Pundit, Termi, Robina, Gout, Kadudu, et al, Njooni hapa . . .

[Dear Mami]

• Tweet

http://www.fahamu.org/ep_articles/mawuna-koutonin-on-the-myth-of-overpopulated-africa/

I'd like to hear your thoughts after reading this. For the ones too busy to go there or whatever, I'll reproduce it hapo chini.

[Dear Mami]

Last month in Paris, a conference gathered a panel of white people to think about more effective ways to reduce black population in Africa.

One of the conference organizers, a historian and Associate Professor of African history, Bernard Lugan, said: “Population growth in Africa is a threat to European civilization … I’m not recommending to drop a nuclear bomb on Africa, but we can’t wait to see that population growth next to Europe. It’s a danger we have to take seriously.”

Their plan is to syndicate more closely private and public organizations in Western countries to provide money and logistics for faster and more effective actions to curb the ‘frightening’ African population growth.

This is just surreal, but let’s take a calmer road to answer the fundamental question behind such conferences and the numerous similar initiatives in Europe and the United States: is Africa overpopulated?

First, what is overpopulation?

Overpopulation is an array of negative social and ecological impacts caused by increasing competition between individuals or groups due to the increasing scarcity of resources. The scarcity could be caused either by decreasing resources of water, food and other life necessities because of a growing population, or by overconsumption of those resources due to unhealthy lifestyle or economical ideology.

Put simply, overpopulation is caused either by limited resources not enough to sustain the ever-growing population, or by overconsumption due to unhealthy lifestyle.

The debate on the world overpopulation has been ongoing for over 150 years. Many in position of power think the world has become overpopulated recently, and Africa takes the center of attention because of the constant increase in population.

Often, the people behind the Africa overpopulation debate would produce shiny graphics and complex MBA types of matrix that look very convincing, and indeed would trick people not familiar with the issues into agreeing with their points

[Dear Mami]

Here is a flipped coin perspective you won’t see in the mainstream news outlets.

In the 15th century, Africans represented 17% of the world population. At the beginning of the 20th century, Africans accounted only for a little bit more than 7%. What has happened during these four centuries of depopulation of Africa? You already have the answer. Today, Africans represent only 16% of the world population, less than five centuries ago, while Asians represent more than 60%.

Keep in mind that India is more populated than Africa while Africa is nine times the size of India. Bangladesh with half the area of ​​Gabon has 125 million inhabitants, whereas Gabon has barely two million.

Congo is 2,345,408 square kilometers, slightly greater than the combined areas of Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway. The population of Congo is only 68 million; yet, Germany’s is about 82 million; Spain, 47 million; France, 66 million; Sweden, ten million; Norway, five million. Now, think of the little island of Britain, three times smaller than Madagascar. If you take the population of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho, and probably throw in Namibia for good measure, that will bring us up to the population of the UK, if not just under.

Africa is inhabited by 87 people per square kilometre, against 57 in the Americas, 246 in Asia, and 188 in Europe. It means that Europe is the most overpopulated continent in the world. Indeed, the most overpopulated countries per square kilometre are mostly in Europe, regardless of the fact that Europe had shipped over half a billion of its population surplus to two continents: America and Australia.

Five centuries ago, there were no Europeans in America, Australia, or Africa.

European countries are nowadays giving incentives to their women to give birth to more babies. Yet, an already underpopulated continent, Africa is crowded with Western ‘experts’ giving money to NGOs and governments to stop the population growth. In the meantime, China is abandoning its one-child policy to boost its populace.

[Dear Mami]

The USA consumes 25% of world resources while its population is under 5%. And the West as a bloc represents less than 15% of the overall world population while consuming over half of world resources and being responsible for 80% of the world climate change factors.

When it comes to carbon dioxide emission (‘carbon footprint’) per person on the global scale, one person in the US emits about 20 tons every year, one person in the European Union emits 11 tons, one person in China emit three tons, and one person in the sub-Saharan Africa emits a maximum of 300 kilograms. Which means the African carbon impact is 66 times less than American, and 36 times less than European.

Put simply, the impact of a single American on the environment and his role in furthering the global warming effect is equivalent to that of almost 7,000 Africans. A single European threatens the environment with the ‘force’ of 4,000 Africans.

The same goes for the consumption of vital resources like water, meat, etc. For example, the US, with a population around 300 million people, consume as much water per person as China or India which each have above one billion inhabitants. EU countries follow similar patterns.

The whole African continent’s population is less than China’s alone, and a total GDP the size of a small country like France (France’s 2013 GDP was 2.806 trillion USD vs Africa’s 2.6 trillion in 2013) which is five times smaller than Congo.

Looking from that perspective, you can now see why it is convenient for some people to throw dubious numbers out there: attacking poor Africans is such a harmless exercise.

The debate about the world overpopulation should not be about headcount, but about a single individual’s impact on the environment, and it is necessary to recalculate the ‘overpopulation factor’ based on those parameters.

The world is overpopulated, let’s have less rich people should be the real agenda.

There are too many Americans, too many Europeans, too many Australians, too many Japanese, too many Singaporeans, and so on, because they are the people impacting our common planet in the worst way. Only, concerning Africa, we are talking about population reduction strategies funded by Western NGOs and governments.

Is it because Africa does not have resources to feed two billion people? No. It is because other nations want those resources for their own people.


The links on the article quoting stats are:
https://www.geographyrealm.com/continents-population-density/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
https://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/

[Dear Mami]

PS: I'm NOT agreeing with him that "there should be less rich people." I'm saying, IF their concerns were truly what they claim, THAT would've been their agenda. No one would even waste their breath bothering even mentioning Africa, much less invest millions of dollars in NGOs and experts whose job is to convince Africans to make themselves fewer as everyone else on the planet is ensuring that their own population is maintained or grown. I'm just saying, look at some of that conventional wisdom about Africa through a more critical lens. Iyo tu.

The only reason Africans were not purged from their continent in the same rates as Native Americans and Australasians is that the continent came into focus as a viable target for Western Capital much later in time, and its only thanks to our lucky stars that this period coincided with the worst crises of Capital since its birth in 16th century Britain; i.e. the two World Wars. If this interest had happened just a century or two sooner, we'd be in the same place/position as American and Australasian natives. It's through this lens that I see Western interest/investments in the 'terrifying' prospect of African so-called "overpopulation."

[Nowayhaha]

"Its economics stupid"

[RV Pundit]

Africa of course is underpopulated. If you look at Kenya nearly 80 percent of population live in small corridor to the south - while the entire north is empty - albeit arid or semi arid.

But I believe women (especially) - and families - should be empowered through education - to give optimal birth to the number of kids they can comfortably raise.

 I find Robina 1 child policy rather stupid and dictatorial. I also find anybody encouraging women to have 15 kids because Africa is underpopulated stupid.

Policy wise - this works.
1) Empower people through education to make their choices on how many and when (spacing) of kids. More informed women have less kids.
2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.
3) Provide the tools to make this happen - provide contraceptives and other family planning tools.

Whether Africa is underpopulated or not is moot. Families and Gov cannot afford a rapid increase in population like we have seen. We are not in hurry - earth has existed for billions of years - and it will exist.

Get the kids you can manage. For example we decided to have 3 kids - but they are spaced roughly six years apart. I can probably get more kids but I would have to lower our living standards.

[RV Pundit]

Europe medicine and civilisation is responsible for Africa population boom of last century. Kenya when European came had 1M people. Britain had 30M in 1900. Kenya 1M.
By 1963 when kenya independent - our population had grown six times to 6m. Britain had grown to 50M.

50yrs later kenya population is nearly 50M. Britain population is 60M.

So you can see how in 100 yrs - Kenya that had 30 times less population than Britain - is now almost at par population wise.

Africa population has grown to 1B plus I think - almost equal to Europe.

PS: I'm NOT agreeing with him that "there should be less rich people." I'm saying, IF their concerns were truly what they claim, THAT would've been their agenda. No one would even waste their breath bothering even mentioning Africa, much less invest millions of dollars in NGOs and experts whose job is to convince Africans to make themselves fewer as everyone else on the planet is ensuring that their own population is maintained or grown. I'm just saying, look at some of that conventional wisdom about Africa through a more critical lens. Iyo tu.

The only reason Africans were not purged from their continent in the same rates as Native Americans and Australasians is that the continent came into focus as a viable target for Western Capital much later in time, and its only thanks to our lucky stars that this period coincided with the worst crises of Capital since its birth in 16th century Britain; i.e. the two World Wars. If this interest had happened just a century or two sooner, we'd be in the same place/position as American and Australasian natives. It's through this lens that I see Western interest/investments in the 'terrifying' prospect of African so-called "overpopulation."

[Dear Mami]

2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.

I agree for the most part. I have no problem with providing the conditions in which people will choose to have fewer kids, ala your policy recommendation no. 2. I'm not for either limiting people from having kids by economically or legally punishing them (the facts of modern life are well able to do that all by themselves without anybody helping to punish those who have many babies) or encouraging/discouraging them either way.

I think poor people, whether Africans or humans in general, are not as stupid as many of us tend to assume when we immediately start complaining about the population whenever problems of any kind in poor areas or countries are mentioned. Even those Somalis and Congolese churning out 7-8 kids by the time they're in their early 30s are not crazy. They're a product of their environment and circumstances. I think we should glean insights from wider trends to understand why people have more kids in the first place, and if we feel we cannot sustain this phenomenon, then target our solutions to those factors, and not just its end results (babies being born). People automatically choose to have fewer kids when they start factoring in the costs of raising a child in modern, post-agrarian society. One of my mother's house-helps, born in Gusii but working in Nai, has refused to add another child after her second despite people telling her to add, simply because of budgeting for her tiny income and her two boys' expenses. Why do people in shags make different choices? I've found very few people who need to be told what they can afford: No welfare in Africa to encourage anyone to have more kids. So why is it happening? We should seriously interrogate this and provide solutions accordingly, IMO.

[RV Pundit]

Ultimately is about empowering women as the ones who really make the final decision - to be able to make informed decision - and then providing the tools to make that happen. For example without contraceptive that you catholics oppose - it would be impossible for women to have less kids.

But there is no disputing that having less kids and spacing them is one of the ticket out of poverty cycle - which can become inter-generational problem.

Of course it also gov interest to get right kind of population - more adults -working and paying taxes- than kids and elderly people who are mostly dependant and a burden. Europe faces the elderly problem. Kenya faces the problem of too many kids - more than 20m under 18 (kids) - in country of 50m. The Europe solution is to get more kids. Kenya solution is to get less kids.

2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.

I agree for the most part. I have no problem with providing the conditions in which people will choose to have fewer kids, ala your policy recommendation no. 2. I'm not for either limiting people from having kids by economically or legally punishing them (the facts of modern life are well able to do that all by themselves without anybody helping to punish those who have many babies) or encouraging/discouraging them either way.

I think poor people, whether Africans or humans in general, are not as stupid as many of us tend to assume when we immediately start complaining about the population whenever problems of any kind in poor areas or countries are mentioned. Even those Somalis and Congolese churning out 7-8 kids by the time they're in their early 30s are not crazy. They're a product of their environment and circumstances. I think we should glean insights from wider trends to understand why people have more kids in the first place, and if we feel we cannot sustain this phenomenon, then target our solutions to those factors, and not just its end results (babies being born). People automatically choose to have fewer kids when they start factoring in the costs of raising a child in modern, post-agrarian society. One of my mother's house-helps, born in Gusii but working in Nai, has refused to add another child after her second despite people telling her to add, simply because of budgeting for her tiny income and her two boys' expenses. Why do people in shags make different choices? I've found very few people who need to be told what they can afford: No welfare in Africa to encourage anyone to have more kids. So why is it happening? We should seriously interrogate this and provide solutions accordingly, IMO.

[Dear Mami]

Ultimately is about empowering women as the one who really make the final decision - to be able to make informed decision - and then providing the tools to make that happen. For example without contraceptive that you catholics oppose - it would be impossible for women to have less kids.

This is a red-herring, bwana Pundit. First, there's no shortage of contraceptives in the modern age, nor any push for an official law/policy to limit contraceptives. So no, Catholic beliefs have nothing to do with the "African overpopulation meme" pushed by NGOs/West. It's not like Catholics think only Africans should be good Catholics in this world while everyone else gets a pass in the way the West seems to give a special focus on Africa when it comes to population. In addition, populations reproducing "too much" have no correlation with any single religion whatsoever; it's a socio-economic phenomenon and should be discussed that way without sneaking in little jabs that miss the debate in qustion.

PS: This board hasn't a clue what the state of my current religious view/evolution is and should seriously avoid cheap shots in that direction (talking to Pundit and Robina  ). If you haven't guessed yet, much of my critique re the Western posture towards Africa, China and the rest of the global south is much more left/socialist/anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberalist/anti-globalist than anything else and that's where this discussion falls for me. So lets stick to the subject, respectfully.

[Dear Mami]

The Europe solution is to get more kids. Kenya solution is to get less kids.

And it doesn't bother you at all that this nifftly little solution just conveniently ends up with not just a perpetually underpopulated Africa but a well-populated Europe in tandem? Immigration is a great solution to Europe's "elderly" problem, too. Developing Africa is the best one, as far as long-term solutions go  So why do you think they prefer more European kids to letting young immigrants in or improving African development, IF it's really all just about managing things in a benign way? You are right though, that's it's about "govt interest" and that interest in the west is to have a nicely stocked Africa, full of resources, but not too many people.

Re this topic: Again, we need to look at the actual trends to figure where to target solutions.

Who in Kenya, for example, is having lots of kids and what are those factors that drive it? In our shags, I have cousins who churn out babies starting around 12/13/14 (upper primary). That doesn't seem to be a common trend in urban areas outside slums. The ones who come to the city to live with us are the only ones from my mom's shags lucky enough to escape that trend. (She's from a poor Gusii area, unlike my dad). Why? If we prefer one trend to the other, we don't just guess that what they need is "education" (Do you really think they don't know about contraceptives?) Why are our shags and slum teens becoming mothers. That's one of the things we need to target.

[RV Pundit]

Of course immigration can be part of the solution - especially if done like Australia - with some point system to get the right kind of immigrants - but allowing ill educated somalis to jam your system is not a solution. Part of solution is also to encourage citizen of those countries to get kids.

Now coming back to kenya - we are overally on the right track. I think right now the 10-14 age set are the largest - that seem to point at inflection point about 12 yrs ago when Kenya starting having less kids every year.

On micro level - yes one problem to lots of kids problem - the age when people start having kids - Kenya should be 21/22 - which great - because we began with that 14.  Developed world are in 28 or about before they starting getting kids - reducing their biological clock.

And how do we improve the age of first birth - Keep the girls in School LONGER.

And it doesn't bother you at all that this nifftly little solution just conveniently ends up with not just a perpetually underpopulated Africa but a well-populated Europe in tandem? Immigration is a great solution to Europe's "elderly" problem, too. Why do you think they prefer more European kids to letting young immigrants in, IF it's really all just about managing things in a benign way? You are right though, that's it's about "govt interest" and that interest in the west is to have a nicely stocked Africa, full of resources, but not too many people.

Re this topic: Again, we need to look at the actual trends to figure where to target solutions.

Who in Kenya, for example, is having lots of kids and what are those factors that drive it? In our shags, I have cousins who churn out babies starting around 12/13/14 (upper primary). That doesn't seem to be a common factor in urban areas outside slums. The ones who come to the city to live with us are the only ones from my mom's shags lucky enough to escape that trend. (She's from a poor Gusii area, unlike my dad). Why? If we prefer one trend to the other, we don't just guess that what they need is "education" (Do you really think they don't know about contraceptives?) Why are our shags teens becoming mothers. That's one of the things we need to target.

[Dear Mami]

And how do we improve the age of first birth - Keep the girls in School LONGER.

Now you're speaking my language!  These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this for nothing other than egalitarian sustainability reasons. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.

[RV Pundit]

Of course European/White are not genuine. They have enslaved and colonized Africans for ages. They continue to neo-colonize Africa. They believe they are superior race and want to keep things that way. The systems of privilege's built of centuries they are gonna dismantled them.

They will pretend with long talk about human rights - but will NOT EMPOWER UN or MULITATERIAL institution to fix it. It US or EU to fix stuff. It not UN or such.

China is Africa true friend. But people go to China and face little racism - and declare China bad.

You can see China engagement with Africa the last 20yrs and what it has done to the continent.

The only time Africa has grown for 20yrs - per capita/gdp wise - and we are turning the corner.

Now you're speaking my language!  These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.

[Dear Mami]

Of course European/White are not genuine. They have enslaved and colonized Africans for ages. They continue to neo-colonize Africa. They believe they are superior race and want to keep things that way. The systems of privilege's built of centuries they are gonna dismantled them.

They will pretend with long talk about human rights - but will NOT EMPOWER UN or MULITATERIAL institution to fix it. It US or EU to fix stuff. It not UN or such.

China is Africa true friend. But people go to China and face little racism - and declare China bad.

You can see China engagement with Africa the last 20yrs and what it has done to the continent.

The only time Africa has grown for 20yrs - per capita/gdp wise - and we are turning the corner.

Now you're speaking my language!  These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.

Ok, I think we are on the same page. I have pretty much similar views. The West sells the religion of democracy and human rights to starving people but makes zero investment in actual development. I want to give China a shot because its investments are truly geared towards long-term development. Everyone else has refused to make those investments. But without those investments, Africa is guaranteed to stay at the bottom, perpetually needing aide and intervention.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I think there is real concern about the environment.  Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate.  The African wants some of that lifestyle.  If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.

The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness.  Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet?  I think they are not.

[KenyanPlato]

I think there is real concern about the environment.  Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate.  The African wants some of that lifestyle.  If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.

The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness.  Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet?  I think they are not.

You have symmarized what anyone can see. Allowing china go ape western civilzatuon has actually caused more pain than it is worthy and accellarated our own destruction. Climate change will be where rubber meets the road. Nigeria will be a developed nation in the next 40 years. It will have one of the biggest population in the world. East africa population and development will tripple in the next 50 years. Western civilization has to be destoryed for us to have a dtable earth.

[RV Pundit]

Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they  transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.

The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.

What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.

So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.

There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.

I think there is real concern about the environment.  Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate.  The African wants some of that lifestyle.  If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.

The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness.  Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet?  I think they are not.

[Dear Mami]

I think there is real concern about the environment.  Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate.  The African wants some of that lifestyle.  If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.

The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness.  Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet?  I think they are not.

I see your point re: we can't sustain this for everyone everywhere. But isn't it sinister that the only solution they see is to maintain their populations and deliberately keep Africa poor and underpopulated perpetually? A fairer approach is to give developing countries more leeway while shifting the lifelystle/approaches of developed countries. We should aim for an eventual future where humans are more or less at par with only the amount of damage (to the earth) that we can sustain without destroying it. Because otherwise, what we have is the vision of a future of a permanent racial underclass.