Overpopulation, man up and accept its the problem Watch

Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by Elipsis)
Botswana's GDP is more like 20th in the African league table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
GDP is not a measure of prosperity. GDP per capita is. China has x100 times the GDP Norway does and yet it is 100 times poorer. And I don't care for nominal figures. I care for real figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita

2010 figures.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by Godfrey)
GDP is not a measure of prosperity. GDP per capita is. China has x100 times the GDP Norway does and yet it is 100 times poorer. And I don't care for nominal figures. I care for real figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita

2010 figures.
SA is still ahead of Botswana...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...gdp-per-capita
0
quote
reply
Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by Elipsis)
SA is still ahead of Botswana...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...gdp-per-capita
Are you for real or are you really that stupid? stop posting nominal figures and look at REAL figures which take into account inflation and exchange rates and measure REAL wealth.

Botswana $15,449.725
South Africa $10,505.334

from the IMF website:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...r.x=33&pr.y=12
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by Godfrey)
Are you for real or are you really that stupid? stop posting nominal figures and look at REAL figures which take into account inflation and exchange rates and measure REAL wealth.

Botswana $15,449.725
South Africa $10,505.334

from the IMF website:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...r.x=33&pr.y=12
Make up your mind... we are either discussing GDP, GDP per capita or PPP. You said GDP per capita.
0
quote
reply
Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Elipsis)
Make up your mind... we are either discussing GDP, GDP per capita or PPP. You said GDP per capita.
I said in my first post:

(Original post by Godfrey)
And I don't care for nominal figures. I care for real figures.
The figures I gave account for real (PPP) GDP per capita. Do you even know what PPP is?
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by Godfrey)
I said in my first post:



The figures I gave account for real (PPP) GDP per capita. Do you even know what PPP is?
Obviously I do. But you said 'GDP per capita' Not PPP GDP per capita. It doesn't matter if you stated 'real figures' whatever that means.
0
quote
reply
Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by Elipsis)
Obviously I do. But you said 'GDP per capita' Not PPP GDP per capita. It doesn't matter if you stated 'real figures' whatever that means.
Well I'm sorry I assumed I was talking to someone with a whole brain. Real GDP per capita means nominal GDP per capita + taking into account inflation/deflation. Which is what PPP is. In Botswana, there's higher price deflation (very common strategy used by countries in order to boost exports) compared to South Africa. Which wont show up in nominal figures as they do not take into account different price levels.
0
quote
reply
TShadow383
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by adamrules247)
The planet is not over populated. To quote a stat I read recently you could actually fit the entire population of the earth in Texas and each individual would have 1000 square feet.
I feel I can explain how this is more of a problem than it seems as follows:

lets say, for the sake of argument, we have a million people, trying to build a sustainable community in a billion square feet.
That gives an area of 92.9 square kilometres.

You would have to have a population density of more than double that of london.
How on earth you expect it is possibel to get a million people into an area that size, and have them live an entirely sustainable lifestyle, is absolutely beyond me.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Godfrey)
Well I'm sorry I assumed I was talking to someone with a whole brain. Real GDP per capita means GDP per capita + taking into account inflation/deflation. Which is what PPP is. In Botswana, there's higher price deflation (very common strategy used by countries in order to boost exports) compared to South Africa. Which wont show up in nominal figures as they do not take into account different price levels.
You said none of those things, we were discussing GDP per capita. You call me stupid but you are too stupid to state PPP GDP per capita. You are merely saying 'real figures' as a catch all clause to move the goal posts as you see fit. If you look at PPP GDP per capita in 2005, prior to the Zimbabwe melt down which has caused inflation and a population spike in SA, which is completely uncontrolable by them, SA is higher. And it will be higher again. Not to mention Botswana is massively propped up by foreign aid money plus diamonds. 1/3 people have HIV there, it's hardly the pinnacle of Africa.
0
quote
reply
TShadow383
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Cool, does this mean we can start sterilising everyone that goes on the Jeremy Kyle show?
If only.
I think a more sensible tactic would be to offer child benefit for the first child, then 30% of child benefit for the second and nothing thereafter.
If David Cameron want's to show off and do some environmentalist **** waving that'd be a good start...

(Original post by theantiparticle)
the planet could cater for more people if we acted more responsibly and in a more sustainable way.
HOW?

We don't have the resources to take care of the number of people there are on the earth at this point in the long term already - WHY ON EARTH would we want more?


This planet can support what? 2-4 billion people, maybe, in a good quality existence without oil...

(Original post by theantiparticle)
How people consume resources matters a lot more than population size, some of us leave much bigger footprints than others.
Yes.
I do racing in my spare time, I skydive, I drive a very inefficient car.

and in the long term I STILL do much less damage to the environment than someone with a large family.
0
quote
reply
doloroushazy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
I agree. I'd quite like to have children but I don't think I will because I don't think it's fair or practical, and who knows what kind of world they'd have to live in? I think more people should really reconsider having children instead of adopting, and they should definitley wait until like 30 or so to have children if they do- people having kids at 16 and continuing to procreate until like 30 just doesn't help anything. Though obviously it's easy for me to say this in a first world country.
I blame the Haber process, goddamn
0
quote
reply
No Man
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by cybergrad)
And by guessing, you would prefer if this took place far away from your country and does not include your family and friends.

Humanity does not need a plague or world war. I would rather have overpopulation rather than having a war or plague. We need to reduce consumerism not human lives.

We have plenty of hypocrites on this overpopulation subject, ie David Attenborough. Although I love his documentaries, I find him a great hypocrite when he attacks for example the Catholic Filipinos, for giving birth to many children. Well David, you alone have a much greater carbon footprint and you waste far more resources than a whole family of Filipinos.
If I/my friends/my family were some of the victims then so be it.

I don't care about carbon footprints, but there is only enough food/water to go around, so a lot of people will die of starvation eventually if the population goes up more anyway. To reduce consumerism the population has to be reduced too.
0
quote
reply
Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Elipsis)
You said none of those things, we were discussing GDP per capita. You call me stupid but you are too stupid to state PPP GDP per capita. You are merely saying 'real figures' as a catch all clause to move the goal posts as you see fit. If you look at PPP GDP per capita in 2005, prior to the Zimbabwe melt down which has caused inflation and a population spike in SA, which is completely uncontrolable by them, SA is higher. And it will be higher again. Not to mention Botswana is massively propped up by foreign aid money plus diamonds. 1/3 people have HIV there, it's hardly the pinnacle of Africa.
WTF does GDP per capita means? there's no such thing (which is why I mentioned real in that post). YOU were discussing that in your head cos you didn't even know that nobody but a 19 year old asshat uses nominal figures to compare the standards of living in two different countries. GDP per capita means nothing unless you specifically mention whether or not it is nominal or real. YOU assumed that GDP per capita means nominal GDP per capita cos you know as much about economics as I know about astrology. Nobody who knows anything about these things would make that assumption especially when he is talking to someone who mentions that he doesnt care for nominal figures and wants to see real figures (I said that TWICE before this whole thing started btw). You DO have to be retarded to say that ****.

Even if growth was consistently 5% a year since 2005 (which is as likely as my growing wings from drinking tea) SA still wouldn't be richer in 2010.

SA (again assuming a steady 5% growth per year & disregarding the recession)
$11500 2005
$12075 2006
$12678 2007
$13311 2008
$13976 2009
$14676 2010

Botswana
$15449 2010

Mmkay? I could also take the growth rates of Botswana in 2004 (12.68%) which btw fell to 1.98% in 2005 and if I applied that number year after year like I did with South Africa, Botswana would be the richest country in the world (not really but it would be much richer than it is now). We could also compare Ireland and Hong Kong of the 1940s with Zimbabwe of the 1940s and we would be amazed at how similar those economies looked like. That means nothing in 2010 terms where HK and Ireland (despite the recent problems of the latter) are **** rich and Zimbabwe still looks like hell.

Seriously though the argument boils down to this:

South Africa is not the wealthiest country in Africa as you claimed. The rest are just bull**** to waste my time and try to appear like you somehow are right. It would be easier to admit "I'm a prejudiced ****".
1
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by Elipsis)
This isn't about white supremacy... it's about Latin, white, Asian, and sub-asian supremacy. You're argument is like the chicken and the egg - we are there because our institutions are there... and our institutions are there and working well because we are there. And Nigeria can hardly fail to do well with 100 million people and billions of dollars of natural resources. But it's still hardly got a thing on Brazil, Mexico, and the majority of our former colonies. It's not like we stuck around in India in any large numbers, but they adopted our institutions and they are thriving compared to the majority of Africa.
But Latin American countries aren't all outperforming African countries. Ditto a number of Asian countries.
I don't think you fully comprehend what institutions mean in this context. If you did you'd know it's not a circular thing - property rights and the rule of law don't require the white man's hand.

As for your point about Nigeria, there is no proven link between natural resources and economic growth. There is in fact a phenomenon known as the curse of natural resources.

In fact, people were making precisely the point you make about Africa but in reference to India only two or three decades ago. They could never hope to match white civilization, they were doomed to a "Hindu" level of growth. Look at them now. We will see the same thing as the African people replace their dictatorships with institutions which concentrate less wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Godfrey)
WTF does GDP per capita means? there's no such thing (which is why I mentioned real in that post). YOU were discussing that in your head cos you didn't even know that nobody but a 19 year old asshat uses nominal figures to compare the standards of living in two different countries. GDP per capita means nothing unless you specifically mention whether or not it is nominal or real. YOU assumed that GDP per capita means nominal GDP per capita cos you know as much about economics as I know about astrology. Nobody who knows anything about these things would make that assumption especially when he is talking to someone who mentions that he doesnt care for nominal figures and wants to see real figures (I said that TWICE before this whole thing started btw). You DO have to be retarded to say that ****.

Even if growth was consistently 5% a year since 2005 (which is as likely as my growing wings from drinking tea) SA still wouldn't be richer in 2010.

SA (again assuming a steady 5% growth per year & disregarding the recession)
$11500 2005
$12075 2006
$12678 2007
$13311 2008
$13976 2009
$14676 2010

Botswana
$15449 2010

Mmkay? I could also take the growth rates of Botswana in 2004 (12.68%) which btw fell to 1.98% in 2005 and if I applied that number year after year like I did with South Africa, Botswana would be the richest country in the world (not really but it would be much richer than it is now). We could also compare Ireland and Hong Kong of the 1940s with Zimbabwe of the 1940s and we would be amazed at how similar those economies looked like. That means nothing in 2010 terms where HK and Ireland (despite the recent problems of the latter) are **** rich and Zimbabwe still looks like hell.

Seriously though the argument boils down to this:

South Africa is not the wealthiest country in Africa as you claimed. The rest are just bull**** to waste my time and try to appear like you somehow are right. It would be easier to admit "I'm a prejudiced ****".

On the international stage South Africa is the wealthiest country in Africa. The fact that prices are kept artificially low within its borders means jack ****. GDP per capita is a standard measurement, yet i'm supposed to guess that by 'real' you mean PPP? Pull the other one. We weren't even comparing standard of living, we were comparing the wealth of two nations. But if you want to get into the detail of it here is the World data Bank indicators:

http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=3&id=4

Botswana (2009 as this is the most recent available data):
Market size - 3
Business Sophistication - 3
Innovation - 3
Institutions - 5
Infrastructure - 4
Macroeconomic stablity - 5
Health and Primary education - 4
Higher education - 4
Goods market efficiency - 4
Labour Market efficiency - 4
Financial market sophistication - 5
Technological readiness - 3

South Africa (Also 2009)
Market size - 3
Business Sophistication - 3
Innovation - 3
Institutions - 5
Infrastructure - 4
Macroeconomic stablity - 5
Health and Primary education - 4
Higher education - 4
Goods market efficiency - 4
Labour Market efficiency - 4
Financial market sophistication - 5
Technological readiness - 3

Identical.

Lets not forget that South Africa is 24x the size of Botswana in terms of population as well.

The argument boils down to this:
South Africa IS the wealthiest country in Africa. The rest is all bull**** to try and waste my time and try and appear like you are somehow right. It would be easier to admit you are a liberal douchebag that can't stand the fact that colonialism isn't the root of all of Africa's problems. :doh:
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Apagg)
But Latin American countries aren't all outperforming African countries. Ditto a number of Asian countries.
I don't think you fully comprehend what institutions mean in this context. If you did you'd know it's not a circular thing - property rights and the rule of law don't require the white man's hand.

As for your point about Nigeria, there is no proven link between natural resources and economic growth. There is in fact a phenomenon known as the curse of natural resources.

In fact, people were making precisely the point you make about Africa but in reference to India only two or three decades ago. They could never hope to match white civilization, they were doomed to a "Hindu" level of growth. Look at them now. We will see the same thing as the African people replace their dictatorships with institutions which concentrate less wealth and power in the hands of a small elite.
If you want to be pedantic, you're right, not all South American countries are outperforming all African countries, but a simple look at this map will show you that you are right in a small handful of instances and I am right with a strong majority. (Blue = above world average Orange = Below world average)

See that big orange mess? It's Africa. See 95% of the blue areas? Areas with a high % of people of European ancestry. The ironic thing is that Botswana was a former colony, in which they managed to get to grips with the institutions we left behind, and are making a relative success of it, which proves my point in itself.
0
quote
reply
Godfrey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Elipsis)
On the international stage South Africa is the wealthiest country in Africa. The fact that prices are kept artificially low within its borders means jack ****. GDP per capita is a standard measurement, yet i'm supposed to guess that by 'real' you mean PPP? Pull the other one. We weren't even comparing standard of living, we were comparing the wealth of two nations. But if you want to get into the detail of it here is the World data Bank indicators:

http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=3&id=4

Botswana (2009 as this is the most recent available data):
Market size - 3
Business Sophistication - 3
Innovation - 3
Institutions - 5
Infrastructure - 4
Macroeconomic stablity - 5
Health and Primary education - 4
Higher education - 4
Goods market efficiency - 4
Labour Market efficiency - 4
Financial market sophistication - 5
Technological readiness - 3

South Africa (Also 2009)
Market size - 3
Business Sophistication - 3
Innovation - 3
Institutions - 5
Infrastructure - 4
Macroeconomic stablity - 5
Health and Primary education - 4
Higher education - 4
Goods market efficiency - 4
Labour Market efficiency - 4
Financial market sophistication - 5
Technological readiness - 3

Identical.

Lets not forget that South Africa is 24x the size of Botswana in terms of population as well.

The argument boils down to this:
South Africa IS the wealthiest country in Africa. The rest is all bull**** to try and waste my time and try and appear like you are somehow right. It would be easier to admit you are a liberal douchebag that can't stand the fact that colonialism isn't the root of all of Africa's problems. :doh:
You still can not comprehend the fact that there is no such thing as GDP per capita unless it is accompanied by either the word REAL or NOMINAL in front of it. You still can't get that GDP per capita does not mean NOMINAL GDP per capita. Again, it means nothing unless you specify what figures (real or nominal) you're using (which I did twice before I lost my temper).

As for the rest of the post, it's your usual garbage which have nothing to do with the fact that Botswana is a higher income country than South Africa and is therefore wealthier. And it wasn't even me who brought up "standards of living". You said "and the best/wealthier in Africa? South Africa". It is neither best nor wealthier.

And I'm not a liberal nor do I think that colonialism is the root of all of Africa's problems. Where did you get all that?
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Elipsis)
If you want to be pedantic, you're right, not all South American countries are outperforming all African countries, but a simple look at this map will show you that you are right in a small handful of instances and I am right with a strong majority. (Blue = above world average Orange = Below world average)

See that big orange mess? It's Africa. See 95% of the blue areas? Areas with a high % of people of European ancestry. The ironic thing is that Botswana was a former colony, in which they managed to get to grips with the institutions we left behind, and are making a relative success of it, which proves my point in itself.
Um, that actually proves my point, which is that it's the institutions and not the people that are important. Thanks.

Also, you've made a poor choice of graph for your argument given that Asia is apparently as bad as Africa, ditto Mexico. There is also a smattering of ethnically white countries in the orange. Finally, the split of Latin America between blue and orange by number of countries is pretty even with 6 and 7 on either side. Oops!
0
quote
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
One thing people are forgetting is that there was a big postwar increase in birthrate; the people born then are now beginning to retire, which is putting a strain on the public sector. I don't think it's permanent.

Another factor is that when people can't afford children, they generally don't plan to have them. That's the way it works on the whole in developed countries. Times like now, for example, people will be putting off children because things are simply too economically uncertain. 60 years from now, that will result in reduced retirement rates. There are always fluctuations in the numbers of people retiring in any given year, usually influenced by the circumstances surrounding that generation's birth.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (63)
29.44%
No - I got the required grades (122)
57.01%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (29)
13.55%

Watched Threads

View All