patrick.net

The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.

Many African countries have a fertility near 7 kids by women. Even if it falls, populations will still go up as people live longer.
5 billions in Africa means destabilizing waves of migration.
11 billions in the world means massive destruction of ecosystems, and sensitivity to climate change, plagues and other problems.
Population is still by far the largest issue we are facing this century.

The opposite problem of falling or stagnating population is also an economic and societal challenge.
We think we are sooooooo different from a colony of bacteria hitting the edges of its petri dish.
Better have some AI to do the work, and take care of old people.

Heraclitusstudent says

Many African countries have a fertility near 7 kids by women. Even if it falls, populations will still go up as people live longer.
5 billions in Africa means destabilizing waves of migration.
11 billions in the world means massive destruction of ecosystems, and sensitivity to climate change, plagues and other problems.
Population is still by far the largest issue we are facing this century.

Africa except some countries birthrate is going down too. Plus AIDS/HIV-in some countries 20-25% have them -it brings down mortality.

Projections are still up to 5 billions in Africa at the end of the century.
It's a large continent, but I doubt it's gonna be a fun place, and I doubt it's not gonna be a problem for the rest of the world.

lostand confused says

Africa except some countries birthrate is going down too. Plus AIDS/HIV-in some countries 20-25% have them -it brings down mortality.

See what happens when the NGOs stop automatically classifying as somebody with AIDS who shares the same symptoms of Cholera, Dysentery, etc. Or stop extrapolating a mining town full of prostitutes to the whole country?

If they were to Western Blot test a random 1-2% sample of the adult population, you'd find AIDS is extremely exaggerated. ELISA, the cheaper one, gives false positives in the presence of Malaria, which while most Africans are resistant to, the antibodies are prevalent in their bloodstream.

Only one of two things can be true:
1. One quarter of the population has AIDS
2. The population is growing.

People with HIV give birth to HIV positive kids who don't live long enough to reach puberty and reproduce. Yes, they can block HIV transmission at birth IF with Zidovudine IF and they are:

1. Near a decent quality medical center (not very common) AND Either:
2. Can afford the $80-$365 for the treatment per month for several months (excluding most of Africa's population)
3. Very lucky to near live an NGO that diagnoses HIV and dispenses the drug for free/minimal cost (like $5)

AIDS/HIV was the biggest unjustified panic of my lifetime. It went from "Everybody's gonna have AIDS in 1990" with the Media and Grant-seeking Research Groups telling everybody the sky was going to fall, to the point where it's hardly mentioned today.

I knew this 20 years ago. How? My friend's dad was a life insurance guy for one of the biggest insurers in the country. The 2nd most populous county in the USA had only a few hundred HIV/AIDS individuals. It's their Literal Business to ascertain the facts about life expectancy, and that means AIDS. With the help of the now-renamed (but sinister sounding) MIB based in Boston, that keeps a record of everybody's health diagnoses, they concluded very quickly it was a nothing burger and did not adjust rates accordingly. This was BEFORE the current round of HIV and AIDS treatments were developed.

"I've got AIDS, my mother's got AIDS. My father - AIDS, my brother - AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS"

The best thing we can do for sub-saharan Africa is seal it off and implement the Federation's rule about Intervening With Primitives. Most African countries are not real nations, and many wouldn't even have many actual city-states if they devolved. Once they can match a 19th Century lifestyle on their own volition, then we should re-open Africa.

Remember, AIDS individuals in the high quality hospital prevalent USA, Europe, etc. have Medicaid and Welfare and all kinds of special programs that pay for the Drugs. Most African Nations have problems with Malnutrition and don't even have a rudimentary food stamp program or even school lunch program. Talking about a continent where most women still squat beside a tree for pre-natal care and delivery. The treatment rate is far inferior.

The true HIV/AIDS rate is probably closer to 3-4% and like in Europe and the US, concentrated in particular populations.

UN overstated Aids risk, says specialist
Agency 'has wasted billions' on HIV education
Denis Campbell, health correspondent

The United Nations has systematically exaggerated the scale of the Aids epidemic and the risk of the HIV virus affecting heterosexuals, claims a leading expert on the disease.

The numbers of people worldwide with HIV have been inflated and the UN Aids agency has wasted billions of pounds on education aimed at people who are unlikely to become infected, says Professor James Chin, a former senior Aids official with the World Health Organisation. He also accused UNAids of misleading and scaring the public by promoting 'myths' about the disease, such as that poorer people are most at risk, and of being guided in its approach by 'political correctness' rather than hard evidence.

Chin will detail his claims this week in London in a meeting hosted by the International Policy Network, a free-market think tank, where he will launch a new report, called 'The Myth of a General Aids Pandemic'. Despite his controversial reputation, Chin, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley, will also explain his concerns when he meets Department for International Development officials who specialise in HIV and Aids.

'UNAids has systematically exaggerated the size and trend of the pandemic, as well as hyping the potential for HIV epidemics in general populations,' said Chin. 'UNAids's perpetuation of the myth that everyone is at risk of Aids has led to billions wasted on prevention programmes directed at general populations and youth who, outside of sub-Saharan Africa, are at minimal risk of exposure to HIV.'

Paul DeLay, UNAids' director of evidence, monitoring and policy, last night rejected Chin's claims and told The Observer he was 'living in the past'. Chin's criticisms are based on old counting systems that have been improved. However, UNAids has revised down its estimate of the number of people worldwide with HIV from more than 40 million to 33.2 million, he admitted. Chin claims the true figure is 'probably under 30 million but close to 30 million'.

DeLay said UNAids was right to warn people that HIV could 'bridge' into heterosexual populations from high-risk groups such as prostitutes, injecting drug users and bisexual men, and that education focused on those most at risk.

Chin's claims are part of a growing backlash at the Aids strategies employed by international aid agencies. Writing in the British Medical Journal last month, Dr Roger England, of the Health Systems Workshop in Grenada, said HIV should be downgraded in the fight to improve global healthcare for poorer people. It caused 3.7 per cent of mortality but received 25 per cent of international healthcare aid, he said. He urged switching £5bn a year of Aids funding to tackle other diseases and said Aids was not a unique global threat.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/08/aids.health

Although I'm opposed to Health NGOs in Africa on overpopulation grounds, the UN and others would have gotten far more bang for their buck cleaning up the water supply, laying pipes, building sanitation systems, or simply vaccinating against various diseases.

Blast from the Past: AIDS Scaremongering at the end of the 20th Century.

My God, almost every 15-year old male in Botswana will die of complications related to AIDS!

If we spend tens of billions, we might mitigate it a little bit! Give money NOW!
http://data.unaids.org/pub/report/2000/2000_gr_en.pdf

That's the Official UN AIDS report from 2000, folks. With their "Science Driven" "Expert" models. (See why I'm so skeptical on Global Warming?)

2000: The World Health Organization (WHO) announces that HIV/AIDS has become the fourth biggest killer worldwide and the number one killer in Africa. WHO estimates that 33 million people are living with HIV worldwide, and that 14 million have died of AIDS.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline

Guess what the number of HIV/AIDS sufferers is estimated to be today? About 30 Million. (See also last post)

30% of Rwandan Urban Adults! says 1994 Article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277953694902216

Hmmm.... how the F*ck did 30% of the Urban Adult Population Get AIDS, while the expected lifespan about doubled in the past 15 years from 30 to 60?
https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=rw&v=30

Heraclitusstudent says

The opposite problem of falling or stagnating population is also an economic and societal challenge.

Why? The USA was prosperous when we were at 200 million and Europe, Oz, Canada, NZ all prospered with lower populations. The only issue with the "deflation" is debt.

HeadSet says

Why? The USA was prosperous when we were at 200 million and Europe, Oz, Canada, NZ all prospered with lower populations. The only issue with the "deflation" is debt.

This is a bizarre comparison. The population and economy were growing when we were at 200 millions.
Going back means a shrinking economy. Unless we have real AI.

Europe really prospered after the Black Death. Wages skyrocketed, Cities boomed, Peasants rolled in the dough (pun intended), and a huge push for watermills, windmills, better ship rigging, any and all methods to reduce the dependence on expensive labor. Even intracine warfare declined because the Black Death killed off so many petty nobles and their endless battles against each other, and helped the Nation take hold.

China never bothered with substituting human and animal labor with devices at the same scale, though they were known, because human life was abundant and cheap.

The Black Death truly led to the Renaissance.

We have one abbot's whinging about how since the Black Death, all the peasants are uppity and won't work for peanuts anymore; before they would prostrate themselves if they would only be allowed to press the grapes, for a few crumbs, oh please, Holy Father, please!

Imagine how beneficial it would be if NYC in 100 years had half the population, everybody living in big apartments, high wages because labor is scarce as hell, huge drive for robotics, real expenditure on tech because it's vital to get wages down.

Reducing the human population could result in a huge boom.

The losers? Banks and Landlords and divisive special interest groups. Widespread prosperity and opportunity does a job on the Oppression Olympics.

Heraclitusstudent says

HeadSet says

Why? The USA was prosperous when we were at 200 million and Europe, Oz, Canada, NZ all prospered with lower populations. The only issue with the "deflation" is debt.

This is a bizarre comparison. The population and economy were growing when we were at 200 millions.
Going back means a shrinking economy. Unless we have real AI.

Not really bizarre. Tech advances make production more efficient as time progresses, with or without AI. We should have been at a 3 day work week long ago since 3 days pay would be purchase what 5 day pay did previously. The wrench in the works is debt, both government and 30 year mortgages. The government and the banks cannot accept a deflationary environment, and thus push "sustainable" birthrates to fight population decrease. This is the reason Germany's Angela Merkle feels the need to import millions of middle easterners to stop German population decrease.

Heraclitusstudent says

Projections are still up to 5 billions in Africa at the end of the century.

Not if they kill off all the white farmers.