World Population Clock

Here.
Great website. Watch the world’s population climb inexorably upwards!
You can set it to see the whole world’s population (a truly terrifying clock that increases seemingly about 3 human beings per second), or you can set it per nation. The nation clocks generally do not climb very fast, in fact, most of them climb so slowly that you can’t even watch them go up in the time a normal patient person would logically sit in front of the clock. The number of nations that grow by more than one human being per minute is not large at all.
And it is true that a number of nations (including some that would really surprise you) are either hardly growing at all, are basically flat or are even losing population.
Many nations in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, are actually losing population. Nations in Western Europe tend to be gaining population but at a much slower rate, probably almost all due to immigration. Among the West European nations, Italy is losing population.
It is claimed that Communism caused East Europe and the former USSR to lose population, but as far as I can tell, the population losses happened after the move to capitalism and not before. At any rate, if Communism causes negative population growth, I would say that that is one thing in its favor!
In Latin America, Cuba is actually losing population. Rightwing liars claim that this is because so many young people leave the island, but that’s not true.
It’s because it is developing the population structure typical of a 1st world country. First world countries tend to develop negative population growth after a bit. Cuba’s population is aging in a typical First World trend. This is due to great medical care and general high quality of life.
Not that many young people leave Cuba in the first place, and when they do, they almost all go to the US. It is fascinating that Cubans only want to go to the US. For some reason, they shun the capitalist workers’ paradises of Latin America. Now why is that? Also, a huge number of the young of Mexico and even Central America leave their countries (also to come to the US just like the Cubans do), but their populations continue to grow.
So obviously, Cubans aging population and negative population growth are not caused by the propaganda lie of “all the young people are leaving.”
When your survival and whatnot is pretty much assured and women are educated, women get smart and don’t have many kids. Many 3rd World nations lack social security (even Communist China to their discredit), so people have lots of kids to take care of them in their old age. Others have lots of kids to have free labor to help on their small farm plots.
Women are not educated in many 3rd world countries and birth control is not widely available. Many such nations are under oppressive macho patriarchy in which men feel that having more kids makes them more masculine.
Check out the clocks of India and China if you really want to scare yourself.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

93 thoughts on “World Population Clock”

  1. (1) All the European socialist countries had replacement or near replacement level fertility rates until the early 1990’s.
    (2) They collapsed under the transition for various reasons, but most concur that it was due to the drop in living standards and frayed social safety nets.
    (3) Mortality rose in some countries (most notably the Slavic parts of the USSR) but it was not a result of capitalism but of the removal of the government’s monopoly on vodka production. It became a lot cheaper.
    (4) Since the 2000’s, mortality has improved in these countries – most notably in the Baltics, and more recently in Russia. In some fertility rates partially recovered (e.g. Estonia, Russia, Czech Republic) and in others they didn’t (e.g. Latvia, Poland, Hungary).

    1. were the fertility rates lower in the 90’s when there was probably more uncertainty and turbulence or have they stayed just as low?

        1. Like the murder rates peaked then went down. I guess the economy was bad and there was political uncertainty (right?), turbulence and lack of security. You can see why people wouldn’t have kids.

  2. Shit China has nearly a billion more people than America. Seeing it like that just brings it home. The Chinese economy could grow to dwarf America’s like America’s dwarfs Britain’s, by sheer numbers. You just know that the Chinese are capable. And that’s where power comes from. Scary?
    Even if you think India is a monumental fuck up, the growth potential is still vast and mostly untapped. They have been growing at quite a rate for quite a number of years now. At this rate, they are overtaking America by mid century. Scary? And if you think they are preening about being a superpower now wait until they are the second biggest economy in the world!
    The power is shifting to Asia purely by demographics (and by the Chinese being awesome).
    Scary or exciting?

      1. A handful of lurid photos, with accompanying anecdotal commentary, proves nothing.
        India will continue its rise. It will take a while. They have their own very challenging set of problems that will take decades to work out. But work out they will, eventually. What do you expect? They are clawing their way up from dirt poverty and many decades of extractive exploitation by the West/North, combined with their own dreadful cultural retardation (the caste system, etc.). It takes a LONG time to recover from that kind of situation. China is doing it, with the (great) assistance of socialistic (Mao era) and semi-socialistic (since Mao) national structure and centrally directed strategy (not tactics; STRATEGY). India could in fact learn a lot from China.
        Re-check mid-century, and things will look a lot different.

        1. Look, honestly, I hope you are right.
          But as of right now, India is a TOILET. It’s basically the TOILET of humanity and of the entire planet.
          Obviously that needs to change, but India’s probably been a TOILET since time immemorial, so one wonders if change is even possible.

        2. Robert, in the middle ages English town streets were full of shit, piss and rotting vegetables. I am tempted to think the streets of London in the 12th century were worse than Indian streets today (apart from where there are chemicals). So I doubt India was always the toilet of the world. A lot of places were openly shitty at one time, including western Europe They’re just VERY slow to catch on lol.
          Poor Indians (most of them) really need to be taught about germs and what is absolutely not acceptable, then given toilets and inculcated with a sense of shame about shitting in the street. I don’t believe in cultural relativity when it comes to this- they need to get with the programme, and fast.

        3. India will have some bad problems for a long time and a lot of poverty for a long time but that wont stop the economy from growing and incomes from rising. I guess its not guaranteed to succeed as a nation at this point and the preening about superpower status is absurdly premature but still, there is a trend of growth that is likely to continue. Sheer weight of numbers means there’s a real possibility India overtakes America one day, not in per capita measures but overall. And that gives India real power, even though it will live in the shadow of China.
          Again, India and China are in a different class. Look at the last PISA scores. Shanghai and Hong Kong came first and second or very near the top and the two regions of India came last and second to last. Now India has withdrawn to save embarrassment.

        4. Alanj Is back this moron who hides behind christian name is epitome of degeneracy and filth that basically came out india since past 10000 years
          Moreover ground water reserves in India are shrinking,Sooner or later India will collapse into anarchy ,ethnic riots
          Northeast will split itself from this degenerate bastardized nation, other states will soon follow as indians are all about hype and no substance they will continue to repeat their Goebbels Lies and Society ,ecology and every thing deteriotes to the point where everything becomes irreversible
          The mineral resources which are mined from india forest regions are not going to come back. Much of the forest land is used for mining and dumping industrial waste
          The ecology will destroyed,draught and Food riots will erode social structures
          India will become a cessapol of corruption and Degeneracy which no human in the world would ever witness
          Most indians are already realizing and are migrating away from this gigantic Toilet which only Hindu idiots have created in just 65 years of their rule
          There must be a reason why hindus could not sustain their rule in subcontinent for longer duration because when ever they have managed to rule some part of india they have created a degenerate society full of filth and Hippocratic social structure
          India must be opened up like Iraq and Syria
          We need 4th generation war in India

      2. This is what Indians are
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApQlMm39xr0
        This guy is Commissioner of Indian Income Tax Department-Equivalent of IRS in USA
        Look at this guy he talks 10 minutes of senseless talk with full confidence as if he knows something
        Look how confidently he lies and shows his stupidity
        Indians are not even ashamed to acknowledge that they lack everything instead they boast like the commissioner in this video
        Infact many indians believe that this guy is speaking truth
        Thats how delusional these morons are, and tomorrow if a guy who is expert in cloud computing ,Saas,Paas comes and gives a lecture indians will laugh at him
        If this this status of Top most commissioner in India , imagine the bottom ladder morons

  3. “Watch the world’s population climb inexorably upwards!”
    Actually, EXORABLY (haha) upwards. The rate of growth is falling off a cliff. Should level out by mid-century.
    “When your survival and whatnot is pretty much assured and women are educated, women get smart and don’t have many kids.”
    Exactly. Existential insecurity = high fertility. The Malthusian “let ’em die!” approach does not work. Strangely enough, the opposite approach DOES work. Want lower population? Simple. Feed ’em, clothe ’em, etc., then wait a century. Presto! Lower population.
    “Many 3rd World nations lack social security (even Communist China to their discredit), so people have lots of kids to take care of them in their old age”
    Yes, but isn’t it odd that China’s fertility has now fallen BELOW replacement? I think it goes to show how modest an increase in general development and SES/GDP it takes to have a pronounced effect on fertility. China’s per capita GDP is only about $5000, and yet they are already below replacement! As they rise toward $10,000 — and as the poorer rurals are lifted up — it will go even more negative, probably. India is headed in the same direction, though they are still slightly above replacement. They are like China, but 20-30 years behind.

    1. “Yes, but isn’t it odd that China’s fertility has now fallen BELOW replacement?”
      Not at all. Its called the one child policy. They can relax the restrictions any time and fertility will rise. China is still pretty low income for most people, though that is changing fast. One day, when China is more developed, they will probably be able to take the restrictions away to a large extent of completely. Or maybe one day it will be a two child policy.
      A Chinese professor told me there is concern about the effects of the one child policy in terms of only children not learning team work etc.

      1. me: “Yes, but isn’t it odd that China’s fertility has now fallen BELOW replacement?”
        Steve: “Not at all. Its called the one child policy.”
        No. The one child policy was a late adjunct to the process that had already taken fertility down from 6+ to under 3. The one child policy has had an additive effect, surely, but it accounts for only a minor fraction of the total decline. But it is the thing that everyone points to as an explanation. They point to it because they’ve never seen a chart showing china’s fertility decline, as it fell off a cliff well BEFORE the one child policy.
        The real explanation for (the bulk of) China’s fertility decline is the same, apparently, as everywhere else: improved general development (i.e. emergence from dirt poverty), higher SES and per capita GDP, urbanization, education, etc. — and they all go together. Hard to tease out any one thing as the key thing, though attempts are made.

        1. [This is a reply to steve’s request below. How come the “reply” buttons disappear after a certain depth?]
          “Link us a chart!”
          Sure thing. alan2102’s assertions are ALWAYS backed by SCADS OF HARD DATA and EXPERT OPINION! 🙂
          Fertility drop off from 5-6 to under 2.5 BEFORE one-child:
          http://www.china-mike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/china-fertility-rate-chart.gif
          article context:
          http://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/society/one-child-policy/
          ……………………………
          ALSO, I give you this; emphases are mine:
          http://www.economist.com/node/18651512
          The most surprising demographic crisis
          “Does China have enough people? The question might seem absurd. The country has long been famous both for having the world’s largest population and for having taken draconian measures to restrain its growth. Though many people, Chinese and outsiders alike, have looked aghast at the brutal and coercive excesses of the one-child policy, there has also often been a grudging acknowledgment that China needed to do something to keep its vast numbers in check.”
          […snip…]
          “Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Centre for Public Policy, argues that China’s demographic pattern had already changed dramatically by the time the one-child policy began in 1980. THE TOTAL FERTILITY RATE HAD BEEN 5.8 IN 1950, he notes, AND HAD DECLINED SHARPLY TO 2.3 BY 1980, just above replacement level. Other countries achieved similar declines in fertility during the same period.”
          “The crucial influences, Mr Wang reckons, are the benefits of development, including better health care and sharp drops in high infant-mortality rates which led people to have many children in order to ensure that at least some would survive. By implication, COERCIVE CONTROLS HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH LOWERING FERTILITY, WHICH WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY.”
          

    2. the fact that the majority of Indians are dirt poor and the fertility rate is only just above replacement is surprising. There must be another explanation than development, right? Development for most Indians so far has meant going from really really really poor to really really poor. If poverty means churning out kids, shouldn’t they be churning out more kids?

      1. My answer, and I might be wrong, is: it doesn’t take much. Per capita GDP, that is, which for India is about $1600 — quite low. But not abysmally low. The abysmally low places are where the fertility is super high, like 4, 5 and 6. Raise the GDP to some not-horrendously-low level and, bingo! Fertility starts declining. For India it is around 2.8 or 2.9 I believe. And falling. They have a ways to go. As they develop, it will decline down to sub-replacement, like China (under 2.0). Or so I think. But who the hell am I, anyway? 🙂

        1. hmmm “In 2011, World Bank stated, 32.7%* of the total Indian people falls below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day.” From wiki, with this reference:
          http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND
          *this is actually good progress.
          Wow, that’s still a lot of poverty.
          Come to think of it though, I don’t really see why urban poor would have a lot of kids when they clearly cost a ton of money. ??
          Maybe the high fertility rates when the west had a lot of poor people was also because they didn’t have contraceptives? Could some of these fertility declines be due to contraceptives becoming more widespread?

  4. “combined with their own dreadful cultural retardation (the caste system, etc.)”
    caste system gave way to caste quotas.
    “women get smart and don’t have many kids”
    men get stupid and give away their power without getting anything in return. The dysgenic effects of educating women and the herd stupidity that then follows in the culture shut everything down.
    “Yes, but isn’t it odd that China’s fertility has now fallen BELOW replacement? ”
    It has been below replacement for decades,

  5. Can the world take the strain of the developed world reaching Western European levels of wealth, just so we can reverse this population trend? Bearing in mind that the population of the rich countries is small in comparison to those of the developing world. I think not.
    There has to be some serious thought put into global population management before any choices we do have are taken away by war or famine or disease or climate and quite possibly all four at the same time.
    Is the answer a global one child policy? Should there be parenting licences given out on merit ? i.e intelligence, occupation, genetic health, athletic ability, maybe even physical aesthetics etc.
    Perhaps enforced vasectomies for men of i.q of 100 or less after having their first child, two children for men of up to 150 i.q, and three or more children for men of i.q 150 and above.
    There will also be some stagnation of ideas as the population reduces. Considering that innovation is tightly connected with youth, should we perhaps have a higher birth rate and thus more idea’s, by controlling the age the population dies with involuntary euthanasia.
    Some of these points may be extreme and may not even be possible on a global scale. I suppose the point is would they be better for our survival or will we keep stumbling blindly/greedily towards catastrophe.
    Can I also say I’m not a Nazi or eugenicist or anything like that, I have compassion for all beings. It’s a sincere hope for not only our own survival but the rest of the plants and animals that we share the Earth with that has made me come to some of these idea’s.
    Hopefully, science will spare us having to make any of these choices.

    1. “Can the world take the strain of the developed world reaching Western European levels of wealth, just so we can reverse this population trend?”
      No, the world cannot take the strain. But, fortunately, it doesn’t have to. It is not necessary to raise less-developed world GDP to anywhere near OECD levels in order for them (and all of us) to have all the desirable stuff: us (i.e. all humanity) the plateauing and later decline of population, and thus less environmental and resource stress, and them the numerous advantages of not being miserably poor. We can argue about the exact level that is most appropriate, but I suggest it is in the neighborhood of $10,000 U.S. (2012), give or take. The interesting thing is that as you go much past $15,000 or 20,000, the benefits (including overall happiness, satisfaction in life, etc.) start falling off; i.e. no further gains, whereas the environmental and resource stress just zoom upward. If you go much below $10,000, say under $5000, then you wind up with the numerous problems of underdevelopment: insufficient medical care, poorer nutrition, inadequate education, etc., etc. I say that $10K is the APPROXIMATE sweet-spot; maybe better as a range: $5,000-15,000. The people of the less-developed world should be raised toward that, and the people of the developed world need a pay cut, which we’ll soon be getting. It’s OK. We’ve been too rich for a long time.
      Interestingly enough, $50,000 annual income is the approximate dividing line, globally, for the 1%/99%. Over that, and you’re in the 1%.
      See: http://globalrichlist.com/

      1. Also interesting: $850 income is the precise midpoint, at which half the people in the world are poorer than you, and half richer (in terms of income). $850 income is abysmally poor. Obviously the midpoint ought to be much higher, in a world as brimming with wealth as is ours.

      2. “We can argue about the exact level that is most appropriate, but I suggest it is in the neighborhood of $10,000 U.S. (2012), give or take. The interesting thing is that as you go much past $15,000 or 20,000, the benefits (including overall happiness, satisfaction in life, etc.) start falling off”
        Well, I’d be all for that but I don’t think it goes far enough. We also need a significant population reduction. One of the things I worry about though is, does materialism drive creativity or is it a by product of creativity. So, if we reduce our consumption will we reduce our innovation? I hope not.

        1. “We also need a significant population reduction.”
          We’ll get it. But it will take a century or two. “Demographic momentum” is why it takes so darn long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum
          Meanwhile, the way to reduce environmental and resource stress is very clear: reduce consumption. Particularly the consumption of the 1%, and most particularly the 0.1% — i.e. the REALLY rich.
          Kempf, in his book described below, comes to the same conclusion I have come to: that consumption is THE issue — the one we can really do something about. Population changes are necessary, but too slow to impact things over the next century; and besides, with the exception of Africa and a few other places, we’ve already done what we can do on that score (you cannot improve on sub-replacement fertility!). The population picture is largely a done deal, for many decades hence.
          But we CAN do two things, in the interim: 1) reign-in the profligate consumption of the rich, i.e. the 1% (which includes the majority in the OECD countries), and/or 2) drastically increase efficiency of resource use, as suggested and well-documented in the book Factor 5: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity. This book describes how we could all enjoy equivalent material benefits for about 20% of current resource and environmental costs. See link below, or bing for it.
          ……………………
          “Its not that there’s too many people on the planet. Its that there’s too many RICH people on the planet”. — Paul Ehrlich [here here, Paul!]
          …………………..
          http://www.truthout.org/article/how-rich-are-destroying-planet
          How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet: A Review
          By Leslie Thatcher
          Thursday 15 March 2007
          “The book’s central thesis [is] that the ‘oligarchy,’ a global stateless class composed of the hyper-rich and the ‘new Nomenklatura,’ is responsible for our species’ headlong rush to environmental destruction, both indirectly, through the rest of society’s attempts to imitate and emulate their wasteful habits of conspicuous consumption, and directly, through their control of the levers of power, all presently fixed at the ‘Catastrophe’ setting’.”
          […snip…]
          Globally, wealth is an indicator of status and the social stimulus of emulation and imitation creates limitless ‘needs.’ Drawing on Veblen’s ‘Theory of the Leisure Classes,’ Kempf suggests that production is adequate, but consumption is excessive as oligarchs vie with one another in sumptuary competition and EVERY SOCIAL STRATUM BENEATH DOES THE SAME.” [emphasis added]
          “[S]ince justice demands that the consumption of the poorest be increased, ‘the rich have to consume less.’ That last requirement would appear to apply to me and to almost anyone reading these words online.”
          …………………..
          http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/F500Introduction.pdf
          FACTOR 5: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity
          Introduction: Factor 5 – The Global Imperative
          By Ernst von Weizsäcker
          

        2. “We also need a significant population reduction.”
          why? We could have a significantly reduced population and still fuck the environment. Or we could have 3 billion more people an live on earth in harmony. It depends what we do as much as how many of us there are.

    2. If you have compassion for all beings, forget about involuntary euthanasia. That doesn’t just sound Nazi. That is one upping the Nazis! Its fucked up.

      1. well you probably can’t really say its one upping the holocaust but its fucked up. Imagine seeing your mum off to be killed or knowing when you will die if you don’t die sooner. Dystopian! This is some kind of extremist mentality. You go down that road and you’re just not making the world a better, wiser place. Its not even necessary in any way anyway. Just restrict births if you really have to or make a better effort to switch to renewables.

        1. Always find an alternative because its just 100% not right. As is sterilizing low IQ people.
          Eugenics is interesting though, as long as it doesn’t involve killing people or sterilizing them. Maybe you could just allow higher IQ people to have *more* kids and do it more gently like that. However, its still pretty dodgy on ethical grounds. I think it wont be necessary anyway, as we will be able to just genetically engineer babies, thus making selective breeding crude and redundant. I’m not sure what i think of that either though. I think its good for some things like if there was an OCD genes that could be eliminated, but I don’t know how far it should be taken..
          As for the industrialization of India and China vis a vis global warming, that’s an interesting issue too. The population of the world is predicted to stop growing around 9 billion I think at some point this century. But India and China, even if they stop growing in population, will still be emitting a lot more greenhouse gases as they develop That could be enough to cause big problems at the present population level. The whole world will be emitting greenhouse gasses for a long time and there is a lot more available oil than was thought a few years ago. I don’t know what the answer to this is.
          I’m not even sure what is going on with the science anymore. Apparently there hasn’t been warming since ’98. ??
          If there is anthropogenic global warming, we need to get clear about it and do our best to switch to alternatives.

        2. “Imagine seeing your mum off to be killed or knowing when you will die if you don’t die sooner.Dystopian!”
          I’m not too comfortable with it to be honest and I reckon it would probably cause too much trouble to be implemented. But from a purely logical view, without emotion, senior citizens have passed their genes on and have long passed their creative peak, freeing the resources they would use in their old age would allow more younger generations without the environmental strain. In a world that was on the brink and needed a quick turn over of idea’s and also a steady population, it might be a solution.
          But, we’re emotional animals so your mum is safe.To be honest all those idea’s are just talking points because I don’t think we’re capable of acting on any of them.

        3. @brengunn
          To do that would screw us all up. It would ruin our happiness and make monsters of us. Its not the solution anyway. If we got that desperate, there are far more effective measures. We could do things like ration energy, control births, and make a serious effort to move to alternative energy sources and green transport. We could possibly turn vegetarian, which would free up a lot of land and drastically reduce emissions.
          a) its what we do, how we live on this earth that counts more than our numbers. b) we don’t especially need more innovations, though they could be useful. We have most of the solutions already. We just don’t implement them.

        4. numbers matter too but reducing numbers is not the only way to reduce emissions. It could be done other ways just as or more effectively. Besides,less than 8% of the global population is over 65. Transport and industry would still be largely in tact.

      2. There’s also the practical problem of the huge numbers involved. Want to control population by killing people? OK, let’s get started. First, we’ll have to kill 70 million a year just to wipe out the new arrivals and get level. Then, to make a dent in the existing 7 billion would require killing another 50 million a year at minimum, which is only 500 million (a half billion) per decade. That would be 120 million per year, total killed. At that rate, we could reduce population to under 3 billion in perhaps 50 years — a long time. 120 million per year… how? That’s a HUGE undertaking, like 20 Nazi holocausts EVERY YEAR. Apart from it being monstrous and outrageously immoral, it would be impossible. Just no possible way, volitionally. The only way it could happen would be some doomsday scenario: climate change goes into overdrive and causes massive and continuous crop failures; asteroid hits earth and wipes out everything; all-out nuclear war and total destruction of infrastructure; etc.

        1. “The book’s central thesis [is] that the ‘oligarchy,’ a global stateless class composed of the hyper-rich and the ‘new Nomenklatura,’ is responsible for our species’ headlong rush to environmental destruction, both indirectly, through the rest of society’s attempts to imitate and emulate their wasteful habits of conspicuous consumption, and directly, through their control of the levers of power, all presently fixed at the ‘Catastrophe’ setting’.”
          That’s a load of simplistic nonsense. All it does is absolve people of guilt for the lives they live and allows them to pin the blame on the dreaded
          1%. To characterize the motivations of 99% of the human race as nothing more than aping the mega-rich is silly. No, I feel that conspicuous consumption has a deeper,evolutionary reason. It happens within all strata of society and has always happened. Even, were we to execute not only the top 1% but the top 10% just to make sure, their place at the trough would be filled in no time. It is a part of human nature, one we urgently need to work on.

        2. @ Brengunn good comment. Its not simplistic. But our headlong rush to environmental destruction (if anthropogenic global warming is true and if the worst case scenario of that is true) is largely because fossil fuels are our main energy source. We could arguably manufacture and consume as much as we do if we were powering it with clean energy. So the question is this: are the elites, the super rich and politicians, keeping us reliant on oil and inhibiting/discouraging our transition to other forms of energy? Have they done this in any way?
          Several of the largest companies in the world are oil companies. There are some very rich and powerful people with vested interests and enormous financial incentives to keep us reliant on oil. Oil is called liquid gold for a reason.
          Then there are car companies etc. There are now viable green cars and the technology is largely not being put into use. This is one of the most interesting areas.
          This is an interesting question but again, I don’t think the answer is simplistic. I’m sure there are some good practical reasons why fossil fuels are popular. Plus the infrastructure is already in place for historical reasons. (And its not like there have been no efforts to introduce alternative energy generation).

        3. brengun:
          “That’s a load of simplistic nonsense. All it does is absolve people of guilt for the lives they live and allows them to pin the blame on the dreaded
          1%.”
          That’s a load of content-free bluster. The reality is that it IS the 1% that is responsible for almost all of the environmental destruction and resource overuse. Anyone with an income over about $50K is, as I pointed out, in the 1%. Perhaps we should extend that to 2%, thereby getting down to $30K. Whatever. The point stands: there is a strata of several hundred million people who use FAR more than their global share, and who are using up resources FAR faster than is sustainable. Further, it is quite unnecessary. They don’t need to use that much shit; they could live happily (probably MORE happily) without it. Correspondingly, people who live on (say) $3 per day — i.e., clearly in the 99% — are NOT consuming more than their global share, and are NOT using resources at an unsustainable rate. Do you really think that that contingent of 3+ billion should be blamed?! You are the one who is “absolving people [like yourself, perhaps?] of guilt”.
          Am I pinning the blame on the dreaded 1%? You’re fucking RIGHT I am!
          That’s not to say that everyone in the 1% is equally to blame. It only says what it says.
          “To characterize the motivations of 99% of the human race as nothing more than aping the mega-rich is silly.”
          Since when is an obvious fact “silly”? People respond to the images of “success” and “wealth” that they are exposed to. That’s not to say that, without those images and impressions, no one would ever want more stuff. It is only to say what it says. It cannot be denied, and indeed a gigantic industry, which you might have heard of, is based on it. It is called: “advertising”.
          “I feel that conspicuous consumption has a deeper,evolutionary reason.”
          Perhaps it does. That is no reason to disparage obvious facts as “silly”.

        4. @ steve,
          “The book’s central thesis [is] that the ‘oligarchy,’ a global stateless class composed of the hyper-rich and the ‘new Nomenklatura,’ is responsible for our species’ headlong rush to environmental destruction, both indirectly, through the rest of society’s attempts to imitate and emulate their wasteful habits of conspicuous consumption, and directly, through their control of the levers of power, all presently fixed at the ‘Catastrophe’ setting’.”
          I specifically meant the first part of the statement being simplistic, that we are all aping the super rich. I ran out of steam before I could write about the second part but you’ve basically covered it. The rich obviously control the media, politics, business, etc. They also have, as you said, vested interests in keeping the fossil fuel industry going, hence all this climate denial nonsense.
          I can’t say anything about the new technologies because I don’t know if they’re viable now or will be soon. I know nothing about them really.

        5. @alan2102
          ” The reality is that it IS the 1% that is responsible for almost all of the environmental destruction and resource overuse. Do you really think that that contingent of 3+ billion should be blamed?! You are the one who is “absolving people [like yourself, perhaps?] of guilt”. ”
          I think you have misunderstood my post. The ‘1%’ is a great sound bite and it allows liberal students all over the Western world to be filled with righteous anger, which is great. But it ignores the fact that avarice is inherently a human trait and it is prominent in all societies and all classes. To wage wars on the 1% would just see them replaced and replaced again and replaced again. It would never solve the greater problem of our greed. So yes, blame them but blame yourself too.
          “To characterize the motivations of 99% of the human race as nothing more than aping the mega-rich is silly.”
          “Since when is an obvious fact “silly”? ”
          Well, if all us poor sods are aping the rich and their lavish consumption, who are the rich aping? No one? Does that mean that they are all free thinking individuals above the laws of nature while the rest of us are vassals, driven by instinct and the appeasement of our betters. No, we are not. In fact, we all share the same motivations, both rich and poor, only the scale is different.

        6. “The ’1%’ is a great sound bite and it allows liberal students all over the Western world to be filled with righteous anger, which is great.”
          Actually, it is not all that great, because those very students do not, often, understand the global situation, and the way in which many if not most of them (or their families) ARE in the 1%, themselves!
          The problem, then, is not to reject the “down with the 1%!” meme, but to carefully define the 1%. We have met the enemy, and he is (often) us.
          And, having said that, it is also true that (as I said before) not all of the 1% are equally culpable. Some are much more culpable than others. For example, the criminal psychopaths running the banks and financial system. That’s where the liberal kids full of righteous anger are correct.
          “But it ignores the fact that avarice is inherently a human trait and it is prominent in all societies and all classes.”
          Lots of things are “inherently human traits”, in the sense that it is within human potential to behave that way. So what? You say it fatalistically, as though nothing can be done about it. Truth is that plenty can be done. Not all societies have glorified wealth and greed in the way ours has; indeed, most of the rest of the world is less preoccupied with material accumulation. Just because America is filled with rapacious bastards, we tend to think it is “human nature” for people to be rapacious bastards. Not so. I do not agree that avarice is “PROMINENT in all societies and all classes”, though it certainly EXISTS in all societies. Medieval europe, to take one example, was a society in which avarice was not prominent. Avaricious people were frowned on, even shunned and ostracized. As a result, there was a lot less expression of the tendency to be avaricious. (Note what I just said: that the tendency is still there, but the expression of it is diminished. This is not about denying the existence of tendencies.) Even today, most people in most places (America and a few other places excepted) are not particularly greedy. Most people (America excepted) are reasonably sane, with sane priorities in life.
          Bottom line: social context MATTERS.
          …………………………………………..
          http://phys.org/news/2012-08-greed-middle-ages.html
          Greed was different in the Middle Ages, researcher says
          August 6th, 2012
          Greed was different in the Middle Ages, says Stanford’s Laura Stokes
          (Phys.org) — Surveys of the carnage of the American financial crisis that began in 2008 have revealed the potent allure of personal gain above all else.
          But greed hasn’t always been popular in Western societies.
          Stanford historian Laura Stokes is uncovering how attitudes toward “acceptable greed” have done a turnaround in the past 500 years. Self-serving behavior deemed necessary on Wall Street today might have been despised in medieval Europe. One might even have been murdered for using wealth as a justification for circumventing societal norms.
          Capitalism, Stokes has found, managed to flourish in the intensely community-conscious culture of medieval times. Men of business successfully built financial empires based on trade and credit, even though unbridled greed was universally condemned.
          The question that perplexes Stokes, an assistant professor of history, is how such men could be admired by their peers, when greed was frowned upon.
          In short, blatantly selfish economic behavior was simply unacceptable. In describing the contradiction between present-day business attitudes and a medieval mindset, Stokes said, “A medieval businessman would surely be impressed by the successes of his modern descendants, but he would also despise them as men without honor or virtue.”
          [snip]

        7. “if all us poor sods are aping the rich and their lavish consumption, who are the rich aping?”
          Each other. They are trying to outdo and impress each other. Money, and the things that it buys, becomes the whole game, and they vie with each other to display their loot in the most novel and sumptuous ways. And the rest of us poor sods look up to them and then (with the HUGE help of many many billions of dollars spent on imprinting those images of wealth in our brains, over a period of decades, from birth), to the extent possible, mimic them. There’s no mystery about any of this. It is the fundamental fact upon which many multi-bazillion-dollar industries are founded (cosmetics, fashion clothing, jewelry, many cars, most luxury items, fancy hotels, etc., etc.). If it were not a fact, then those industries would not exist.

  6. Steve: “Wow, that’s still a lot of poverty.”
    Right. It is. But still, 32% living in that kind of poverty leaves 68% NOT in that kind of poverty, as your graph shows. When you average it all out, India is at 2.8 or so, total fertility. It will decline, in concert with the trend in your graph.
    “Maybe the high fertility rates when the west had a lot of poor people was also because they didn’t have contraceptives? Could some of these fertility declines be due to contraceptives becoming more widespread?”
    Contraceptives, and knowledge of how to use them, are part of the higher-SES/GDP, more-educated, more-urban (etc.) total milieu.
    “Alan, have you seen my graph?”
    Just did. Good work!

    1. Oh I didn’t make it. I just snipped it from a document and then put it on a blog I started for something else. Apparently this gives me a sense of ownership.
      How widespread are contraceptives in India and China, even among the poorer people? How significant a factor were they in the fertility declines in the west since the 60’s? I think this might be a really significant factor.
      “Right. It is. But still, 32% living in that kind of poverty leaves 68% NOT in that kind of poverty, as your graph shows. When you average it all out, India is at 2.8 or so, total fertility.”
      To test your hypothesis, we need to see if the 32% have higher fertility rates than the 68%.

      1. It is not my hypothesis. It is a pattern that has been seen around the world, repeatedly. It is called the “demographic transition”:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
        e.g.:
        “In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children’s work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.”
        This can be expressed more simply just by talking in terms of per capita GDP, though I grant that that obscures a lot of detail, and is not perfectly accurate. As a generality, though, it holds well enough. People get richer = people have less kids. At least up to a point, in the neighborhood of my suggested “sweet spot” range (circa $5-15K/year). China got there at 5K/year, though 5K in China has more purchasing power than here. As I said before, we can’t improve on sub-replacement fertility; simply getting more and more rich does not improve things. It actually makes things worse, because now the kids (even the sub-replacement few) are consuming far more than their global share. In this respect, the real overpopulation crisis is in the OECD, not in Africa. The world can easily afford more sub-saharan Africans, but cannot afford more Americans.
        Other fun demographics links (all worth reading, just to get a grounding in the subject):
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiological_transition
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_window
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_dividend
        

  7. Steve,
    I’m hopeful that the geneticists will be our saviours too. I’m perfectly fine with it ethically but obviously there would have to be rigourous testing. Improving our IQ levels may be detrimental to other human abilities. Would you take another 10 IQ points if it made you docile? If it made you physically weak?
    Also, there is the possibility of divergent human evolution. Some smarter, some stronger, some faster, etc. It’s all going to be very interesting.
    On the sterilization of stupid people: It’s abhorrent. That would take away a person’s sole reason for living, to pass their genes on. I would be more for a restriction at the bottom end to one child to three or four children at the top end of the intelligence scale.

    1. The problem with allowing higher IQ people to have more kids is that they largely choose not to, so you would have to force them to!
      I wouldn’t say procreation was are only reason for living, but yeah, its one of our main biological purposes or instincts.
      I see you were just discussing ideas rather than advocating them.
      “Improving our IQ levels may be detrimental to other human abilities. Would you take another 10 IQ points if it made you docile? If it made you physically weak?”
      I think this is a good point. I have contemplated this. Would we boost our IQ to the detriment of other qualities? (I guess not necessarily if we could engineer other genes too). Do we really want a world full of really cerebral people? Isn’t the diversity of characteristics good to fulfill different roles? etc

      1. “The problem with allowing higher IQ people to have more kids is that they largely choose not to, so you would have to force them to!”
        Well, if those poindexters don’t want to, I have a fake IQ test here that says I’m a genius and I’m ready for love!

        1. Good luck with that. You wont actually get sex by playing on call of duty 2 where you learnt what a brengunn is. lol (me too)

  8. I noticed that in spite of how much more populated China is than even India, people are being born in India at a quicker pace than in China.

        1. We are informed by Alan2012 that the fertility rate in India is 2.8 and dropping, with plenty of more scope to drop as development happens, so maybe that reassures you. Its already close to a rate where the population wont grow.

        2. That’s fantastic news Steve. At the rate things are going, they’re on the verge of bringing about a plague among them. What’s the old saying? “Cleanliness is next to Godliness.”

        3. No, the fertility rate in India is 2.6, not 2.8. And the population will continue to grow at a fast level for a long time even when it gets at or below replacement rate. Look at China for instance.

        4. @Robert
          I may be at a stage of inebriation where I am unable to work this out by myself, but how the hell does the population grow when it is at replacement rate? 😀
          oh wait, its something to do with the fact that there is a young population and people aren’t dying as fast as they are being born. I guess I still have some brain cells still working.
          *raises drink* cheers

        5. quit teasing and tell me how to put a link in text
          what are you worried about anyway? That the little bit of Australia that crashed into Asia will start exporting its people to the west (even more than it has done)? Or you just don’t like the Indians suffering with their ‘crap culture’?

  9. If India has higher rates of child malnutrition and stuff like that, why are African life expediencies way lower? The life expectancy in India is 65, which is very respectable for a country with India’s poverty.

    1. Indeed it is respectable, but India is not that impoverished anymore. India is in much better shape than most of sub-saharan Africa: many countries there have life expectancy in the 40s, out of control fertility (4/5/6), extreme poverty (per capita GDPs well under $1000, even under $500), etc. India is still struggling, with a large poor population, but not nearly THAT bad off.

      1. Why do you two keep hyping India and saying good things about it? There’s nothing good about the place, nada, zero, zip, zilich. And in particular it should be condemned by any progressive person as possibly the most rightwing, anti-progressive and anti-socialist country on Earth. It’s basically like a nation of 1.2 billion fanatical Republicans! Fuck that.
        The upper classes are like 100 million Mitt Romneys, Paul Ryans and Ayn Rands, and the lower classes are like 1.1 billion White redneck idiots living in poverty who vote Republican anyway (happy slaves).
        The place is simply contemptuous!

        1. “And in particular it should be condemned by any progressive person as possibly the most rightwing, anti-progressive and anti-socialist country on Earth.”
          write a post about this. Talk policy.

        2. How am I “hyping” India? Most of what I’ve said about it is verifiable fact. They are in a process of development, clawing their way up from misery. IT ISN’T PRETTY. It never is. It will get better, over time. This is what development looks like, passed through the prism of that particular culture and people. Why would you feel contempt toward a large fraction (about 15%) of humanity, undergoing this process?
          Unless there is very strong socialist leadership, like Mao, or a strong social democratic culture, like in most of Europe, then most poor(er) people tend toward reaction and petty or retail fascism. Even WITH those influences, they bend to the right, although constrained somewhat. It is the same everywhere. It is certainly true here, in the U.S. Generally, with increased wealth, education and urbanization, those tendencies weaken, and people become more liberal and humane. The U.S. is a partial exception to this: great wealth, decent education, lots of urbanization… and STILL a very large reactionary contingent. Some of this stuff is cultural, independent of the material factors that I mentioned. (Note that I said “generally”; i.e. not always, or completely.)
          I don’t condemn them for being non-progressive, any more than I condemn the Chinese for the same thing. I wish it were otherwise, and I think that eventually they will graduate to more liberal and modern political attitudes and, hence, political system. I think the same is true of the U.S.: eventually it will graduate to more liberal and modern political attitudes. The only difference is that the Americans have had far FAR more wealth with which to undertake this transformation. There’s really no excuse, in our case, whereas in their case, there is.
          I hate to say it, Robert, but your attitude about India — “nothing good about the place, nada, zero, zip” — is not fully distinguishable from the attitude of highly reactionary pundits here in the U.S., like Michael Savage. They denigrate places like India, calling it the “turd world” (mocking reference to third world). People like Savage are ignorant of — or if they know, they don’t care about — the struggles of places like India, China and Africa, how terribly retarded they were, and the way in which our wealth (primitive capital accumulation) was partially derived from exploitation of them, and export of entropy TO them. It is quite a disgusting attitude, I think: the beneficiaries of the crimes, denouncing and denigrating the victims. People like Savage are very big on lurid photos and stories (like the ones referred to here), eagerly pointing to them as “proof” of how terrible it is “over there”. All part of the whole right-wing flag-waving thing, powered by American Exceptionalism (“we’re BETTER than them!”, “we’re the greatest country on earth!”, blah blah blah.)
          PS: Well, actually, I DO condemn the Chinese for being non-progressive, but that’s another matter. That’s my beef with the Chinese leadership, not a judgement of the whole of the Chinese people! It would be foolish to condemn the whole of the Chinese people. They, like the Indians, are clawing their way up from miserable backwardness. It ain’t pretty.
          PSS: Let’s not forget that India’s material condition, bad though it may have been, was made much worse by the British. India, like Africa, was looted, terribly, and they are still dealing with the fallout of that.
          http://www.ariseindiaforum.org/how-british-looted-india/
          “In India, the hunger and poverty experienced by the majority of the population during the colonial period and immediately after independence were the logical consequences of two centuries of British occupation, during which the Indian cotton industry was destroyed, most peasants were put into serfdom (after the British modified the agrarian structures and the tax system to the benefit of the Zamindars – feudal landlords) and cash crops (indigo, tea, jute) gradually replaced traditional food crops. Britain’s profits throughout the 19th century cannot be measured without taking into account the 28 million Indians who died of starvation between 1814 and 1901.”
          [More sickening details — with which you are probably already familiar — are at the link.]

  10. Dear Robert
    When it comes to population growth, we can divide mankind into 2 parts: sub-Saharan Africa and the rest. In the rest of world, the trend is toward stabilization or decline by 2050. Some countries will still grow considerably because of demographic momentum. In sub-Saharan Africa, population growth shows no sign of leveling off. This is very bad news for African but not necessarily for the rest of the world. Africans are too weak to threaten the rest of the world and too poor to destroy any environment except their own.
    In population matters, we should never think globally . World population is a statistic, not a political reality. As long as borders remain closed, excessive population growth in one area of the world doesn’t need to have negative consequences in other parts of the world. It is up to Africans to slow down their demogrphic
    soon. That’s the message we should be sending to Africans. Either they stabilize their populations or else they’ll face a very grim future.

  11. James: “It is up to Africans to slow down their demogrphic soon. That’s the message we should be sending to Africans.”
    James, do you think that maybe, along with sending that message, we (the north/west) could stop looting them for long enough to allow them to develop normally? I mean, as a polite gesture, to allow them to develop sufficiently to make for a demographic transition like other areas have undergone. Or, contrarily, do you think the looting should continue, and the Africans should be responsible for a demographic transition anyway, even without any development?
    Just wondering.
    ………………………………………..
    http://www.liberationafrique.org/IMG/pdf/TJN4Africa.pdf
    Looting Africa: Some Facts and Figures
    http://www.civicus.org/new/media/PatrickBond-LootingAfrica.doc
    Looting Africa: The economics of exploitation
    By Patrick Bond [online book; full text is free]
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05
    The wealth of the west was built on Africa’s exploitation
    by Richard Drayton

  12. Dear Alan2102
    I’m quite willing to accept that Africa is a net exporter of capital. The harsh truth, however, is that Africans can’t wait for development before they start reducing their fertility. They have to start working on their fertility now, or else there never will be African development. In 1980, Ethiopia had 40 million people, in 2010 it had 80 million. At this rate it will have 160 million people in 2040. This means that Ethiopia has to make investments to school, feed and employ an additional 80 million people in 30 years. That is a very tall order.
    Africans have to bring down their fertility before development because their demographic growth is much faster than it was in Europe before the demographic transition. Africa can’t afford to wait much longer.
    Regards. James

    1. James.
      are you an older gentleman? The way you write ‘dear’ and ‘regards’ in medium that doesn’t usually respect such polite formalities speaks to me of a bygone age. There is something a little touching about it.
      Steve
      (POLITE:
      1. showing good manners toward others, as in behavior, speech, etc.; courteous; civil: a polite reply.
      2.refined or cultured: polite society.
      3.of a refined or elegant kind: polite learning.)

      1. Dear Alan2012
        I’m not saying that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with unjust economic relations between Africa and the West, which in any case are facilitated by Africa’s kleptocratic rulers, but my point is that it is imperative for Africans to get their fertility down regardless of what the economic situation is. Just as a country can be poor and literate, so it should be possible for a country to be poor and have low fertility.
        The mere fact that feeding the population becomes much harder when it doubles every 30 years should be reason enough to bring population growth under control. Ethiopia has 80 million people now and food supply problems. Imagine what those problems will be when Ethiopia’s population will be 160 million in 2040.
        Let’s use an analogy. We have a badly exploited worker who produces a child every year. Should he wait for the exploitation to end before he starts to practice birth control? I would say no. Similarly, Africans should work on their fertility regardless of what their economic relations with the rest of the world are.
        Regards. James

        1. James, you don’t have to convince me — or anyone else — that African fertility has to come down. The question is HOW? You suggest that they “work on fertility”. Any suggestions? The reality is that it is very very unlikely that fertility will get under control in Africa, or anywhere else suffering from the same problem, without economic development.
          BTW I agree that corruption in Africa is a huge problem. Africa is faced with many problems; the ongoing depredations of the north/west are part of the picture, not all of it.

  13. Speaking of India and Indian culture, has anyone read this guy Malhotra? He sounds like a very interesting and acute Indian scholar.
    http://beingdifferentbook.com
    http://beingdifferentbook.com/media/
    Review of the Book ‘Being Different’
    An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism- Rajiv Malhotra, Harper Collins Publishers India, ISBN: 9789350291900,Hardback,Pages: 488, Price: Rs.599
    ‘Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism’ by Rajiv Malhotra is a path breaking book filled with profound original insights on various subjects related to Indian religious, spiritual, cultural and historical traditions. It is a research-oriental reference volume for the intellectuals, philosophers, researchers, and general readers who are curious to know Indian thought and Identity. The book reverses the gaze to look at the West, repositioning dharmic civilization from being the observed to being the observer. Rajiv Malhotra, the author of famous book ‘Breaking India’ is an Indian-American researcher and thinker, writing and speaking on current affairs as they relate to civilizations, cross-cultural encounters, religion and science. He has done anextensive study of Indian culture and history, Western civilization and religion, and comparative philosophy and faith. He has been churning a wide range of issues and ideas related to his thesis from different sources for the past two decades, and to show this, his book’s cover has an attractive picture of the churning of the ocean by Devas and Asuras. ‘Being Different’ is the result of deep research on Indian and Western philosophical systems and histories, with especialfocus on how India essentially differs from the West, in cultural, spiritual matrix and in world outlook.
    ……………………………………………
    http://www.breakingindia.com/
    Breaking India
    Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines
    Rajiv Malhotra
    Publisher: Amaryllis. Pages: 640. Price: 695 INR/$20.00 US
    India’s integrity is being undermined by three global networks that have well-established operating bases inside India: (i) Islamic radicalism linked with Pakistan, (ii) Maoists and Marxist radicals supported by China via intermediaries such as Nepal, and (iii) Dravidian and Dalit identity separatism being fostered by the West in the name of human rights. This book focuses on the third: the role of U.S. and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India. The book is the result of five years of research, and uses information obtained in the West about foreign funding of these Indian-based activities. The research tracked the money trails that start out claiming to be for “education,” “human rights,” “empowerment training,” and “leadership training,” but end up in programs designed to produce angry youths who feel disenfranchised from Indian identity.
    The book reveals how outdated racial theories continue to provide academic frameworks and fuel the rhetoric that can trigger civil wars and genocides in developing countries. The Dravidian movement’s 200-year history has such origins. Its latest manifestation is the “Dravidian Christianity” movement that fabricates a political and cultural history to exploit old faultlines. The book explicitly names individuals and institutions, including prominent Western ones and their Indian affiliates. Its goal is to spark an honest debate on the extent to which human rights and other “empowerment” projects are cover-ups for these nefarious activities.
    Table of contents (interesting!) of Breaking India is on this page, about 20 “page downs” down:
    http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/04/role-of-us-and-european-churches.html

    1. Western Universalism is a silly and foolish notion. I think it got tied up in the cold war and became another foolish goal to differentiate the West from the other. Marketing. Unfortunately some people actually began to believe it. Now we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sigh…

  14. The latest data from the Population Reference Bureau shows that there are twenty countries in the world with negative or zero natural population growth. This is unprecedented in history!

  15. “When your survival and whatnot is pretty much assured and women are educated, women get smart and don’t have many kids.”
    I don’t understand why female PHD candidates can’t just donate her eggs in return for full coverage of tuition and fees.

  16. So you have a bunch more poor people of a darker color from lower-latitudes and a few better off ones from Northeast Asia and Europe.
    Chinese have no real interest in immigrating or intermingling on a massive-scale so unless full-out war breaks out in the South China Sea, what difference does that make to whites and Japanese.
    Not many more jobs can be outsourced at this point with AI just over the horizon.
    India and China have so few natural resources left that if they want to breed like rabbits it is their concern.

  17. It is good for us to some extent because overpopulation will keep these countries somewhat backward, especially India, while China will strip its natural resources to the extent that their economic clout is somewhat offset by this disadvantage.
    So we have a bunch of poor people at the bottom of a worldwide 1% pyramid with Anglo and Jews at the top.
    What else is new?

  18. I’ve noticed when overpopulation by groups from these sort of societies explodes the only thing you get is more poverty.
    They seem incapable of harnessing their human capitol into any efficient effect.
    Places just disintegrate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.