Everyone likes to screw......hungry or not.

Uncontrolled population growth creates sooner or later huge food problems among others.
Hunger being the most painful, inhuman and shocking of all the problems such as irrepairable environement damage, desertification, water pollution, diseases, etc.

Just see the case of Uganda:
These morons observed "cultural values", the governement even encouraged large families and now they are going to starve.

source

and today...

link

6.9 is the number of child/birth per woman (don't mix with the growth rate).
And yes, their population is doubling every ten years for 3 decades (why do you think I'm worrying?).

Any nation (Uganda and Somalia are just examples) who hold such birth rate on the long term (not a temporary baby-boom but a steady rate), is sure to face huge problem one day or another.

It's simple: The more there are poeple the more it's difficult to find food.
In east-Africa it came to point where the nation has to import food and don't have the leisure to build infrastructure.
Those who don't work in agriculture are spending all their salary for food and farmer have just enough for themselves, sometimes not even enough.
If their model was working (more youth in pastoral/farmland = more whealth), higher global food price should be good for them. Their bigger population was supposed to produce more food from the land and export. Unfortunately, the opposite happened:
80% works in agriculture and they still have to import food.

Food per capita is harder and harder to produce as the population grows. New families have to settle on less fertile land and further away from water sources.

Historical economy tells that in normal times it shouldn't take more than 3 hours per day for a family of farmer to feed themselves. (hunter-gatherer spent less than 2h per day). Today in Uganada and the likes, they certainly spend much more time than that.

Larger families don't create more whealth. They do when good land and water are abundant, not in dried out sand-stormed areas.
No one has time or money to spend for study, science, medecine or construction ingeneering. Everyboday has to work on a day to day basis to get something to eat in the evening.
But there are more and more poeple crowding the streets and queuing at the rarified medical centers.

The governement can't even have a larger army as they can't raise taxes to buy weapons for their soldiers.
But local militias are multiplying.

It's not only poor management: It's total unconciousenes, total disragard for long term sustainability, total ignorance of geography and history.
And I tell you: Their unreasonable mania for large families will get them down in deep doo doo.

Rise in global food price brought that up a little bit earlier but just of a few years. As long as global food prices were low and the West had exceedent to dump at a net loss (that's why western farmers are subsidied), ultra-low salary workers from Africa could afford imported food. Now that the West is using crops for ethanol, African have to pay not only the global market price, but their local price which may be even higher, and most definetly much higher interm of work hours and resources.

And you will see, it's the West funded UN which will have to sent "massive aid urgently to avoid human disaster", just because these poeple dreamed until now of building a powerful nation full of strong youth.

On one hand it hurts to watch starving little kids on tv at lunch time, it prompts you to do something or express outrage. And, yes, it's natural that you would want to give something to eat.

On the other hand why should we in the West give them money to help them build large families because it's their "traditional values"? Why should we feed the crazy demographic growth of Africa or elsewhere while we are at odds with raising two kids ourself? Why should an African nation dreaming of ethnic expansion ask for food to do that?
How come it's been decades that we heard of poor undernourished children, yet their population double in 10 or 15 years? That doesn't make sens.
Giving them food and money to help them survive and live decently inthe future, yes. To support them in their breeding obsession, no.

Though talk.

Galloping demographic growth combined with massive coffee plantations hasn't pull this country out of the top 10 poorest countries of the World, that long before food and oil prices rose.
Now that food is globaly more expensive they face famine.

How that model worked in their interrest, as you clained, Tadpol,  I don't know...

Not only Uganda, but all countries with very fast population growth face the same problems.

article

As tadpol stated the land has sufficient resources, however the people do not possess the capital necessary to increase production. Many Ugandans are employed by the coffee industry, which provides an extremely low income, and they cannot afford to be self-dependent.

I believe the only solution is to offer micro credit loans to Ugandan families, enabling them to create small businesses and support themselves with the additional income they receive, ending starvation. Eventually, strong local economies could be developed, and the state would be able to gain tax revenue for public infrastructure, health, and education.

You may consider this too optimistic though...

It requires more poeple only when there is labor shortage and in this case only. When population grows that fast there is no labor shortage, there is oversupply of labor. That's why coffee tree planters are paid less than $2 per day.
That's why also their agriculture is under mechanized and production per capita is much less that anywhere else in the world.


What makes China and India a "World Power" is the 55 millions chinese (and Indians in similar numbers) who made up the middle-class consumer (who earn as much as a middle class in the West and pay taxes in a system like ours).
That's the 5% of China and maybe 6% of India which make them global players of the might equivalent to France.
Not the one billion of poors (who have yet to pay a single rupiah in taxes).

China and India have been spectacularly stable (unlike Africa). Yet it took them until 2005 for their economy to be noticed on financial markets.
IMO their population growth has been a drag, or at best a null factor in their economical, political, cultural and military might today.
They would be as powerful with 3x less poeple IMO.

I don't have document to support that, but I'm absolutely sure that Africans and Indians et others were much better off 100 years ago than today.
100 years ago poeple were living off the best land in the safest places to be. Today you will find millions of poeple where no one lived before, in floodable bassins and deserts with record low rainfalls. In Brasil poeple live in shacks on mud-slinding hills. Most of thrid world poeple don't have access to modern facilities and technologies, save through international aid.
By contrast, the west has improved decade after decade the wellbeing and confort of its inhabitants.



What you miss completely is that what is important is not the total GDP, but GDP per capita.

GDP increase based on population growth alone cannot be considered as an economical developement.


I think the sistuation is already dangerous. But we don't know exactely what are the dangers exactely.
It's a little bit like global warming: We know there could be problems but we don't know which one.
Till which point can they go, nobody knows.
What is sure is that it cost less to help 300,000 popel stranded in flooded areas than 2,5 millions. It cost less to sent in emergency food for 100,000 than for 1,000,000. That's what I know.

Somalis as any non-developed, non-educated and retarded nation cannot do a thing besides having sex. Especially when women in their laws have no rights at all.

Now let me remind you that some African tribes were and do practicing cannibalism which could become a solid foundation for Somalia's economic stability.

I'm sick of those nations in Africa that do nothing and all the world need to help them. All those who whine about South African apartheid and inequality. Look on South Africa where white man does a job with black clown as leader and other nations where blacks control blacks.

It took generations to American blacks to equal their abilities with whites when even now in some cases it's unequal. In rare cases they became stronger because its much harder for black women ( Condi ) to be 2nd to white republic president than being a white man next to him.


Call me racist but this is what going on. In my country there are blacks and they not different than the ones in Somalia. They do lots of kids, don't do a thing a schools, whine about racism and get more money that regular newcomer. Which guarantee them to remain retard for the rest of their generations.