Will socialism raise or lower birth rates, and is overpopulation an issue or is it a meme?

When living standards improve, people will have less and less children. Already in Europe, and developed Asian countries like Japan we see them having population growth problems, more specifically the lack of growth.

The world population will eventually hit it's absolute peak, and will then begin to decline.

Another issue is not so much there is too many people, but that the life styles of certain people are simply unsustainable. You and I (since we have access to the internet I know we're well off) consume more and pollute more than any starving African could. But even our life styles are rather conservative compared to what porky has. Capitalism and simply western living itself is unsustainable. That doesn't mean we should go full retardo-Anprim or even go to third world living, but shit like everyone having their own pool or buying another expensive ass phone every year or allowing people to drive around massive ass cars or boats all the time can't be allowed to continue.

I think you're right. I mean it has to. Even 0.01% growth is still growth. Until we actually into space there are finite resources. So the question becomes how many can the earth sustain? Which is directly related to your next issue. You're absolutly right that the world cannot sustain 8bn like you and I, at least at current consumption. I'm not even talking luxuries. Clean water for example. The more people there are, the more thinly spread what we have becomes. It has just struck me too that, perversely, what is currently considered by most luxury is actually not that scarce at all. Apple could easily double production of iPhones as long as their is labour to make em. And even that is less and less important.

Where the fuck are we heading?

Overpopulation is a myth. I totally believe that Earth can sustain at least 80 trillion more people.

Plenty of Africans actually have internet these days.

ljl

Look at their growth rate chart for a hint on why this is nowhere near as alarming as some make it out to be.

Most parts of the world are already near or below replacement rate, even in Asia, so the ~10 billion peak is mostly based on staggeringly gigantic projections for Africa. Even the influx of spooked immigrants in low-birthrate countries has only a short-lived effect on fertility, petering out to about the same as natives within a generation or two.

It would require a neoliberal fuckup on an unprecedented scale to prevent global population from plateauing sometime in the next 3-8 decades.

Your first graph shows the population of Asia and Africa exceeding the total global population today by 2100. Hell the upper projection it makes is 11bn people in Africa and Asia wit Africa still growing in population. We're also yet to see prolonged periods of degrowth anywhere that are not offset or accounted for by migration.

That depends. Do you see neo-liberalism as a trend towards global redistribution and sustainability or a state endorsed money grab? If the latter then the plateau you mention would be the fuck up.

Have you not seen african population stats.

Niggers won't stop even if they starve.

Depends. Maybe their ego wants childbirth and descendants?
Maybe their ego wants them to continue their bloodline?

That implies the standards will improve for the lower class.
We literally are seeing a ponzi scheme caste system emerging.

Any but the worst scenarios have Africa's growth offset by decline elsewhere, and the smallest amount of developmental assistance would greatly decrease that. It's true that migration has been used to blunt population decline, but demographic trends have reached the extent where the immigration levels necessary to compensate for them are approaching political non-viability:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Contemporary_decline_by_nation_or_territory

Neoliberalism is the laissez-faire capitalist desire to tear down the laws and borders of nations, in favor of greater power for private transnational corporations, forcing together the vulnerable citizens of poor despotic nations and the once-secure citizens of rich democratic nations. By simultaneously sabotaging 1st-world population equilibrium through immigration, and decreasing 3rd-world corrective population pressure through emigration, neoliberalism is acting to prolong and worsen global overpopulation.

...

Don't be stupid. You must agree that Holla Forums is right about the African situation. Everytime they get aid, they push out more kids and don't develop their own homes, job situation, etc.

I have no idea what we can do with Africa, but I know we don't have any "good" options.

Look at the second and third graphs I posted. It's true Africa's fertility is higher than the rest of the world, but their population growth has still been slowing down every year since the 1970s. This holds true for every country on the continent, as you can see in the attached PDF.

The problem isn't that existing strategies don't work, but that (as on other continents where success has been achieved) they can be deployed much more aggressively. Africa needs lower mortality, greater shifts from rural to industrial economic activity, and more feminist education and labor participation.

Except that's wrong? Africa is (mostly) improving, despite whatever jpegs you might have seen on storm/pol/.

Overpopulation is probably the biggest problem of all. Get it under control, or nature will do it for you.

Overpopulation is a meme.

See, I think the crux of the question is here. Everyone sees the increasing living standards and decreasing fertility and think that means there's causation. But for all we know there are plenty of other factors at work.

For example, until recetly (and to this day, in the third world), the childrearing method is what I read being called "infanticidal". Couples tended to have a shitload of kids, and it was a given that a lot of them would croak before adulthood, no matter how much of their meagre resources they applied on them.

But technological advance allowed society to evolve to a different childrearing method, which we have today: one or two kids, and a nearly 100% they will reach adulthood. With modern inventions like the refrigerator, penicilin etc etc, it started making sense for couples to have very few kids and bet all their chips on them.

So might point here is, what really drive down fertility wasn't increased living standards themselves, but simple tech advancement caused both.

If either living standards or resource abundance alone could predict fertility, then rich people would have more children than a frog.

Who gives a fuck about birth rates stop worrying about getting people pregnant you absolute madman

t. Asian sardine can country