This about this post:
I noticed a lot a lot of people being against the growth of somalia, saying things like having high fertility is no good and that we shouldnt indiamax. people openly advocating for anti-natalism, calling pro-fertility people the r3tards. Here is what they say:
Aside from their clear absence of all logic, what these people are saying is, since Somalia is poor, f-cked, and low iq all somalis should stop having kids / go under replacement level in order to supposedly save the country. They look up to western and developed countries for inspiration, correlating the fact that these countries have high development with a low birthrate. Although its true, high development countries do indeed have lower birthrates, all these anti-somali users all look over a few things which I have grouped into 3 main categories.
1.Population
2.Development
3.History
1. These users ignore that aside from the birthrate, countries with low birthrates often already have high populations, this matters a lot but before I explain that here are a few examples of developed countries with low birthrates.
South Korea: 51 Million - 0.81 TFR (total fertility rate) - 32,400 USD GDP per capita (38,000 mi2)
France: 68 Million - 1.84 TFR - 40800 USD GDP per capita
Britain: 67 Million - 1.56 TFR - 46100 USD GDP per capita
Brazil: 215 Million - 1.64 TFR - 8900 USD GDP per capita
USA: 333 Million - 1.66 TFR - 76000 USD GFP per capita
As you can see, these are a few developed countries with high GDP's but low birthrate, at face value you might think that having a low birth rate means high GDP, but that is not true and is a good example of why correlation does not mean causation. Something I see with uneducated anti-natalists.
Although these developed countries have a low birthrate, they already have a high population to support the development of their countries. This is a well known pattern, its called the demographic transition. Where a countries population, birthrate and development are all interconnected and go through stages. As the development of a country increases due to growing population, industrialization and other factors it will go through this transition. Somalia was in the first stage during the civil war,(Instead of death rate being high it was fleeing and war) now we are in middle stage 2, where the population is still growing at a strong rate and development is happening fast.
Now every country is different, and this is just a model. But this model is very useful in understanding the trends of our country.
Compare this to britain, it is currently in late stage 4,
here is its demographic transition
Population Growth of England
Here is its GDP, see how it corresponds?
Now before I start analyzing, I want to clarify that there are many factors that go into this. Two major things to note is the industrial revolution which started in england during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Industrialization led to mass urbanization, major development and an increase in population. Second is post ww2 population boom, the quality of life was high and people started having kids like crazy.
You can see that in 1820 the crude birth rate for britain was in the upper thirties, which is very high, Somalia today has a crude birth rate of 40. You must keep in mind however that giving brith is a lot easier then 200 years ago which is why somalia is a bit higher. But continuing, so the main arguement for somalia not have a high fertility is that their gonna grow up poor and have a harsh life. This is true a certain extent but if you were to compare it to how kids were living in industrial age britain, you would be surpised. This is what google says
Compare that to somalia, yes industrialization isnt happening to the level of britain but somalia is still developing. But you will not hear about kids working 12 hour work days. I dont want to ignore the problems, yes there are problems but the plan of action that anti natalists have is completely wrong, wrong wrong. I have even seen that they brainwashed people into thinking that population is the problem. It is not, every western developed country went through this exact stage.
Even though things were bad in Britain, it was because the government did not reform or help its people right away. Somalia, yes some portion of the population might be living in bad conditions but this is at the fault of the incompetent government who isn't providing for its people or making use of the population to industrialize properly and develop quickly to get past this stage.
Britain at the time of the industrial revolution had a similar population to somalia.
Another note is im not saying that somalia will follow the exact ways britain, britains been through this 200 years ago. Many new factors are present which is why things dont exactly line up. But they still share a lot of similarities, enough so to dispell the misinformation by anti-natalists who are going off their personal lives and not the bigger picture.
Ethiopia is cooked
Their birth rate is 3,7 and even worse their capital is below replacement rate 😂first in any sub saharen capital what pitiful future they have, going below replacement before u even make it out of the hood what sad reality for them, forever broke
www.somalispot.com
I noticed a lot a lot of people being against the growth of somalia, saying things like having high fertility is no good and that we shouldnt indiamax. people openly advocating for anti-natalism, calling pro-fertility people the r3tards. Here is what they say:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Aside from their clear absence of all logic, what these people are saying is, since Somalia is poor, f-cked, and low iq all somalis should stop having kids / go under replacement level in order to supposedly save the country. They look up to western and developed countries for inspiration, correlating the fact that these countries have high development with a low birthrate. Although its true, high development countries do indeed have lower birthrates, all these anti-somali users all look over a few things which I have grouped into 3 main categories.
1.Population
2.Development
3.History
1. These users ignore that aside from the birthrate, countries with low birthrates often already have high populations, this matters a lot but before I explain that here are a few examples of developed countries with low birthrates.
South Korea: 51 Million - 0.81 TFR (total fertility rate) - 32,400 USD GDP per capita (38,000 mi2)
France: 68 Million - 1.84 TFR - 40800 USD GDP per capita
Britain: 67 Million - 1.56 TFR - 46100 USD GDP per capita
Brazil: 215 Million - 1.64 TFR - 8900 USD GDP per capita
USA: 333 Million - 1.66 TFR - 76000 USD GFP per capita
As you can see, these are a few developed countries with high GDP's but low birthrate, at face value you might think that having a low birth rate means high GDP, but that is not true and is a good example of why correlation does not mean causation. Something I see with uneducated anti-natalists.
Although these developed countries have a low birthrate, they already have a high population to support the development of their countries. This is a well known pattern, its called the demographic transition. Where a countries population, birthrate and development are all interconnected and go through stages. As the development of a country increases due to growing population, industrialization and other factors it will go through this transition. Somalia was in the first stage during the civil war,(Instead of death rate being high it was fleeing and war) now we are in middle stage 2, where the population is still growing at a strong rate and development is happening fast.
Now every country is different, and this is just a model. But this model is very useful in understanding the trends of our country.
Compare this to britain, it is currently in late stage 4,
here is its demographic transition
Population Growth of England
Here is its GDP, see how it corresponds?
Now before I start analyzing, I want to clarify that there are many factors that go into this. Two major things to note is the industrial revolution which started in england during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Industrialization led to mass urbanization, major development and an increase in population. Second is post ww2 population boom, the quality of life was high and people started having kids like crazy.
You can see that in 1820 the crude birth rate for britain was in the upper thirties, which is very high, Somalia today has a crude birth rate of 40. You must keep in mind however that giving brith is a lot easier then 200 years ago which is why somalia is a bit higher. But continuing, so the main arguement for somalia not have a high fertility is that their gonna grow up poor and have a harsh life. This is true a certain extent but if you were to compare it to how kids were living in industrial age britain, you would be surpised. This is what google says
furthermore, aside from most kids working 12 hours a day they didnt have no schooling massive pollution and health problems because of that.
Compare that to somalia, yes industrialization isnt happening to the level of britain but somalia is still developing. But you will not hear about kids working 12 hour work days. I dont want to ignore the problems, yes there are problems but the plan of action that anti natalists have is completely wrong, wrong wrong. I have even seen that they brainwashed people into thinking that population is the problem. It is not, every western developed country went through this exact stage.
Even though things were bad in Britain, it was because the government did not reform or help its people right away. Somalia, yes some portion of the population might be living in bad conditions but this is at the fault of the incompetent government who isn't providing for its people or making use of the population to industrialize properly and develop quickly to get past this stage.
Britain at the time of the industrial revolution had a similar population to somalia.
Another note is im not saying that somalia will follow the exact ways britain, britains been through this 200 years ago. Many new factors are present which is why things dont exactly line up. But they still share a lot of similarities, enough so to dispell the misinformation by anti-natalists who are going off their personal lives and not the bigger picture.
. That list doesn’t take into account that TFR drops every decade or so. The list is BS; we’re not reaching 80 million 