suggested they are GOING to happen. The population of Norway increases yearly by 3.8 people per 1000, while there are only 1.73 immigrants per 1000 per year. That means that the population of Norway is increasing today despite your claims about fertility rate. Again, quit claiming it like it's a trend that has begun. Most of the coutries you are talking about have growing populations.

Now your 2 long posts...All your assumptions and "results" are dependent on only 1 data. That is the birth rate in women in fertility ages havent changed in 20 years. Although I offered many other data which you rejected, you always took your data as a point of reference in your assumptions. Now, the thing is, white women werent reproducing enough to replace population 20 years ago in the first place!

They weren't? I see, then if they weren't why is the white population of the US increasing? Magic?

http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html#70

http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/TraditionalLevelsofUSImmigration.pdf
Ok, so let's see if I get this right. The 1,000,000/year immigration for last 15 years explains the average of 3,200,000/year population growth. Yep, those numbers add up. In magic math. You cannot explain the US population growth or even just the white population growth with immigration. Even if you consider the immigration rate in the growth during the nineties the population growth was 22 Million people. In a population of less than 300 Million that's a substantial climb.

Let's see - 2000 - White population is 211 Million.
1990 - 199 Million so even if the entire immigrant population for that decade (aroung 10 million) is considered you still have a growing white population by 1%. You're not actually claiming that ALL or MOST immigrants in the 90's to the US were white are you? Because if not the white growth rate is much higher than 1%.
http://www.facts.com/wusp40200.htm


So even if their birth rate remained stable in 20 years, they have never made enough children to sustain the population. This is one of the reasons that the percentage of fertile women vs overall population is declining (as I proved). Now you may argue that the population is naturally increasing, so it cant be correct(as you claimed, in this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10919996&postcount=281,

Again, you prove you didn't read the post. I never claimed that percentage of fertile women when compared to the overall population didn't decrease. This is a natural effect of an increase in life expectancy. However, they have continued to increase in real numbers and the number of children born to them have continued to increase in real numbers. As I've shown.

The actually birth rate has sustained the population. The immigration rate (even if you include ALL races) is less than the population growth of only the white population. I don't know how your math works but if the immigration rate is less than the population growth then the only explanation for population growth is *gasp* births.

which again shows your ABSOLUTE lack of understanding of this issue). Yes, the population is increasing. But the thing is, increase rate is slowing and it'll eventually be negative, meaning the population will decline. Hence The US Cencus Breau projects:

The increasing rate is slowing because that's a natural result in a population where the life expectancy is increasing, as I showed mathematically in a post you couldn't understand so you didn't read.

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

The projected decline in 2040's will be absolute. Meaning white population will decline DESPITE immigration. It might actually begin declining before but might be covered by white immigration to USA.
Here, another example how a growing population might be in a declining trend.

Yes, you do notice that this is a projection for forty years from now for the possibilty of a decline. It's just a projection. Again, they aren't infallible. Projections are educated guesses. You'll also notice that it has the white population increasing overall in that fifty year period as a continuation of the current trend. Interesting that you claim the population is not sustaining itself now without immigration (even though that's an impossibility when the white population growth exceeds immigration) when your own source has the white population increasing for forty more years straight. It also attributes the population decrease to an unusually high death rate as a result of the population bubble (the baby boomers "as the size of the “baby boom” population continues to decline.", from your source) reach their life expectancy. Interesting that you leave this out. Your own source does not blame it on birthrates.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/japan/japan.html

Finally, this post debunks ALL your claims, "results", assumptions in this thread and in the previous thread (angry white female). White population in USA IS in a declining trend, even if USA got one of the highest birth rate/fertility rate in the West. And white population is in a declining trend/declining in all of the West.

Does it? Let's see what it debunked. Your own source evidences a growing white population into 2040. Your own source shows that the immigration rate CANNOT possible explain a population growth of 22 million more than immigration. Your own source shows that Japan's population is still growing. All sources you present claims that several decades in the future a population decline MAY happen if current trends continue, but it assumes much. The further out you project to less likely to be accurate.

I've shown that birth rate to fertile women is higher now that 20 years ago but has remained virtually stable. I've shown that immigration is less than the white population growth so the only explanation is births. I've shown why an overall birthrate naturally declines in an aging population> I've shown how an increase in the average age of the first pregnancy does not explain an aging population. You've not debunked any of it. In fact, much of your source evidence my claims, just some of them reach different conclusions (one of which is verifiably false).


Yes, as I said, I debunked everything you said in this thread and the last. That includes your claims about Japan, which was really funny. Are you a reall engineer? Either your math really sucks or you were blinded by your ambition to prove me wrong. I am not sure about the first, but in second, again, you failed. I'll explain after this quote...

Yes, I know. You don't trust the immigration and emmigration numbers as shown from Japan's actual immigration website. Good that you are going to argue them. I haven't laughed yet today.

If these numbers were the emigration and immigration numbers as you suggested and this trend continued, Japan would loose roughly 8 million people a year. This would show in Japan's page in CIA, in migration statistics, as there would be a NET emigration. But as you clearly remember the migration rate was 0/1000 people, suggestiong there is no net emigration. After you accused me several times of not understanding NET immigration, I guess it is YOU who dont understand about NET emigration. LOL.
And again if Japan lost roughly 8 million people in a year as you suggested in bolded areas, Japan would loose rougly 80 million people in 10 years. :eek: These two were the reasons that I suggested "Either your math really sucks or you were blinded by your ambition to prove me wrong." Because this claims, as usual, are only ridiculous.

I agree that they do seem to disagree with the US CIA site, but these are the numbers from Japan's actual immigration site. Are you claiming that they don't know what their immigration is and that the US site is more accurate? Absurd.

Meanwhile you ignore the fact that they don't address how many Japanese nationals return and how many foreign nationals eventually leave. The point is you claimed the actual rates are insignificant but they appear to be a very significant percentage in relation to the overall population. Interesting how your best way to deal with this is to simply make claims that deny the actual wording of the site or to simply call me stupid.

HAHA. Funny, coming from you. They dont mean what YOU think they mean. Number of Foreign nationals entering japan doesnt mean immigration. It could be tourists (probably most of them were), bussiness men to do bussiness, temporary students, etc. Again, Number of Japaneese nationals leaving japan doesnt mean they are emigrating. It can be japaneese tourists going overseas, or again bussinessmen, etc. Actually this is very solid but I'll prove it even futher. If you did bother to scroll down just a bit you'd see that as of 2003, the number of registered foreigners was roughly 2 million. Again this is a small number compared to population of Japan and is the numerical proof of percentage proof I gave you long time before. (That is Japan got 99% Japaneese population.) Again, you are WRONG! As I said,

Huh? So when they reference those numbers in their immigration numbers while talking about illegal immigration and they compare it to legal foreign nationals (tourists) they must have been mistaken. The number of registered nationals refers to legal foreign natioals Hmmmm... I guess they don't understand. You're make up anything to try and be right.

Here's the quotes from the site -
The following nationals are subject to deportation in accordance with procedures as provided for by law : foreign nationals who have landed in or entered Japan illegally, nationals who are illegally overstaying the authorized period of stay in Japan, those engaged in any activity other than that permitted under the status of residence, those foreign nationals who have been sentenced to a punishment for violation of any Japanese laws or regulations while staying in Japan and other nationals who are found to be unsuitable.
In other words they are referencing the number of nationals that are presently entering Japan and may need to be ejected due to violations of law and comparing it to the number of Japanese nationals leaving Japan. They explain it clearly.

Under the system of alien registration administered by the immigration services, all foreign residents in Japan are required to appear in person and register themselves at the municipal office of the city, ward, town or village in which they are residing. This system is designed to ensure fair and equitable control over foreign residents in Japan by clarifying matters pertaining to their residence and status.
Then they compare it the approximate number of legal nationals that are there. It's a comparison between the two.


Finally, this post debunks ALL your claims, "results", assumptions in this thread and in the previous thread (angry white female). :D
Hey, if you just keep saying it and rubbing a shiny penny maybe it will come true. Meanwhile, your sites don't agree with themselves or you. And you've yet to address my calculations that show you that you're claims are impossible. Again, keep ringing that bell. So far the only person who agreed with you admitted he was just a racist and afraid of immigration.

Keep declaring victory. You have to do it. Nobody will do it for you. Meanwhile in every thread we've discussed this topic someone has entered and pointed out how badly I've been nailing you on the subject.

Since you arent european, you are far from to conclude the effects of muslim-majority in Europe.

Again, you can't address the point so you claim the person is 'unqualified'. You've trying to address birthrates in the US. Are you qualified? I tend to evaluate posts and address the points. I understand that's difficult for you so you have to resort to ad hominems, but try. No, go back, read my post and reply to the point or resist the urge to hit the reply button.

Oh dear... :(
Yup, that's what we're dealing with.

Yup, that's what we're dealing with.

Did you happen to see how our young friend declares victory over the thread by posting sites (without reading that they actually support me) and basically claiming that unless you happen to work for the entity that the projection is from you aren't qualified to protest their prediction.

Wouldn't our jobs be easier if the only thing we could ever be asked to address is our own work?

Interviewer: "Dr. Johannsen, what do you think of Kitchner's article disputing your methodology?"
Dr. Johannsen: "Kitchner doesn't work for me therefore he's not qualified to analyze my data."
Interviewer: "But the whole concept of peer review is that the scientific community expects others to analyze your conclusions."
Dr. Johannsen: "He's NOT qualified!"
Interviewer: "But I looked at his work and it all makes sense. You've not been able to address many of his points other to point to your own work and then ignore much of his."
Dr: *stabs interviewer*
*Stabs interviewer*

<snip> POST 298 <snip>
Just to piss Nordland off a little more (because he seems to hate it when I do this), I'll restate my views based on your work in the post referenced above:

1) Trends go up and down. Populations boom and then decline and then boom again. A massive boom occurred after WW2 that bumped global populations, for all races, above sustainable growth rate levels. A decline back to normal growth rates is inevitable and natural. It does not mean that anyone is in danger of becoming "extinct." It just means that they will continue to grow at a slower rate.

Nordland's dire predictions are flawed because they assume that any seeming decline today will not reverse itself at any time in the future. This is not borne out by the current numbers or by historical patterns. He has shown no evidence to suggest that the current situation is somehow different.

2) Nordland keeps saying that the "white race" is declining globally. The fact is, however, that white births are increasing in the US. Numbers may be going down in one location, but they are going up in another location, so how can he claim that there is universal decline?

In fact, the white population in the US is increasing so quickly that people are starting to talk about moving back to "the old country" in Europe where they might have a better chance of finding property to buy. If Nordland is worried about Europe turning all swarthy, all he really has to do is hope Jeb Bush gets elected president in 2008, and there will almost certainly be a massive exodus of white people into Europe. Of course, they won't be the kind of white people he likes, but every silver lining has a cloud, eh?

3) Nordland also ignores the genetic reality of "race." He says he is worried about the "white race," but in his first thread, he kept going on about blue-eyed blonds. This is not a race, it is merely blondism (that's what the doctors call it). Blondism is a set of genetic markers that can be carried by all humans and that does in fact occur spontaneously in all racial populations. As races mix, blondism will not become extinct. It will just become harder to predict which sets of parents will produce blond, blue-eyed children.

The bottom line is there is no evidence for white decline and plenty of evidence against it. Nordland has failed to show anything that would persuade anyone otherwise.

Did you happen to see how our young friend declares victory over the thread by posting sites (without reading that they actually support me) and basically claiming that unless you happen to work for the entity that the projection is from you aren't qualified to protest their prediction.

Wouldn't our jobs be easier if the only thing we could ever be asked to address is our own work?
<snipikins>
*Stabs interviewer*
The "you're not qualified to prove me wrong, so quit doing it" argument is one of my personal favorites. :D

The "you're not qualified to prove me wrong, so quit doing it" argument is one of my personal favorites. :D

Ha, you made me choke on Mountain Dew. The most amusing part is he has no idea what type of engineering or science I deal in. He only knows that I was attending an engineering symposium and that I work at an engineering firm. Arguments about qualifications are an attempt to circumvent the point.

For the mathematically challenged, I'll explain the birth rate and how an increase in life expectancy (an aging population) has no bearing on it.

Let's say we look at a population of 1000 people. We'll pretend for simplicity that there is no death until 50 and then everyone dies. Also, let's pretend the initial populatio we are analyzing has an exactly equal distribution.

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

Now that makes 300 women of childbearing age (15-45). They would be having approximately 22 live births a year. That makes an effective birthrate (bithrate for childbearing women of .073 per woman We'll look at 10 year increments for simplicity's sake again.

10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people

So 50 years after you look at the initial population you still see an increase in the number of births (and thus the number of people) from 220 to 241. This will result in a constantly growing population of women who can bear children and provided their effective birthrate does not decrease the population will continue to grow in this way.

Now, start again with the same population but the life expectancy suddenly becomes 70 years old.
10 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people

20 years in
0-10 - 220 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

30 years in
0-10 - 223 people
11-20 - 220 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

40 years in
0-10 - 231 people
11-20 - 223 people
21-30 - 220 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 200 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

50 years in
0-10 - 241 people
11-20 - 231 people
21-30 - 223 people
31-40 - 220 people
41-50 - 220 people
51-60 - 200 people
61-70 - 200 people

After fifty years, the number of yearly births has again increased from 220 to 241. Same increase in birth, same steadily increasing population of women who can and do bear children. Same steady increase in population.

Now as you can see the number of women of childbearing age continues to grow in both populations. There is an inflated growth while the population ages to match the new life expectancy after a significant increase. And once it stabilizes you will continue to see population growth (just examine the young population there) while still seeing an much older population.

Unless the women start unnaturally dying off or the women start having less children during their childbearing years (which is not happening and has not happened for twenty years) then the population will continue to grow.

NOTE: So the math would be easy to follow I didn't use a continuous growth but simply calculated every ten years. With continuous growth forumlas a much lower birth rate is necessary to show a growing population.

You want me to answer this so bad? Fine. Your calculations are correct but you cant apply it to Western countries. Why? Because your population's fertility rate is above replacement level unlike western countries!

22 births a year * 10 years = 220 births
Because, according to your calculations, every women gives birth 1 time on each 3 decade out of 5 decade. (11-20 , 21-30 ,31-40 = 3 intervals like 15-45 ages)

220 births * 3 = 660 births for 600 people or 300 women.

660 / 300 = 2.2

Hence avg. fertility rate is 2.2 per women. Because your populations avg. fertility rate is above replacement it grows. Now do your math with fertility rate: 1.8 per women (white fertility rate in USA)

1.8 * 300 = 540

540 / 3 = 180 (decade intervals)

starting population:

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

10 years later:

0-10 - 180 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

You can clearly see the decline...

Ha, you made me choke on Mountain Dew. The most amusing part is he has no idea what type of engineering or science I deal in. He only knows that I was attending an engineering symposium and that I work at an engineering firm. Arguments about qualifications are an attempt to circumvent the point.
Maybe he thinks you drive trains.

You want me to answer this so bad? Fine. Your calculations are correct but you cant apply it to Western countries. Why? Because your population's fertility rate is above replacement level unlike western countries!
<snip for space>
Um...I was under the impression that Jocabia's numbers are a model for how population trends work. They are generically applicable to all populations -- including Western countries. Considering that this whole argument is about white people in Western countries (except of course for your Japan digression) and considering that you and Jocabia have been arguing about numbers in the US, which is a Western country, how can you claim that this generic model is about something other than a Western country? What country is it about, if not a Western one?

Um...I was under the impression that Jocabia's numbers are a model for how population trends work. They are generically applicable to all populations -- including Western countries. Considering that this whole argument is about white people in Western countries (except of course for your Japan digression) and considering that you and Jocabia have been arguing about numbers in the US, which is a Western country, how can you claim that this generic model is about something other than a Western country? What country is it about, if not a Western one?

He will understand what I'm talking about, maybe he'll explain to you...

Yes, everywhere - why, I can't so much as take a bath without having to shoo a few opportunistic white people from my tub first.
do you have to be so literal??

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415207,00.html
Might interest a few of you. Given that at the moment at least, the ratio in Germany is changing towards more people who came to live there in recent years, the debate is ongoing about how to deal with it.

Germany of course is also a special case because defining it invariably leads to certain ugliness that occured in the past.
Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4979962.stm

He will understand what I'm talking about, maybe he'll explain to you...
Meow, kitty-kitty. I understand what you are saying. You have not persuaded me that you are not wrong.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415207,00.html
Might interest a few of you. Given that at the moment at least, the ratio in Germany is changing towards more people who came to live there in recent years, the debate is ongoing about how to deal with it.

Germany of course is also a special case because defining it invariably leads to certain ugliness that occured in the past.
Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4979962.stm
Isn't Germany one of those countries that actively encouraged people to move to their country *temporarily* to do work for them and are now getting upset that the guest workers haven't left yet? All they have to do is adjust their immigration laws -- and mow their own lawns.

But what does immigration have to do with white birth rates?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415207,00.html
Might interest a few of you. Given that at the moment at least, the ratio in Germany is changing towards more people who came to live there in recent years, the debate is ongoing about how to deal with it.

Germany of course is also a special case because defining it invariably leads to certain ugliness that occured in the past.
Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4979962.stm

You are slowly being replaced by muslims. How sad :headbang:

Isn't Germany one of those countries that actively encouraged people to move to their country *temporarily* to do work for them and are now getting upset that the guest workers haven't left yet? All they have to do is adjust their immigration laws -- and mow their own lawns.
That was the original thing, yes. With the Italians...but that's been resolved. These days, it's a simple matter of the Germans having very few kids, and the difference being made up by immigration, most of which is from Turkey.
With that came the problems with integration, which are now to be tackled. Problem is that for someone to be integrated, first there needs to be a definition of what it means to be German.

But what does immigration have to do with white birth rates?
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,414520,00.html
Well, it's got to do with it indirectly. But if integration can work, it doesn't matter where the people originally came from.

You are slowly being replaced by muslims. How sad :headbang:
I'm an atheist, and happy. I'm not being replaced.

As for other people's religions: Let them do what they want. None of my business.

You are slowly being replaced by muslims. How sad :headbang:

I don't see a problem. Germany has gained in immigrants and has to resolve internal cultural disputes, it's happened in every country over centuries that has had to deal with immigration. Immigrants have never destroyed a country or altered it so fundamentally that it becomes unrecognizable. Religion and war have done that for the most part.

Are you really so biased on a societal myth like 'race' you think that any ethnicity has greater intrisic value over another?

I don't see a problem. Germany has gained in immigrants and has to resolve internal cultural disputes, it's happened in every country over centuries that has had to deal with immigration. Immigrants have never destroyed a country or altered it so fundamentally that it becomes unrecognizable. Religion and war have done that for the most part.

Are you really so biased on a societal myth like 'race' you think that any ethnicity has greater intrisic value over another?

Race isnt a myth...

You are slowly being replaced by muslims. How sad :headbang:

Oh noes! Teh evil Mooslems! Run for the hills,brothers! Protect the precious white race and shy away from multi-culuralism!! Retain the same tired stereotypes and views at any cost!

Race isnt a myth...
Race starts to become a myth as soon as you start making connections between ethnicity and things like intelligence or the level of civilisation.

Race isnt a myth...

What is it then? Some deep genetic variation that has seperated humans and conviently color-coded us and given us different cultures and beliefs so we can tell each other apart? What is it about Arabs or Africans or Europeans that sets us apart on such a deep biological level that we have to seperate ourselves out as white or black?

Race doesn't do anything except describe the differences between people with different skin tones like religion and culture as though they were determined from birth. And I don't have words to describe how flippin' ignorant that is.

Race isnt a myth...

Its a social construction really. Race doesn't exist in nature its something we created and then used to screw over alot of people.

You want me to answer this so bad? Fine. Your calculations are correct but you cant apply it to Western countries. Why? Because your population's fertility rate is above replacement level unlike western countries!

22 births a year * 10 years = 220 births
Because, according to your calculations, every women gives birth 1 time on each 3 decade out of 5 decade. (11-20 , 21-30 ,31-40 = 3 intervals like 15-45 ages)

220 births * 3 = 660 births for 600 people or 300 women.

660 / 300 = 2.2

Hence avg. fertility rate is 2.2 per women. Because your populations avg. fertility rate is above replacement it grows. Now do your math with fertility rate: 1.8 per women (white fertility rate in USA)

1.8 * 300 = 540

540 / 3 = 180 (decade intervals)

starting population:

0-10 - 200 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

10 years later:

0-10 - 180 people
11-20 - 200 people
21-30 - 200 people
31-40 - 200 people
41-50 - 200 people

You can clearly see the decline...
That's not the actual rate. That's what you don't get. There are 66 births per 1000 women of birthing age per year in the US as I showed you. I've also shown you that during that time the population continues to grow. The reason this occurs is clear, but you make assumption after assumption until you lower the rate to a point where it proves your assertion.

You start with your assertion and then use it to assume you're correct. Even in an uneven population distribution (generally the majority of each ten year group decreases as they age because some die). I simplified that point for you. Your birthrate extrapolates to effective birthrate of 59 births per 1000 which is lower than the birth rate has ever been recorded according to the chart I showed you from your own source (the CDC). And that birthrate ignores the births that occur before fifteen and after 44. So your fertility rate clearly isn't calculated the way you claimed.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf
The current effective birthrate is over 66 births per 1000 women and the lowest it's been in 20 years is over 63.

180 births in 10 years is 18 births a year per 300 women means 59 per year for 1000. Obviously birthrate doesn't relate to fertility rate in the way you claimed or your calculation would be correct. It's not.


Now as to why I raised the effective birthrate slightly is because for one in a group of that size with a life expectancy of 50 like I gave you would actually get a much larger portion of women in that age bracket. This would up the number of births. Also as the population grew you would have to calculate exponentially, but I didn't want to have to explain the math to you. Since you're struggling I'll use the US and your way of talking about the issue. Let's follow 1000 US women from 14 to 50 (because some births occur outside the 15-44 group). We'll use the same source we've been talking about from the CDC (a source you introduced in the other thread).

Here -

10 -14 in the US .5 birth per 1000 women - so as 1000 women travel from 10 to 14 they will have 2.5 children, averaging .5 children per year (10,11,12,13,14).
15-19 same 1000 women will have 38.3 per year for a total of 191.5.
We're up to 194 children by 19 years old.
20-24 - 100.6 per yer. So that's 503 for that five year period.
Hmmm..
We're already up to 697 children for these 1000 women and they are only 24 years old. I wonder if we can get up to 2000.
Let's see, shall we?
25-29 - 119.5 for 597.5 children in this period.
30-34 - 99.3 for 496.5 children in this period.
35-39 - 44.8 for 224 children in this five year period.
40-44 - 8.7 for 43.5 children in this period.
45-49 - .5 for 2.5 more children in that last five year period.

Let's add that up, shall we? We get 2061 children born to these thousand women. And that's a lifetime fertility of how much? *gasp* about 2.1.

See what happens when you look at the ACTUAL numbers. That's the actual number of births born to 1000 women in that age group in 2003. Now there have been some changes over time in the number of births in some of these age groups, but the overall number of births to women who could give birth has remained about the same. That's the point. Women in there lifetimes are having enough children to replace the population and because of this the population of the US continues to grow. You're welcome to do the same calculation for any year you like. You'll find that it's accurate.

The point is there is no decline and never has been. Look at your own way of looking at the figures. 1000 women have enough births to represent a 3% growth in population, normalizing for deaths and the just slight bias in births to men you get something that very closely matches the actual growth rate of the white population.

What you'll notice is I used a number very close to the actual number of births women have in their lifetimes according to the actual numbers of the US. And even then the growth I represented was much slower than the actual growth you would see because the real calculation is exponential.

Race isnt a myth...

Yes it is. There is not biological or scientific basis for race. It is a social construction.

Um...I was under the impression that Jocabia's numbers are a model for how population trends work. They are generically applicable to all populations -- including Western countries. Considering that this whole argument is about white people in Western countries (except of course for your Japan digression) and considering that you and Jocabia have been arguing about numbers in the US, which is a Western country, how can you claim that this generic model is about something other than a Western country? What country is it about, if not a Western one?

It's clear that unless I use the actual numbers he won't understand that he's starting with his conclusion in hand and attempting to show that it's true. I used a representative number close to that actual model.

He also missed the point, which was that the birth rate appears to decline in an aging population because the increased life expectancy decreases the number of people giving birth, but unless the real number decrease rather than percentage the overall effect is the same, a population growth. Instead he pretend it was about 'fertility rate' and then assigned an effective birth rate that is unprecedented in the US in all the time it's been measured.

I suppose if you just make up the numbers it's easy to appear to be correct.

He will understand what I'm talking about, maybe he'll explain to you...
I understand that you don't understand the actual numbers you're trying to use. Do the math. How can a birth rate of 18 children per year to 300 women equal the real birth rate in the US of 66.1 children to 1000 women. I'll wait while you explain that one for me. Do the math slow so you don't embarrass yourself again.

Next time if you're going to talk down to someone like M you better be right.

Meow, kitty-kitty. I understand what you are saying. You have not persuaded me that you are not wrong.

Yes, of course. He started with a number below the effective birthrate and then proved if women in this country suddenly started having approximately 10 percent less children every year that suddenly we would see a population decline. I guess using the actual numbers might kind of ruin his point, huh?

It's clear that unless I use the actual numbers he won't understand that he's starting with his conclusion in hand and attempting to show that it's true. I used a representative number close to that actual model.

He also missed the point, which was that the birth rate appears to decline in an aging population because the increased life expectancy decreases the number of people giving birth, but unless the real number decrease rather than percentage the overall effect is the same, a population growth. Instead he pretend it was about 'fertility rate' and then assigned an effective birth rate that is unprecedented in the US in all the time it's been measured.
You're generous. I find it hard to believe he doesn't understand these points, considering how often and how clearly they have been explained. But, see, if he admitted these facts, he would have to abandon his alarmist "Yipes! We're running out of white boys!" myth to galvanize The Race (tm) against The Immigrants (tm).

I suppose if you just make up the numbers it's easy to appear to be correct.
Only if nobody adds them up, of course.

Yes, of course. He started with a number below the effective birthrate and then proved if women in this country suddenly started having approximately 10 percent less children every year that suddenly we would see a population decline. I guess using the actual numbers might kind of ruin his point, huh?
See? He was right about this at least -- you could explain his point for me. :D

Yes it is. There is not biological or scientific basis for race. It is a social construction.

Although I agree with your end result, that we should act like there is no race, but that there is only a social construction that seperates us, I also suspect that if your point of view was held in the medical field it would do far more harm than good. Sickle Cell Anaemia for African descendants, Lyme disease among whites is about eleven times greater than that for African Americans, and Giardiasis is about twice as likely for European descendants than for African descendants. Among racial separation lines, the highest incidence rates of salmonellosis and shigellosis are found among American Indians and Alaskan Natives. If we were to 'really' try to pretend that there are no 'races at all' and thus no genetic differences, we would be no better than those that pretend the world is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary simply to meet their pre-conceived notions.

You are slowly being replaced by muslims. How sad :headbang:
:eek:
The mostly come at night... Mostly.

You go to bed white, but wake up muslim. And when you wake up, you'll find a person with your name and your face, and you'll cook and clean like crazy, but you won't take pictures and YOU WON'T BE YOU!

People are being replaced, duplicated. And once it happens to you, you're part of this... thing. It almost happened to me! Don't you see? They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...

:rolleyes:

Just one more reason why you're so annoying! :D

You can make any statement look more pleasing to the eye by simply adding a :D smilie to the end of it.

EXAMPLE: Hitler killed 6 million people throught the holocaust, which involved horrible tortures in the gas chambers of concertation camps. :D

That's not the actual rate. That's what you don't get. There are 66 births per 1000 women of birthing age per year in the US as I showed you. I've also shown you that during that time the population continues to grow. The reason this occurs is clear, but you make assumption after assumption until you lower the rate to a point where it proves your assertion.

You start with your assertion and then use it to assume you're correct. Even in an uneven population distribution (generally the majority of each ten year group decreases as they age because some die). I simplified that point for you. Your birthrate extrapolates to effective birthrate of 59 births per 1000 which is lower than the birth rate has ever been recorded according to the chart I showed you from your own source (the CDC). And that birthrate ignores the births that occur before fifteen and after 44. So your fertility rate clearly isn't calculated the way you claimed.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf
The current effective birthrate is over 66 births per 1000 women and the lowest it's been in 20 years is over 63.

180 births in 10 years is 18 births a year per 300 women means 59 per year for 1000. Obviously birthrate doesn't relate to fertility rate in the way you claimed or your calculation would be correct. It's not.


Now as to why I raised the effective birthrate slightly is because for one in a group of that size with a life expectancy of 50 like I gave you would actually get a much larger portion of women in that age bracket. This would up the number of births. Also as the population grew you would have to calculate exponentially, but I didn't want to have to explain the math to you. Since you're struggling I'll use the US and your way of talking about the issue. Let's follow 1000 US women from 14 to 50 (because some births occur outside the 15-44 group). We'll use the same source we've been talking about from the CDC (a source you introduced in the other thread).

Here -

10 -14 in the US .5 birth per 1000 women - so as 1000 women travel from 10 to 14 they will have 2.5 children, averaging .5 children per year (10,11,12,13,14).
15-19 same 1000 women will have 38.3 per year for a total of 191.5.
We're up to 194 children by 19 years old.
20-24 - 100.6 per yer. So that's 503 for that five year period.
Hmmm..
We're already up to 697 children for these 1000 women and they are only 24 years old. I wonder if we can get up to 2000.
Let's see, shall we?
25-29 - 119.5 for 597.5 children in this period.
30-34 - 99.3 for 496.5 children in this period.
35-39 - 44.8 for 224 children in this five year period.
40-44 - 8.7 for 43.5 children in this period.
45-49 - .5 for 2.5 more children in that last five year period.

Let's add that up, shall we? We get 2061 children born to these thousand women. And that's a lifetime fertility of how much? *gasp* about 2.1.

See what happens when you look at the ACTUAL numbers. That's the actual number of births born to 1000 women in that age group in 2003. Now there have been some changes over time in the number of births in some of these age groups, but the overall number of births to women who could give birth has remained about the same. That's the point. Women in there lifetimes are having enough children to replace the population and because of this the population of the US continues to grow. You're welcome to do the same calculation for any year you like. You'll find that it's accurate.

The point is there is no decline and never has been. Look at your own way of looking at the figures. 1000 women have enough births to represent a 3% growth in population, normalizing for deaths and the just slight bias in births to men you get something that very closely matches the actual growth rate of the white population.

What you'll notice is I used a number very close to the actual number of births women have in their lifetimes according to the actual numbers of the US. And even then the growth I represented was much slower than the actual growth you would see because the real calculation is exponential.

I understand that you don't understand the actual numbers you're trying to use. Do the math. How can a birth rate of 18 children per year to 300 women equal the real birth rate in the US of 66.1 children to 1000 women. I'll wait while you explain that one for me. Do the math slow so you don't embarrass yourself again.

Next time if you're going to talk down to someone like M you better be right.

Huh? Was my calculations incorrect? Of course not. I showed you if we base calculations on fertility rate, the population will decline. And my math was correct. And I've never claimed 18 children per year to 300 women equal the real birth rate in the US of 66.1 children to 1000 women. I just based my calculation on fertility rate. Dont embarrass yourself with silly little claims if you cant understand me. Now according to you, basing calculations on fertility rate is wrong since fertility rate is hypothetical and the actual numbers (to you) are live births per 1000 women. But it is you who are wrong to base your calculations only on live births per 1000 women. Here's why:

1) You assume all live births reach to fertility age. This is wrong, since there are baby deaths, teenager deaths, etc...

2) You dont take into account of avarage year when women bear their first child. I told you this before, but you said it didnt affect anything. And as usual, you were wrong...


The general decline in the birth rate is partly attributable to the rise in the average age at which women bear their first child; the average age rose from 25.6 in 1970 to 28.6 years in 2003 and to 28.9 in 2004.

http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/handbook/c02cont.htm

And average age at which women bear their first child in USA has been continuously rising.

3) And finally your "model" cant predict the decline US Cencus predicts. You simply say they are wrong. But you never think there might be other variables other than the children born per 1000 fertile women.

Yes it is. There is not biological or scientific basis for race. It is a social construction.

Again, you arent qualified enough to reach such a conclusion yourself unless you got anthropology and/or genetics, etc...diploma and years of research in this area...Back your claims or just shut up...The question if race exists is under debate, there is no concensus in scientific community to support your claims....


Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html


A press release from Stanford University a few days ago is probably one of the most significant to be released in the last fifty years. A major study in ethnicity and culture undertaken by the California based University concludes that race is very much a reality and not a myth created by supremacist Europeans.

Very briefly the study found that the racial category chosen by a participant in the study correlated with a distinct group found by genetic markers in the DNA of the same participants. For example participants X, Y and Z may have all ticked the box marked African-American. The participants X,Y and Z could be identified by distinct genetic markers as belonging to a unique group.



The research engaged over 3,600 participants for study making this the largest genetic study ever undertaken has proven that the Far Left and the Liberal politicians who make a profit from lies about race have been deceiving the public for decades. Race exists and therefore it is legitimate for people to defend their racial and folkish interests through community and political work.



No more can the lies of the left be used to smear those of us who stand up for truth and justice. The new age of genetic science where bio-genetic medicines can treat those people with racially inherited diseases and the new age of Pharmacogenomic medicines where the issue of race has to be addressed in order to save lives, means the debate on race must occur. People across the world are dying just because the leftists and the politicians can make political capital out of lying to the public.



Talking about race is not racist - but denying race exists is murder.



The full text of the 27th Jan 05 Stanford University Press Release can be found here.


http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=154

And dont dispute the source. If you go to the page, there is a link to the actual study...

Huh? Was my calculations incorrect? Of course not. I showed you if we base calculations on fertility rate, the population will decline. And my math was correct. And I've never claimed 18 children per year to 300 women equal the real birth rate in the US of 66.1 children to 1000 women. I just based my calculation on fertility rate.

You don't get it. There are real numbers. They are drawn by analyzing the population. We use them. You started with a number that is not real. The number of births you used does not match the number of births actually occurring or that have ever occurred in the US. The real number was closer to what I used and I demonstrated how the real numbers do represent an increasing population.

59 births per 1000 women does not reflect the actual birthrate and thus makes your calculation wrong. I used the real numbers with a slight skew to make up for not using an exponential formula that better reflects populatino because you're already struggling with the basic math. Your argument only worked to prove that if you reduce the ACTUAL birthrate in the US by 10% then you'll see a decline. However, since there is no evidence of the birthrate you used it makes the entire calculation meaningless.

Dont embarrass yourself with silly little claims if you cant understand me. Now according to you, basing calculations on fertility rate is wrong since fertility rate is hypothetical and the actual numbers (to you) are live births per 1000 women. But it is you who are wrong to base your calculations only on live births per 1000 women. Here's why:


1) You assume all live births reach to fertility age. This is wrong, since there are baby deaths, teenager deaths, etc...

No, I made no such assumption. I believe I said something like this - "1000 women have enough births to represent a 3% growth in population, normalizing for deaths and the just slight bias in births to men you get something that very closely matches the actual growth rate of the white population."

2) You dont take into account of avarage year when women bear their first child. I told you this before, but you said it didnt affect anything. And as usual, you were wrong...

Actually, I absolutely did, since I used the actual number of birth to 1000 women in each phase of their life. Let's see where I did that -
"10 -14 in the US .5 birth per 1000 women - so as 1000 women travel from 10 to 14 they will have 2.5 children, averaging .5 children per year (10,11,12,13,14).
15-19 same 1000 women will have 38.3 per year for a total of 191.5.
We're up to 194 children by 19 years old.
20-24 - 100.6 per yer. So that's 503 for that five year period.
Hmmm..
We're already up to 697 children for these 1000 women and they are only 24 years old. I wonder if we can get up to 2000.
Let's see, shall we?
25-29 - 119.5 for 597.5 children in this period.
30-34 - 99.3 for 496.5 children in this period.
35-39 - 44.8 for 224 children in this five year period.
40-44 - 8.7 for 43.5 children in this period.
45-49 - .5 for 2.5 more children in that last five year period"
I also showed that when women have children makes no difference. That's a fact and I showed it mathematically. Your claim about the age of birth only makes sense if you take a sample of one. If you take a large sample it doesn't matter what age people are birthing children at. In a large population, you can't tell the difference between the age of women birthing children unless you want to look at it. To population growth 3.2 million children born look the same if the mothers are 40 or 20.

http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/handbook/c02cont.htm

And average age at which women bear their first child in USA has been continuously rising.

Again, I used the actual number of children a 1000 women in the US have at each stage in their fertility. THE ACTUAL NUMBER. It's impossible I didn't take it into account when you are using the numbers of births by AGE.

3) And finally your "model" cant predict the decline US Cencus predicts. You simply say they are wrong. But you never think there might be other variables other than the children born per 1000 fertile women.
You didn't claim a decline WILL come. You claimed they are already declining. I've proven this repeatedly wrong. Let's quote you shall we -

Now, the thing is, white women werent reproducing enough to replace population 20 years ago in the first place!

Whoops. I don't have to PREDICT to prove you wrong. I showed the that birthrate is above replacement levels NOW. And I showed how they calculate births, which if you check actually very closely matches the actual number of births in the year 2000 to the white population of the US.

Again, you arent qualified enough to reach such a conclusion yourself unless you got anthropology and/or genetics, etc...diploma and years of research in this area...Back your claims or just shut up...The question if race exists is under debate, there is no concensus in scientific community to support your claims....

Ha. I'm not? Are you joking? Race is a social construction. Yes, yes. I've seen these before. I can also find claims that ID is science and evolution is in dispute, but I think I'll treat them more than a little bit of incredulity. I notice you didn't actually link to any studies but simply the editorials. Hmmm... worried that me, with all my lack of qualification, will find a flaw in the methodology or could you simply not find an actual study.

You don't have the ability to assess my qualifications because you've shown time and again that you don't understand basic scientific methodology or statistical methodology for that matter. Stop with the ad hominems and make an actual argument.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html


http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=154

And dont dispute the source. If you go to the page, there is a link to the actual study...
No, there isn't. There is a link to the press release. Without the actual study I can't analyze their methodology. Editorials are meaningless without the data, which you did not provide.

See this is what a scientific paper looks like.
http://www.fiu.edu/~biology/pcb5665/RACEgen.pdf

Notice that it has references to 71 seperate studies and experiments. It's peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted. Feel free to provide something like that or debunk this one.

You showed to editorial articles, one by a person who admits his opinion up front, that show no actual evidence and rather just make claims. They are no more valuable than your own claims. Without support they are meaningless. Being in the world of science and engineering I know that credentials and qualifications are meaningless. All that matters is whether you are conducting science or not. You are caught up in the person and you'd make a better argument if you concentrated on the actual points.

Please stop feeding the Troll.

Although I agree with your end result, that we should act like there is no race, but that there is only a social construction that seperates us, I also suspect that if your point of view was held in the medical field it would do far more harm than good. Sickle Cell Anaemia for African descendants, Lyme disease among whites is about eleven times greater than that for African Americans, and Giardiasis is about twice as likely for European descendants than for African descendants. Among racial separation lines, the highest incidence rates of salmonellosis and shigellosis are found among American Indians and Alaskan Natives. If we were to 'really' try to pretend that there are no 'races at all' and thus no genetic differences, we would be no better than those that pretend the world is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary simply to meet their pre-conceived notions.

Actually, if you look at the current medical community a move is being made to analyze medical data on more than phenotypic qualities. This because there are many people with black ascendents who do not appear black and people with Jewish ascendents who do not know they are Jewish, etc. There are some genetic properties that are unique to a perticular type of genetic isolation but because we have always look at phenotypic properties we have treated exceptions as dismissable because we simply assumed they didn't know their ancestry. They are finding now that the reality is much more complicated.

We don't know when particular isolated genetic disorders occurred so we cannot know for sure whether those disorders are limited to the current population of an area or all decendents of the population of a particular area at some MUCH earlier time. Thus if for example it was found that Persians carried a particular genetic disorder then it would be found throughout europe, asia and africa in differing amounts if that disorder developed a few millenia ago. The previous views on racial genetic disorders ignored all data that disagreed with the conclusion because we weren't prepared to better analyze the data and the result seemed to work.

The reality is that those erroneous ways of looking at disease are similar to Newton's laws, they appeared to work so we didn't question when something suggested otherwise. Now we know better. Newton's laws are not accurate, but only accurate on a large enough scale. This is also true of racial genetic disorders or susceptiblity to disease. It's a bold new world. Don't get caught up in the fact that the old world is slow to change. This is normal for all new science.

Again, you arent qualified enough to reach such a conclusion yourself unless you got anthropology and/or genetics, etc...diploma and years of research in this area...Back your claims or just shut up...The question if race exists is under debate, there is no concensus in scientific community to support your claims....

As much as you love to ask for qualifications, you fail to present any of your own. So, as an anthropologist, three years of college education and three months fieldwork as my background, let me point out a few things about race.

Your first article linked to a Dr. Gill, who argues for race based upon shared physical characteristics, particularly skeletal biology. That does nothing more than show common physical traits between groups that share a common ancestry. There is no basis there for any societal separation of the kind you seem to attribute to Muslims and Europeans as a characteristic of race.

As for that second study, ignoring the admittedly biased nature of the source, without further information as to what the genetic cluster each race seemed to fall into were, I can't really tell you much. For all we know, the common cluster just determined skin color. Since the participants of the study self-identified themselves racially, it's likely that the common genetic clusters controlled purely physical features like the ones mentioned in the first study by Gill.

Both of these studies do nothing to help your case, however, or to justify your bias. You seem more caught up in the societal ramifications than the physical ramifications of population change. In that case, race doesn't apply, since the only proof you can offer for its existence relies on physical differences only. So, are you more concerned about white people's physical characteristics declining, or are you worried about the influence of Muslim culture on Europe?

Please stop feeding the Troll.

While he'll never admit that I have him nailed, others can see it and hopefully we will stop seeing myths claimed as reality in other threads. The MYTH of the white decline is based on projections that may or may not be true but the fact is that there is not current white decline. There is no evidence for it and all claims to contrary require one to simply ignore the real data on immigration, birth and death.

Again, you arent qualified enough to reach such a conclusion yourself unless you got anthropology and/or genetics, etc...diploma and years of research in this area...Back your claims or just shut up...The question if race exists is under debate, there is no concensus in scientific community to support your claims....

Why? As long as Jocabia can prove, and he has, that he understands the information he is discussing with you, how would a degree matter? He is obviously qualified to discuss it on the level of this thread. And you realize that the same could be said for you. Are you an anthropologist or genetist? Do you or have you ever worked for the U.S. Census Bureau? If not then you to are not qualified to debate this matter and should just shut up already.

But then I am really surprised that you are still trying to argue the matter after this many pages. You lost along time ago. Get over it and move on with your life. Christ on a pogo-stick, you are bloody awful stubborn!

:eek:
The mostly come at night... Mostly.

You go to bed white, but wake up muslim. And when you wake up, you'll find a person with your name and your face, and you'll cook and clean like crazy, but you won't take pictures and YOU WON'T BE YOU!

People are being replaced, duplicated. And once it happens to you, you're part of this... thing. It almost happened to me! Don't you see? They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...

:rolleyes:
LOL!! :fluffle:

I vote we end this party on the above-quoted happy note.

LOL!! :fluffle:

I vote we end this party on the above-quoted happy note.

Works for me. I have no fear that anyone is going to look in this thread and not see the inevitable fallibility of the original conclusion. Or maybe they'll just giggle.

:fluffle:

:eek:
The mostly come at night... Mostly.

You go to bed white, but wake up muslim. And when you wake up, you'll find a person with your name and your face, and you'll cook and clean like crazy, but you won't take pictures and YOU WON'T BE YOU!

People are being replaced, duplicated. And once it happens to you, you're part of this... thing. It almost happened to me! Don't you see? They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...

:rolleyes:
You win this thread.

That is all.

You win this thread.

That is all.
Yay! :D

Now let this thread rest in peace... Farewell, thread, farewell.
:fluffle:

You don't get it. There are real numbers. They are drawn by analyzing the population. We use them. You started with a number that is not real. The number of births you used does not match the number of births actually occurring or that have ever occurred in the US. The real number was closer to what I used and I demonstrated how the real numbers do represent an increasing population.


They are real numbers but you assume all live births reach to age of fertility which is wrong.


59 births per 1000 women does not reflect the actual birthrate and thus makes your calculation wrong. I used the real numbers with a slight skew to make up for not using an exponential formula that better reflects populatino because you're already struggling with the basic math. Your argument only worked to prove that if you reduce the ACTUAL birthrate in the US by 10% then you'll see a decline. However, since there is no evidence of the birthrate you used it makes the entire calculation meaningless.


You keep saying ACTUAL. But that "actual" birthrate takes acount neither infant mortality rates and other deaths before the age of fertility nor the avg age when women bear their 1st child.




No, I made no such assumption. I believe I said something like this - "1000 women have enough births to represent a 3% growth in population, normalizing for deaths and the just slight bias in births to men you get something that very closely matches the actual growth rate of the white population."


Of course you did that assumption, in your first calculation.



Actually, I absolutely did, since I used the actual number of birth to 1000 women in each phase of their life. Let's see where I did that -
"10 -14 in the US .5 birth per 1000 women - so as 1000 women travel from 10 to 14 they will have 2.5 children, averaging .5 children per year (10,11,12,13,14).
15-19 same 1000 women will have 38.3 per year for a total of 191.5.
We're up to 194 children by 19 years old.
20-24 - 100.6 per yer. So that's 503 for that five year period.
Hmmm..
We're already up to 697 children for these 1000 women and they are only 24 years old. I wonder if we can get up to 2000.
Let's see, shall we?
25-29 - 119.5 for 597.5 children in this period.
30-34 - 99.3 for 496.5 children in this period.
35-39 - 44.8 for 224 children in this five year period.
40-44 - 8.7 for 43.5 children in this period.
45-49 - .5 for 2.5 more children in that last five year period"
I also showed that when women have children makes no difference. That's a fact and I showed it mathematically. Your claim about the age of birth only makes sense if you take a sample of one. If you take a large sample it doesn't matter what age people are birthing children at. In a large population, you can't tell the difference between the age of women birthing children unless you want to look at it. To population growth 3.2 million children born look the same if the mothers are 40 or 20.


You either got absolutely no idea about population trends or you'd say anything just to prove yourself right OR both. You DIDNT analyse the effects of, for ex, what would happen if women give 60% of birth in their 20's or 30's. The results of such analysis is a variable in population projections. A variable you miss in all your calculations and claims. You just added up the numbers in different age groups. The bolded areas are especially funny. You know what average age when women bear their first child means? Average as in average in large population. :rolleyes:



Again, I used the actual number of children a 1000 women in the US have at each stage in their fertility. THE ACTUAL NUMBER. It's impossible I didn't take it into account when you are using the numbers of births by AGE.


Answered above. You repeat yourself, I try not to.


You didn't claim a decline WILL come. You claimed they are already declining. I've proven this repeatedly wrong. Let's quote you shall we -


Wrong as usual. You didnt get what I meant as usual. The fact that they werent reproducing enough doesnt mean the population will start declining with a clap of hand. The population will first stabilize, then decline as predicted by US Cencus. I said white population in US is in a declining trend, meaning they will decline if current trends continue...And the gains in USA isnt enough to cover losses in Europe anyway. AND even whites in USA will start declining IF current trends continue.



Whoops. I don't have to PREDICT to prove you wrong. I showed the that birthrate is above replacement levels NOW. And I showed how they calculate births, which if you check actually very closely matches the actual number of births in the year 2000 to the white population of the US.


You havent showed anything. Your calculation again assumes ALL women reaches the ages in one or more of these intervals 25-29 , 30-34 ,35-39 ,40-44 , 45-49. You start with 1000 women and end with 1000 women, which is wrong.


While he'll never admit that I have him nailed, others can see it and hopefully we will stop seeing myths claimed as reality in other threads. The MYTH of the white decline is based on projections that may or may not be true but the fact is that there is not current white decline. There is no evidence for it and all claims to contrary require one to simply ignore the real data on
immigration, birth and death.


MYTH? Is it a myth that many countries in europe got natural declining population that only are stable with immigration. Is it a myth some even got absolutely declining population. US cencus projections are harldy a myth, they are math calculations, not astrology. Just because you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong doesnt make them MYTH.
And which people think you are right? The ones that either dont and/or cant follow arguments or HIGHLY BIASEd people or both.
Now that I explained why your calculations are wrong, ALL YOUR CLAIMS in this thread and the previous HAS BEEN DEBUNKED. White population in the world is declining / in a declining trend.

*snip*

As...intresting a show this has been, I think the audience is satiated, curtain is close, lights out, janitors out in force, etc. Jocabia, you can resist a response this time can't you?

As...intresting a show this has been, I think the audience is satiated, curtain is close, lights out, janitors out in force, etc. Jocabia, you can resist a response this time can't you?

*droops head* Fine. You must know looking at his post how hard it is not to reply to it.

EDIT: You just know he's going to make the claim that he proved it in another thread. This thread may be done, but the argument will continue, I'm sure.

As...intresting a show this has been, I think the audience is satiated, curtain is close, lights out, janitors out in force, etc. Jocabia, you can resist a response this time can't you?

Aw, but it's been so much fun to watch!

Aw, but it's been so much fun to watch!

Yeah, but it's sorta stalled. I'm mean, originally it's been arguing somewhat abstract concepts, but now the meaning of a number is being disputed. A number! And here we were all along thinking that some things are objective. *shrug*

*droops head* Fine. You must know looking at his post how hard it is not to reply to it.

EDIT: You just know he's going to make the claim that he proved it in another thread. This thread may be done, but the argument will continue, I'm sure.

True, but then again, should it come to that...Well, I can't imagine that Ignore button was made for dust-collecting.

Yeah, but it's sorta stalled. I'm mean, originally it's been arguing somewhat abstract concepts, but now the meaning of a number is being disputed. A number! And here we were all along thinking that some things are objective. *shrug*

LOL. Yeah, I suppose. But watching Nordland get slapped around until he forgot his own point was interesting to see.

So give the thread Last Rites?

Friends, Relatives, Neighbors. We are gathered here today to write this damned thread off.....

Yeah, but it's sorta stalled. I'm mean, originally it's been arguing somewhat abstract concepts, but now the meaning of a number is being disputed. A number! And here we were all along thinking that some things are objective. *shrug*

Oh, no. Don't drag that here. As was stated in the other thread some people are going to argue that the average person does not have two legs, but you have to treat them as exceptions. Objective pretty much only applies to what reasonable people would see. ;)

LOL. Yeah, I suppose. But watching Nordland get slapped around until he forgot his own point was interesting to see.

So give the thread Last Rites?

Friends, Relatives, Neighbors. We are gathered here today to write this damned thread off.....

Shoot. When people write stuff like that, it makes me feel like a bully. I really need to start thinking about my place here. I truly don't want to be a bully.

Shoot. When people write stuff like that, it makes me feel like a bully. I really need to start thinking about my place here. I truly don't want to be a bully.

*shrug* I guess we gotta teach you how to pull off the peanut gallery routine then.

Definitely NOT a bully, my friend. I saw it as more winning the debate, hands down. Unfortunately, Ny is too stubborn to admit he cannot prove his thesis. And as you've become the NS pointman in slapping him down with logic......

*shrug* I guess we gotta teach you how to pull off the peanut gallery routine then.

I actually tried if you remember. But sometimes in my head I'm screaming, "why doesn't Dem just say this or GnI say that? The flaw it that guy's argument is so obvious and they're letting it ride." And then I feel something pop inside my cranium. I saw a study that said lurking on NS causes aneurisms. No, I don't have link, because I saw it on TV, but it's really. It is. I swear!

I actually tried if you remember. But sometimes in my head I'm screaming, "why doesn't Dem just say this or GnI say that? The flaw it that guy's argument is so obvious and they're letting it ride." And then I feel something pop inside my cranium. I saw a study that said lurking on NS causes aneurisms. No, I don't have link, because I saw it on TV, but it's really. It is. I swear!

Hmm...Clearly you require an avatar. Someone you converse with on the side, and tell 'em what they could post...

Hmm...Clearly you require an avatar. Someone you converse with on the side, and tell 'em what they could post...

What am I... A republican? (think about it)


Yes, but if I'm going to do so. I'm gonna pick someone nice. Oh, and pretty. *goes off to pick up his girlfriend up from the airport*

Note: I don't actually have to pick her up yet, but she'd be a perfect candidate because she would hardly ever be willing to post so it would have to be REALLY good.

*wakes the thread from summer tanning*

So one (1) person suggested you "slapped" me and you are saying this ever since?

I don't have to keep debunking the same flawed studies. Make a new argument and you'll hear a new argument. Since math isn't your strong suit it's sort of pointless to explain the mathematical flaws in your argument. I tried doing it for three weeks last summer. It ended with people begging me to stop embarrassing you. That time you were using the exact same arguments and evidence. What's changed? Nothing. So it's no less debunked than last summer.

Muhahahaha

*wakes the thread from summer tanning*Waking it from its grave, more likely...

*wakes the thread from summer tanning*

So one (1) person suggested you "slapped" me and you are saying this ever since?



Muhahahaha

Get a new routine, guy. This is getting so stale it can't even be used for breadcrumbs.

Ah, so the population decline is now so serious that one has to resort to grave-digging? Creepy... :eek: