The population explosion in the global South

Vegard Skirbekk shows that many of those who were part of Europe’s population explosion died before reaching childbearing age, which is not true in the developing world.  This means the European boom had a smaller impact on global population.  Take one of Skirbekk’s comparisons, Denmark and Guatemala.  In 1775, prior to the onset of its transition, Denmark had a population of 1 million and a population density of about twenty people per square kilometre.  In Guatemala in 1900, these numbers were about the same.  Because Denmark’s population boomed earlier, just two to three children per woman survived to adulthood during its transition.  By the time Denmark’s total fertility rate fell below 2.1 in the 1950s, its population had expanded to 5 million.  By contrast, Guatemala’s transition only began in 1900.  By the 1990s, the average Guatemalan woman was giving birth to five children who survived to childbearing age.  Today there are 15.5 million Guatemalans.  When Guatemala’s transition is complete, it is projected to have a population of about 24 million.  Its transition will have produced a population expansion five times that of Denmark.  Multiplied across many countries, this explains why the West’s share of world population dropped so rapidly after 1950.

That is all from Eric Kaufmann’s excellent Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities.

Comments

Pretty sure you meant 24 million.

Guatemala's total fertility rate is down to about 3 lately. So it's by no means impossible for 3rd World countries to get their TFRs down.

But it takes about 40-50 years after TFR falls to the replacement rate of 2 for the population to stop growing.

And in much of sub-Saharan Africa, TFRs have barely started to fall, so the UN's forecast for sub-Saharan Africa's population in 2100 soared from 2.3 billion in 2004 to 4.0 billion in 2100.

That's a huge problem for Africa and the world. Finally, some VIPs like Bill Gates and John Kerry are starting to publicly worry about it.

It's a huge problem for the 62 bus on Staten Island, that's for sure

Where the rubber meets the road. Lol!

Never say 4 billion, say 4,000,000,000........look at all those zeroes, savor it

Steve, Are there studies of how the asymptotic behavior of TFR varies across cultures/regions? There seem to be those who a bit below 2, and then others where it seems to be just dropping with no end in sight.

In a lot of south India, the TFRs are well below 2 and declining, and I have no clue where they will stop. But consistently with your observation, the population is still growing, so people, including most political "analysts", largely think that the population growth is a problem.

Recently an Indian politician (from neither BJP nor Congress, rather a regional party) courted controversy by highlighting this problem: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/have-more-kids-keep-state-young-says-andhra-cm-chandrababu-naidu-in-push-to-avail-population-based-benefits/story-dyZbw4KFf0zxyawhdhMCaO.html

(this comment has, as usual, inspired technical fact-checks that miss the point).

But he is the only politician I know who highlights this problem, almost everyone erroneously believes that population is a problem in India.

I meant, in the second sentence, "there seem to be those who stabilize a bit below 2". But Israel seem to be headed for stabilizing above 2.

There's a graph growing around asserting that the TFR of Finland fell from a recent high of 1.87 in 2010 to 1.40 in the most recent year. Finland is not a particularly crowded country (although the climate falls off pretty badly away from Helsinki). That's alarming.

Dear Steve.

They will never reach that number. They will kill each other far long before that. First they will kill the white south africans and indians, and then themselves. We would need all the passenger cruisers of the world for months to evacuate all the whites to the Americas, to Europe and to Australia. I have made already some calculations. A logistical nightmare. Only chance to save at least some of the whites: A very fast military intervention to build up an interim refugee camp in Madagascar while hundreds of passenger cruisers deploy from the Caribbean and the Mediterranean to the Cape. But that alone will still take 2 weeks. Nobody in history has ever planed or tried something similar. But how long will the western world take to react? Like in Ruanda? Never? SA, the next 5 million people genocide on the world thanks to leftist, bullshit marxists.

Is the Denmark population estimate corrected for emigration and territorial changes?

Half a million of Danes emigrated to the USA. today , 1.5 million identify as Danish-Americans. The Kingdom of Danemark once comprised Is the Denmark population estimate corrected for emigration and territorial changes?

Half a million of Danes emigrated to the USA. today , 1.5 million identify as Danish-Americans. The Kingdom of Danemark once comprised overseas territories such as Iceland (300k). The most important change in Denmark's borders is the Schleswig
Half a million of Danes emigrated to the USA. today , 1.5 million identify as Danish-Americans. The Kingdom of Danemark once comprised overseas territories such as Iceland. The most important change in Denmark's borders is the Schleswig-Holstein region. On 1849, a millin Danes were conquered by Prussia . Only half of that region returned to Denmark after WW1. territories such as Iceland (300k). The most important change in Denmark's borders is the Schleswig-Holstein region. On 1849, a millin Danes were conquered by Prussia . Only half of that region returned to Denmark after WW1.

Perhaps Guatemala population is still larger, anyway there are millions of Danes without Denmark's citizenship.

Sorry, my phone is about to fail. Strange copy/paste :/

Shh - the author has a point to make, and it is not about actual historical facts. Including the fact that European emigration played a major role in creating a number of white majority countries.

Especially depending on how one generously defines white country - Argentina comes to mind in this regard. 'When it is considered that Argentina was second only to the United States (27 million of immigrants) in the number of immigrants received, even ahead of such other areas of new settlement like Canada, Brazil and Australia; and that the country was scarcely populated following its independence, the impact of the immigration to Argentina becomes evident.

In the last national census, based on self-identification, 952,032 Argentines (2.4% of the population) declared to be Amerindians. Most of the 6.2 million European immigrants arriving between 1850 and 1950, regardless of origin, settled in several regions of the country. Due to this large-scale European immigration, Argentina's population more than doubled.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Argentina#Ethnic_groups

Though one can hardly wait to see the Irish population comparison.

It's interesting that the Overton window on immigration issues has shifted enough that even prior has to acknowledge that uncontrolled mass immigration works enormous changes upon a society and can overrun the native culture.

Excuse me, I'm American from Virginia. Of course I know how immigration can wreak enormous changes on a society, without it needing to be mass immigration at all.

And we are all hopefully educated enough to recognize how the original Spanish immigration starting with Cortez and co. in the those first early 1500s decades ended up for Central and South America, again without any mass immigration being involved at all.

However, as written just yesterday - 'Look at the U.S. and despair - if only we Americans had been foresighted enough to stop massive immigration before 1920, we would have risen to be the greatest power the world has ever seen by 1950.

Oh wait - we weren't foresighted enough, and look at what happened to the U.S. since then.'

It is obvious that large land areas were colonized by Europeans - strangely though, one of the largest examples of European emigration may not be a part of Whiteshift. If only as an example to broaden some people's idea of whiteness.

Spanish and Portuguese conquest and colonization was a disaster from which we are still trying to recover.

Who is "we"?

North America, minus you, and of course s
Latin America.

The Spaniards and Portuguese were thugs with no history of rule of law. Most (all?) of the nations they left behind are sh*thole failed nation states. As a result, we get a stream of refugees pouring into our communities, though not yours, which I am sure is a gentrified apartheid neighborhood protected by bored but well compensated cops and strict zoning laws.

How do you like that?

North America and Latin America are not people, so I'm still unclear on who is trying to recover from a disaster. You think North and South Americans would be doing better if they were mostly American Indians?

Are you playing dumb or are you just stupid?

The rapacious Spaniards pillaged the land without leaving behind any democratic institutions, unlike what the English accomplished.

The damage done by the Portuguese was mostly limited to Brazil.

The Indians didn't do very well anywhere in the Americas, which is a good argument for a well defined and consistently enforced immigration policy.

Replying to the Overton window idea.

I noticed that in myself, and in the debate. Look at Venezuela, Mexico; their governance seems stuck in corruption, It doedn't take a lot of brains to find the similarities between teh California legislature, Venezual legislature and Mexican legislature, just a matter of timing the collapse.

Yet, the legislatures are unable to notice? One begins to think it must be in the Spanish blood, I tend toward a lot more racism today then when growing up, because I watch hispanics, running around with this gun to their children's future, and they pull the trigger! Then they all suddenly become poor again, repeat, repeat, repeat. Something is wrong. Where is the cultural memory, why can't they remember what happened last time?

Sure, Tyler links the "excellent" Whiteshift. What could possibly go wrong?

Trivia, when my Icelandic forebears arrived in the Dakota Territories, they had to renounce allegiance to the King of Denmark.

Let's import some Guatemalans. That'll piss off Trump supporters right and good.

Or you can export yourself to Guatemala and see what future of California will look like.

But if he does that, he won't be able to brag as much about how he is consumed by hate.

I met a wonderful young woman the other day, who told me she was Guatemalan but born in the USA. She complained that her father returned to Guatemala and asked her to join him. She went down there and was promptly mugged. Then she went on to say Americans don't know how good they have it, and that they don't appreciate how important the rule of law is and how wonderful it is to live in the US. She also described how dumb it is for Americans to retire in Guatemala because it's cheaper, not realizing they danger they are in. She's an American and loves living in the US! I love Americans like that! Funny thing, she never mentioned colonialism, CIA shenanigans, intersectionality, racism, or inequality. She's proud to be American! I love it!

And oh, she said she works as a property manager for a client in Silicon Valley who doesn't want to be identified and doesn't like people, including her, to ask him questions.

She loves the CIA and the FBI more than Trump and other derp-state Republicans.

Why are you so opposed to immigrants coming here and creating more wonderful young women (and men) like that to be proud Americans?

I want more of them to come - legally.

If you want me in Guatemala, come down and make me.

We are already "importing" Guatemalans. Many.

Good. I hope they take your job, EdR.

Me too, anonamouse, they can have it!

The Western share of world population was also artificially high in 1950 because so much of the rest of the world was pushed to Malthusian limits by colonialism. The population explosion in the global South since decolonization is in some ways just a regression to the mean. The Western (Europe + North America + Oceania) proportion of the world population was around 20% in 1800 and is still around 20% today.

Actually, if you compare to 1800 instead of 1950, the culture that has suffered the biggest relative demographic decline is the Chinese, who were around 30% of the world population in 1800 but only 20% today. Interestingly though, the Chinese don’t seem worried about this; in fact, they even had a one-child policy.

"so much of the rest of the world was pushed to Malthusian limits by colonialism": what do you have in mind?

Before colonialism, these people were rich and happy, duh.

Nitwit! You never heard of the Aztecs or Incas?

There was plenty of intertribal warfare, slavery, and human sacrifice.

Knowing Brian, he was being sarcastic in regards to the original post.

Most people here are too educated for the romantic primitivism of the anti-colonial narratives.

@Zaua
Pushed down or up? Malthusian limits are thought of as an upper bound not a lower one, or am I off here? Are you saying that thru colonialization, the natives "somehow" got closer to that limit? Or has the limit been pushed down, because the colonizers arrived?

As far as I understand India and China already were at their Malthusian limits with the soil not supporting many more people, with their methods back then and no sign of that changing much or being inherently problematic stability-wise. [though this is fuzzy half-knowledge, nothing I would bet much on]

Most, if not all, societies pretty much bumped along right at their Malthusian limits. Occasionally a mass mortality event drove populations lower temporarily, and sometimes technogical changes pushed the limit higher.

Hey, Ray,

Good question. Then, the left tried to offset the "antibiotics effect" by banning DDT and other pesticides.

What's your definition of middle income country?

The World Bank classifies Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Namibia and South Africa as "Upper-middle-income economies"?

Good that you pick the South African example. Since end of apartheid and large black immigration waves it has stopped converging towards western income levels and is now converging to sub-saharan income levels.

Every once in awhile someone will pull out some moderate success story, like Botswana, of a "middle income country". On closer inspection we find a more complicated story.

These countries tend to have high Gini coefficients and large swaths of people in poverty, despite being middle income. In fact I would characterize these countries as "dual track economies". One track involves digging natural resources out of the ground and selling them to the west in exchange for the kind of high tech high skill goods that the west is capable of producing. The difficult parts of this extraction are done by a small elite and foreign experts. There is then a small group of people who provide services to these people or do a few of the tough but low skill jobs involved in such extraction. The resource wealth is basically the one thing of value in the country, and where the "middle income" part comes from.

However, much of the population is on the "second track" which is almost unaffected by the first track since they can't really contribute to it in any way. So they continue to be rather poor and backward, hence the high Gini coefficient.

Of course this state of affairs is better than the occasional lapse into complete lawlessness and barbarism that characterizes the continent, and I support it as much as possible. Occasionally some ambitious dark skin gets the people riled up and tells them that they will take back all that wealth those lighter skinned and foreigners have obviously stolen from the darker skinned people that are in that second track. In Africa think Zimbabwe. In South America think Venezuela.

It also helps if there aren't too many people in your country to begin with, so that the natural resource benefits don't get too diluted. Botswana doesn't have a very large population. Those Mideast petro-city-states are similar. It seems unlikely to me that some of these models could scale, and we see that immigration from other poorer African countries puts a lot of strain on these states since the additional humans put more demands on the natural resources without adding much value.

On a global level all of it is predicated on smart people in the West using those natural resources to create vast economic wealth. As the west declines as a % of world population there are less and less people that can turn those natural resources into useful economic goods, and thus the whole model doesn't really hold up.

Also, "middle income", even if it didn't have the Gini Coefficient issue going on, is what we call "poverty" in the west. I would not ever allow my children to live in that way.

Saudi is an interesting example of the petro-state, growing from 4 million in 1960 to 34 million today. I think its very unlikely, for cultural reasons, that they will successfully transition to a non-oil based economy, although the resultant crisis may be a generation away - when they are likely to have 50 million plus.

I know I am a broken record on this, but AI will make demographics irrelevant. Either by destroying the human race, or if, by some lucky chance it doesn't, making genetically derived intelligence a small part of the economy. The only case where AI doesn't change things absolutely will be if for some reason we experience a disaster before it arrives.

If AI will make genetics irrelevant, then we should be against immigration, because the main reason people immigrate is to access to high IQ people. Such technology would make that desire irrelevant and immigration pointless.

If AI doesn't make genetics irrelevant we should do everything we can to preserve the high IQ first world, being the only thing keeping civilization going.

The odds of AI (or any other super technology) solving all our problems before we destroy ourselves improves if we have a stable and capable first world for as long as possible, again meaning that ending up in that best case scenarios odds improve if we have no third world immigration.

WRONG! Block chain will render AI irrelevant and solve all our problems, even ones we didnt know we had.

This will happen in the next 5 years.

Is there any news about spanish version of the book?

Larger Third World population growth = more third world whores I can fuck. Only racists are opposed to more little teen brown bodies at the go go bars!

"Blacks haven't yet been able to create a middle income country,"

Wrong Barbados. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Barbados-INCOME.html

In terms of supporting populations, Denmark and Guatemala ... I'd note that Guatemala doesn't snow over every year.

15.5 million Guatemalans.

Not Guatemalans, but future residents of LA.

Net migration from Guatemala to other countries has CRASHED over the last few decades.

During the Guatemalan Civil War from 1960 to 1996, hundreds of thousands died and millions fled the country.

Then the civil war ended and net migration rates fell dramatically.

Net migration out of Guatemala was 7 per 1000 in the 1980s. Today? Barely 1 per 1000. https://esa.un.org/miggmgprofiles/indicators/files/guatemala.pdf

Good reminder here...thanks

One thing to keep in mind, as well, is that this also means that demographic collapse in the population booming Global South (in this formulation kind of including China), is a rather serious issue than it was for Europe and North America at the same levels of wealth...

Poor countries will boom and the population of the globe become unrecognisable in its demographic centres, to a person of prior centuries, but it will be a bumpy ride.

Comments for this post are closed