Pakistan Adimst the Ruins

Note: Repost from the old blog.
Pakistan amidst the ruins. Read those figures over and tell me that she does not need socialism, and socialism, now. If the word socialism gives you the shivers, how about at least the socialism of Sri Lanka, which has managed to produce spectacular figures in all areas that Pakistan has so lacked. How can anyone possibly look at these kind of figures and tell me that capitalism works at all in the 3rd World?
They are just starting? Hell, they have had 60 years to practice. Enough already. Capitalism in South Asia is killing at least 8 million people every year, year and year out, no exceptions. That right there is an excellent reasons for Maoists across the subcontinent to take up arms to overthrow the existing system and put in whatever they choose.
Anything that kills fewer than 8 million a year is better than the status quo, right? So why worry about killing a few here and there? Is it worth killing a few to save a million? Of course it is, always was, always will be. Let us see the red flag fly over South Asia, not just Nepal.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

30 thoughts on “Pakistan Adimst the Ruins”

  1. RL:”Capitalism in South Asia is killing at least 8 million people every year, year and year out, no exceptions.”
    Good. Those places are massively overpopulated and thus many more of them need to die – the more the better.
    There are almost 180 million people crammed in to the rather smallish nation of Pakistan; over 1.1 billion near-worthless eaters living in India; and an amazing 160 something million people living in the tiny nation of Bangladesh.
    It’s disgusting how crowded those places are. There needs to be a massive die-off of many people over there, and soon. I’ll take a human die-off instead of near-permanent ecocide anytime…

    1. I personally think that the tsunami that hit southeast Asia was mother nature correcting the balance. Brown and black people just seem to populate without regard for the future. Eventually they will just run out of resources and mass starvation will occur. Even if the west saves them and provides them food the inevitable will only be delayed because they just continue to keep populating. It is tragic and sad that they are so stupid.
      Look at Ethiopia, it had all those starvation problems in the 80s right? Well, in 1994 the country had 53 million people. Now they have 85 million people! Eventually the poor masses of the world will populate so much that all the food grown in the whole Midwest of the US wouldn’t be enough to save them.

    2. It is a total lie that most of those nations are overpopulated. In fact, almost all of Africa is not the slightest bit overpopulated at all.
      However, WP is right that Pakistan, India and especially Bangladesh are quite overpopulated.
      Nevertheless, a socialist regime would not only reduce population growth a la China but would also dramatically reduce the growth rate. We can prove this by comparing China to India. India remaining capitalist has resulted in around 160 million excess deaths since 1949.

    3. They’re just as crowded as northwestern Europe, but no one would support a massive die-off on those regions or call them an ecological disaster today, although it would surely be the case in the past. South Asians need better and more efficient technologies, not a lot of dead people.

    4. To me overpopulation means that you are having more children then you can possibly ever take care of.
      Yes, Africa as a whole has lots of natural resources and the population density is a lot lower then a place like India. However, they keep populating at a unsustainable rate and we just keep sending more USAID their way.
      I don’t want to see them cut down forests and create more cities and all the other things that go along with a modern economy because it would do to much damage to the environment of the planet.
      The world may be able to sustain 300 million Americans and 700 million Europeans living the way we do but it certainly can not sustain 6.5 billion people living like Americans. For the record I think Americans consume too much and I think an European level of consumption is more in order.

    5. India started a mass sterilization program in the mid 70s around the same time as China did. At that time the population was approx. 650 million. They however did not execute it well and ruling politicians started to use it to target rivals and settle political scores. It soon fell out of favor with the public and the government fell. Successive administrations stayed clear of the issue. If it had been implemented successfully, their population would have stabilized at around 600 million by now and India might as well have joined China as a near developed nation.

    6. China is not a near developed nation in the traditional sense. Yes, it has industrial centers and exports a ton of cheap stuff to the US but it is still poor as hell.

    7. China is on average poorer than Latin America, it just happens they have like 4 times more people under a single government and that sole deed makes them automatically a “world power” of sorts.

  2. And apparently it seems appropiate to blame those dumb blacks and browns for breeding like rabbits, as if we would not have the Catholic Church discouraging natality control all over the Third World. And the Church highest hierarchy is overwhelmingly European, so there’s no one to scapegoat on here.

    1. No one forces you to be catholic. Are the black and brown people too stupid to make their own decisions about what religious sect to follow?
      Argentina is catholic and it is mostly white. It isn’t very rich either. Their birth rate isn’t very high though. How come white Hispanics have the brains to limit the amount of children they have but brown and black people don’t?

    2. Culture comes from race and ethnicity.
      White baptists in the southern US have a very religious and family oriented culture. You would think that they have like 5 or 6 children per female. The reality is that the TFR in the south for white people is around 2 children per female. How come they are able to overrule culture and have a sensible number of children?

    3. Argentina doesn’t have a particularly impressive low birth rate compared with other Hispanic countries with large Mestizo populations, such as Mexico, Brazil or Colombia, so the issue is not really about how white you are. It has more to do with the church having been forced to adopt a less militant stance on Latin America, much the same as it happened in Europe. In contrast, in Africa you have a quite aggressively proselitizing church, and lots of new converts convinced they have seen the light and eager to follow anything their new religion demands, no matter how irrational it be. That doesn’t have to see with “muds” being stupid, and for the record, “whites” used to have the same birth rates until fairly recently, just half or a century ago.

  3. Columbia had like 17 million people in the 60s. Now it has also 45 million. The is a huge increase.
    Mexico had like 30 million people in the 60s and now it has over 100 million. Lets not forget about all the Mexicans in the US which artificially decrease that number.
    Lately the birth rates have gone down in mestizo countries but that is only due to mass intervention by governments who are scared of overpopulation.
    Argentina has grown too but a lot of it is because of immigrants.
    White countries did have high birth rates in the past but even during the baby boom years the TFR in the US was around 3 children per women which is relatively low. White countries stopped having huge amounts of kids when modern medicine increased the chance that their kids would live longer. Brown and black people don’t seem to understand that.

    1. People have children for a number of reasons. Rural people would have more children than urban ones as they could get them to work on the farms. More work translated into more produce. As farms became mechanized and land scarce, the birth rates dropped. In non-white countries, there is no concept of social security. Children form parents’ support network when they are old. Even in those countries, people who live in the cities and hold jobs that pay some kind of retirement pension, have fewer children than their rural counterparts. Cultural norms and societal factors also play a part. In some cultures if you don’t get married by the age of 25 and have children, people think something must be wrong with you. Education (that influences financial success in addition to reasoning abilities) plays a major role as well. The higher educated a person is, the lesser the number of children he/she has. As literacy rates grow, fertility rates drop.

    2. I’ve heard all these argument before.
      The issue is that people have always had lots of kids in the past. However, medicine was horrible so a good chunk of the children died some time before they themselves had children. The population didn’t grow a lot until medicine (provided by white people) gave all those children better odds at living a longer life.
      Brown and black people were getting along relatively fine in regard to all the statements and justifications you made when infant mortality was high and when it was known that some children wouldn’t make it to adulthood. So why didn’t they adjust their breeding habits accordingly as it became apparent that less children were dying because of medical advances?

    3. @ Tom, August 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm,
      In the west the medical advances of the 50s coincided with uptick of education/literacy amongst the females. as well as advent of birth control. This afforded women more independence and put them in control of their bodies. People like to have sex, and men in particular want to do it without condoms as condoms decrease their pleasure. Women still have the choice of popping birth control pills even if they are not in a position to refuse sex with condoms. In other places they could get the medicine/vaccinations for their kids but the other cultural elements remained the same i.e. no empowerment/education for women and no knowledge of or access to birth control.

    4. It doesn’t take that much education to realize you can’t support another child.
      Even in the past when westerners had bigger families they still were not as big as the families 3rd worlders had.
      Up until recent times Russia always had high birth rates. A couple hundred years ago India exceeded it in total population because they had even more children!

    5. Whether or not this is true is completely irrelevant, Tom. Truth is that as you educate women more and more, the birth rate tends to go down. Now whether or not women should need to be educated to figure this out is not the point. The point that in the 3rd World at least that’s just the way it goes.
      As you can see on the link, in a number of Indian states, we are already at below replacement birthrates. So clearly there’s nothing about Indians as a race, such as stupidity, that is making them have tons of kids. They are clearly capable of having few kids. It’s also related to wealth. Poor countries have high birthrates, but as countries get richer, the birth rates tend to go way down.
      Weren’t you the guy decrying low birth rates in
      White countries just a few posts ago?

    6. The following is the fertility rates breakdown by race/ethnicity in the US:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Birth_rate
      Total fertility rate
      2.1 children born/woman (2008 est.)[50]
      * Hispanics: 3.0
      * African Americans: 2.2
      * White Americans: 2.0
      * Asian and Pacific Islanders: 1.9[53]
      Hispanics have a much higher fertility rate than blacks even though they are more civilized. This might have something to do with the opposition of catholics to abortion.
      This is the historical breakdown:
      2.06 children born/women (2000)
      2.08 children born/women (1990)
      1.83 children born/women (1980)
      2.48 children born/women (1970)
      3.65 children born/women (1960)
      3.10 children born/women (1950)
      The US peaked in the 1950s (when the population was much whiter) but came down drastically in the 70s. The current fertility rate of 2.72 in India is about the same as that of US in the 60s. It is just that their population is so high that ideally they should have zero birth rate for the next five decades.

    7. Amazing, those idiot Black and Brown Hispanics have lower birth rates than those superior Whites of 1960! Who would have thunk it?
      I understand that the Hispanic rate is high due to recent immigrants. If you take away recent immigrants, it is not that high, something like 2.3 or so. The US Black rate is not that high at all at 2.2, barely above replacement.
      Hispanic culture is very pro-natalist. If you don’t have kids by a certain age, it is seen that there is something very seriously wrong with you. They also really love kids and family stuff.
      The White birth rate in the 1950’s at 3.65 is insanely high. That’s not healthy at all. Do you figure that Whites suddenly got a lot smarter from 1950’s to present?

    8. “Weren’t you the guy decrying low birth rates in
      White countries just a few posts ago?”
      White people can afford to have 2 or 3 children. We have resources. Poor 3rd world countries can’t afford to have as many children as they do. That is the issue.
      Also, European countries are having less then 2 children per female which is going to cause serious social problems in the coming years.
      I understand every point you guys have made about how to get birth rates lower.
      However, brown and black people couldn’t figure all that out on their own; it took white people to figure it out and tell them how to get birth rates lower. Even that is too little, too late for a place like India.
      Also even when birth rates were high in the western world in the past they still were not as high as they were in the 3rd world. Russia would have had like 500,000 million people in 1900 if they populated like East Indians.
      BTW: The reason the black birth rate in the US is as low as it is because black people have a ton more abortions relative to their size then any other ethnic group.

    9. Here are the historic estimates and future projections of world population by region (maps are scaled by population instead of land area):
      India and China had huge populations since the very beginning of the 1st millennium. Their growth rates have been higher relative to that of whites but the ratio has more or less held stable until 1960s after which it increases.
      Year 1:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=7
      Year 1500:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=8
      Year 1900:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=9
      Year 1960:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=10
      Year 2050:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11
      Year 2300:
      http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=12

  4. Here are the historic estimates and future projections of world population by region (maps are scaled by population instead of land area):
    India and China had huge populations since the very beginning of the 1st millennium. Their growth rates have been higher relative to that of whites but the ratio has more or less held stable until 1960s after which it increases.
    http://www.worldmapper.org/textindex/text_index.html

  5. Wow, some really racist comments here towrads Indian, Asians and blacks. India and China have dominated history. For much of history, until the 18th century, the two countries (kingdoms within it) have been the richest in the world in terms of GDP.
    And if all predictions come true, India and China together will account for almost 60% of the world output in not too distant future (in a few decades). A single country like China will be almost as rich as the US and the EU put together.

  6. But under Maoism, a country does not progress. A country needs to be a mixed economy with mainly capitalist tendencies but with social responsibilty. You need to enocurage entrepreneurialism.
    For 40 years after independece, India, under very socialist policies, did not make any progress and was progressing at the so-called ‘Hindu rate of growth’ of about 2-3%, but since 1991 (liberalisation) it has been averaging 6% and likely to average over 8% or so over the next couple of decades with some years easily topping double digit growth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *