What will come out of this?

I could see them trying to get to South America after Europe is done.

Will the South American sink their boats?

What about north africa?

The west will fall
The rest hold on
And Asia will rise

Not much, the ones with high fertility are just lagging. Their population will increase in relation to the rest until they catch up.

R/k strategy.

Tell me more

Remember when India and Bangladesh were supposed to collapse and/or flood the world because they used to have 5+ children per woman? Yeah.

Apart from the fact that Bangladesh and India are still overpopulated, they actually lowered their fertility rate substantially, unlike most subsaharan countries.

Nothing, but retards who dont understand statistics will keep parroting the MASS MIGRATION OVERPOPULATION STATION meme.

who's wrong?

25
year
rule

It's gonna peak and then start declining, like everywhere else in the world.

Also

>muh malthusianism
The following SSA countries have several times more arable land per person than Germany (at least twice as much), and more than Poland:

Niger
Mali
CAR
Togo
Chad
Burkina Faso
Sudan
Namibia

The following countries have less than Poland but still more than Germany:

Cameroon
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
Benin
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Zambia
Gambia
Malawi
South Africa
Senegal
Mozambique
Angola
Gabon
Nigeria
Uganda
Ghana
Guinea-Bisseau
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea

The following have less than Germany but still more than the denser European countries (Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands etc)

Swaziland
Cote d'Ivoire
Kenya
Botswana
Rep of Congo
Lesotho
Liberia
Mauritania
Burundi
Rwanda
Somalia
Dem Rep of Congo

Note that a lot of those could increase their arable lands by cutting into jungles, or are small enough that they can already trade other resources for food.

Note that the only African country below this threshold is Djibouti which is just a city-state in the desert.

Both show a slow steady decline since the 80s.

The fertility rate goes down slower than the birth rate given that you can't go back in time and cancel the children you had.

There is still a limit to how many people Africa can sustain.
It's not just about food but also water and other resources.

Asia did their rising 40 years ago

Sure. On the other hand, their overpopulation crisis is not even on the same order of magnitude as most African countries, meaning they had much more incentive to control their populations.

Water in particular is a problem, other resources are easy to secure if their economy improves even modestly.
In other terms, if they can buy smartphones they can buy critical resources.
Their prospects are hardly worse than countries like Indonesia at any rate.

>huge source of investment and will benefit f

Fertility rate is an easier state to look at and even then Nigeria is decreasing pretty decently.

They aren't overpopulation though. Both can provide for themselves to a decent degree. Overpopualtion is actually pretty off as a thing because peopel neglect a lot of other things when talking about it like utilization of a nations resources and EFFICIENCY which is a key thing here.

Yeah, but global warming is going to fuck African agra the hardest and might actually benefit the US mid-west, Canada, and northern Europe/Asia.

>Note that the only African country below this threshold is Djibouti which is just a city-state in the desert.

It's a bit smaller then the entirety of metropolitan Tokyo I think.

Is the arable land as productive as in Central Europe? Does it allow intensive farming? Are those African nations capable of introducing highly productive agriculture? Are they able to export enough goods to be able to import food and other products as European countries do?

Keep in mind that the population of SSA is going to triple or quadruple.

That's probably the reason why Africa doesn't need food aid at all. Oh wait

>Both can provide for themselves to a decent degree

wow much decent

Yes but in a weird kind of way.

Using South Africa they had/are having a very bumper crop for corn in 2017. This is after the complete ass output they had for corn in 2016 due to el nino

A lot of the problems are related to market pricing and demand. So even if everyone had great crop yields the depressed prices and market fears fuck up your profits from them so you never really made much profit. There's a reason farming can make you both rich and poor simultaneously at the same time.

Violence

They aren't using their resources to maximum efficiency

that's what he said

>birth rate has a strong inverse correlation with GDP per capita, gender equality, and basically everything else that makes a state "modern"
>develop Africa so it's not a shithole
>bam no more infinite nigger babies
Everyone on /pol/ should actually strongly support aid and economic development in Africa. In the end, it's the only way to keep them in their countries. Otherwise, libcucks will always just open the borders of western countries.

>/pol/ for pan-africa 2020

It is not possible to compete with the raw breeding power of big black cocks. Eventually the other races will give up and accept it.

>Keep in mind that the population of SSA is going to triple or quadruple.

Contrary to your attempts at panic not at all. Even the most "discounting everything changing/happening between now and then" estimates aren't like that at all.

To use an example the population challenges for Africa are unique for every region and country that msut be considered and it woudl be EXTREMELY foolish to use one size fits all solutions. There's a group of countries that are the 6 times the size of France but the same population ( I think less) so the goal in those regions is to increase access to healthcare and encourage women to space their births out.

It's not like there aren't slums in Brazil.

>Is the arable land as productive as in Central Europe? Does it allow intensive farming?
Depends.

>Are those African nations capable of productive agriculture?
I don't see why not. Plenty of them are already quite productive or could copy comparable countries.
What you should be asking is if they're capable of urbanizing fast enough.

>Are they able to export enough goods to be able to import food and other products as European countries do?
I said as much in my post.

>Keep in mind that the population of SSA is going to triple or quadruple
Not much of a problem except for those in the bottom category.

Incidentally the regions that need food aid tend to be the most remote, primitive, and least populated.

Lots of poverty and human suffering, since the shittiest places (like Niger) have the highest birthrates. Refugees will flee from the shittest places into shit places like Zambia, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and cause ethnic and antiimmigrant violence there. Really we just have to wait until those regions become less shit poor, then the birthrate will go down like elsewhere

The main resource they aren't using efficiently is their labor force. They're engaged in zero-capital low profit subsistence agriculture because they lack other prospects. It's why Niger is dirt-poor and "running out of good farmland" despite having more arable land than any country with a similar population. Western countries have

50% of nigerias population is below the age of 15

More people

What makes Iran and Uzbekistan so different here?

the future is either overpopulation and flight or the advancement of living conditions to the point where having many children is no longer necessary for long-term survival and social security, as then your children will be less likely to die during development and you won't have to have as many in the first place because you would no longer need someone to support you into your old age.

tl;dr in undeveloped society children ARE social security, as it was historically in most of the world before the modern age.

>never did anything to contribute to technological development
>inherit all its benefits

And we kept saying they were dumb.

White genocide

You do know most of those kids in the poorest countries die by the age of 5 anyway right? The other half die by the age of 30.
It's really not a big deal and is highly exaggerated by white nationalist.

>birth rate has a strong inverse correlation with GDP per capita, gender equality, and basically everything else that makes a state "modern"

The strongest correlation seems to be not being niggers

>Even the most "discounting everything changing/happening between now and then" estimates aren't like that at all.

Yeah. Except for the medium variant projection of the United Nations.

esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf

South America has some black population, but they would not take immigrants unless they are useful engineers, scientists, doctors, and adapt to the culture like any other country with "closed" borders.

>It's not like there aren't slums in Brazil.

Favelas are a paradise compared to South Asian slums.

>I don't see why not.

It requires lots of capital and know-how. Not exactly easy to achieve when most of the farmland is divided into tiny parcels cultivated by subsistence farmers.

>I said as much in my post.

Well, most African countries earn hard currency through the export of natural ressources. The revenues from the exploitation of those do not necessarily grow as fast as the population. Right now Nigeria gets most of its export revenue from oil. The money can be used to import goods for the population, provide services etc. Right now Nigeria has a population of 180 millions. When the population grows to 400 million or 800 million, the oil revenue would have to double or quadruple to keep pace. What if oil revenue even declines? One thing is also sure: If Nigeria had enforced anti-natalist policies right from the beginning so that their population would top at 50 or 100 million, the average Nigerian would be much more wealthy. Just like gulf Arabs are wealthy because they have a low population and a lot of natural ressources. If the gulf states had ten times the population, the average Abdul there would be considerably poorer.

>Not much of a problem except for those in the bottom category.

Why?

>Incidentally the regions that need food aid tend to be the most remote, primitive, and least populated.

Regions with a low population density can also be overpopulated in relation to their ressources, i.e. arid regions. But some very densely populated regions like Ruanda and Burundi also have a high proportion of malnourished people. Check out Jared Diamond's collapse, where he describes how a Malthusian Catastrophe contributed to the genocide in Ruanda.

The UN predictiosn isl iterally based off of "if trends continue on with no changes whatsoever" those numbers would be accurate if current rates do not change but in nearly a 100 years a fuckton of massive shit can change. Look at Italy for example.

>where he describes how a Malthusian Catastrophe contributed to the genocide in Ruanda.

Not even close at all at all if you actually read the history of the whole thing. Don''t know how Diamond could fuck that up so damn hard

If they had like 2-4 kids and lived decent lifespans the population growth rates would be the same actually because like you said the people that die as adults die to things like diseases, chronic illness, medical problems that often are in many cases preventable.

Niggas On The Moon

Because as Diamond fails to note Hutu-Tutsi conflicts happened in many instances before the genocide happened.

>What will come out of this?

war, famine, disease and death

>dude & humanities lmao

>The UN predictiosn isl iterally based off of "if trends continue on with no changes whatsoever"

Wrong, all projections assume that birth rates will fall; the projections were recently revised upwards because the decline of African fertility did NOT match previous expectations. Researchers looked at the relatively sharp decline of fertility in South America and South Asia and thought Africa would behave likewise; it turned out that fertility in Africa is declining extremely slowely, even as mortality rates decline. The liberal sing sang that Africa's demography is just developing the same way as Western demography did is nothing more than ignorance of the fact.

Disease and turmoil in these areas. They obviously can't sustain such large populations. And no, EU isn't going to take endless amounts of shitskin boat people.

In poor shitty countries, children = pension, insurance. Since the odds are that some kids will die, you need to hedge bets with multiple kids. Once infrastructure and services improve, there is less need for surplus children.