The 6 ith extinction

[sen-no-sen]

So this extinction is directly dependent on population growth, much more than because of the industrialization of our affluent societies which are not representative of the societies of this world. So the livestock will have to devote more than 70% of agricultural land for animal feed by 2050 (that's tomorrow) and so where will they find the land to allow them if not by shaving some additional forests where by drawing in agricultural land for human food use. It's a vicious circle!

Yes, but it is this same industrialization that has allowed the demographic increase ...
The northern countries have a responsibility in the demographic explosion of the southern countries, in particular through the export of an unsuitable model.
The figures are unequivocal, the population explosion begins with the industrial revolution, with a disruption particularly visible after the Second World War:

[Janic]

Yes, but it is this same industrialization that has allowed the demographic increase ...
The northern countries have a responsibility in the demographic explosion of the southern countries, in particular through the export of an unsuitable model.
The figures are unequivocal, the population explosion begins with the industrial revolution, with a disruption particularly visible after the Second World War:

industrialization has affected only a few western countries, which are currently seeing the fertility of women decline. The case of the Orient is a little different because this industrialization has only served to supply Western countries with low-cost products from which workers (and the rest of the population) have benefited little, if at all. , which did not prevent population growth. On the contrary the poorer the countries the more the demography is galloping there as for India with a rate of 2.40 per woman in spite of a high infant mortality rate of 40.5 per thousand to the point that the Indian population will probably exceed the Chinese population this year.
The African population should double by 2050 (2.5Mds) and quadruple by 2100 (5 MDS) and not because of industrialization either.
South America is also progressing, but more slowly than these other countries.

[Ahmed]

It is obviously a mistake to consider that industrialization produces only local effects, globalization obliges. When the by-products of French agriculture are exported to Africa, they exert a great influence, just like the television which shows Western films.

[sen-no-sen]

industrialization has affected only a few western countries, which are currently seeing the fertility of women decline. The case of the Orient is a little different because this industrialization has only served to supply Western countries with low-cost products from which workers (and the rest of the population) have benefited little, if at all. , which did not prevent population growth. On the contrary the poorer the countries the more the demography is galloping there as for India with a rate of 2.40 per woman in spite of a high infant mortality rate of 40.5 per thousand to the point that the Indian population will probably exceed the Chinese population this year.
The African population should double by 2050 (2.5Mds) and quadruple by 2100 (5 MDS) and not because of industrialization either.
South America is also progressing, but more slowly than these other countries.

Africa is not a savannah country populated only by lions and elephants (most have disappeared)! The industry is already widely present there, even if it is not as uniformly distributed as here.
Ex of Lagos au Nigeria:

Le Niga © ria is incidentally the most populous country in Africa (186 million inhabitants).

The different models that we exported, in particular in terms of medical aid, favored a demographic increase without causing a passage of the selection r (many children, high mortality, low education) at the selection K (few children, low mortality, significant schooling), this explains in particular the phenomenon of economic migration, many young people (mainly men) almost formatted in the Nordic model leave their countries to fulfill a destiny in line with the culture that l 'we put in their brains.
This state of affairs is to be linked to extractivism which aims to perfuse nations rather than to emancipate them ... (France / Africa policy, etc.)
The overall problem of Africa is that things were not done in order, in the slums of Mogadishu (Somalia) many people have a smartphone without having access to the sewer ...
This joins my poster theorem above: the sudden introduction of an entity (Nordic industrial model) within a system (traditional society) causes upheavals proportional (ecocide, migratory flow) to the degree of invasiveness of this one.

[Janic]

Africa is not a savannah country populated only by lions and elephants (most have disappeared)! The industry is already widely present there, even if it is not as uniformly distributed as here.

where rather Africa is not populated only by lion and elephants. The industry is present there in the big cities, it is as if one brought France to Paris or Marseilles, which would give a completely false image of it.

many people have a smartphone without having access to the sewer ...

and yes, it is also one of the facets of our society. but the African demographic explosion is not located in the big cities, nor in Smartphones, but within the poor populations or at least outside these big centers that a large part of its population has never visited.

This is in line with my poster theorem above: the sudden introduction of an entity (Nordic industrial model) into a system (traditional society) causes proportional upheavals (ecocide, migratory flow) to the degree of invasiveness of this one.

Inevitably, but again nothing to do with the demographic explosion and its consequences on their means of survival, mainly food because when they are 2.5 billion in 2050, (and worse 5 billion in 2100) I would be curious to imagine how they will do to make subsistence all this population on their territory, more the effects of the global warming and the upheavals that that generates.
So no! Neither Africans nor Indians (Asia in general) or South America will be able to feed all their populations with heavy industrial farming, even though their lands are already used to produce FOR Westerners or Chinese and eating (or rather not starving to death) is much more important than owning a smartphone.
And for those interested in the subject, it is precisely one of the achievements of the APOCALYPSE prophecies (or revelation).

It is obviously a mistake to consider that industrialization produces only local effects, globalization obliges. When the by-products of French agriculture are exported to Africa, they exert a great influence, just like the television which shows Western films.

It is the contradiction of our society to want to continue to base its wealth on the poverty of others. French or other farmers are very happy to export their surpluses by impoverishing the importing countries, but grumble when they are hit with the same products from Spain or the Polish plumber. Concentrated milks, almost imposed in Africa as in Asia, generate a lot of nonexistent consecutive pathologies with breastfeeding: Is it precisely voluntary?
China, which imports a lot of beef (everything is relative given their population) is a mirror to the larks for French producers who see it as an outlet for their production. The world is crazy, crazy, crazy!

[sen-no-sen]

So no! Neither Africans nor Indians (Asia in general) or South America will be able to feed all of their populations with heavy industrial farming, even though their land is already used to produce FOR Westerners or Chinese and eating (or rather not starving) is much more important than having a smartphone. (...)

According to a recent survey, nearly 30% of young Africans would like to go to Europe in the coming years ...(1)
Population regulation through education as it has been done in Bangladesh(2) with little chance of succeeding in Africa, just as for global warming it is now too late, we will have to live with ... the consequences of migratory flows are already starting to impact European policy as few have noticed with the rise populism in the EU, which unfortunately still joins the above-mentioned theorem.


(1) Its figures are based on the current situation, I think the economic contraction in the EU should significantly reduce this trend.
(2) The fertility rate has gone from 6 children / women in the 70 years to 2,1 nowadays, ie at the same level as France, but it took more than 40 years!

[Ahmed]

Demography changes at a slow rate when subjected to a change, and even in the event of drastic measures, an increase in the population, especially in Africa, would be observed for a long time before the ebb ...
It is, moreover, for the same reason that measures against climate change will not be able to intervene in good time; however, the inertia of the climate system is much lower, it seems, than that of our collective psyches since denial of reality will indefinitely repel these measures (except in an illusory mode) ...

[Janic]

According to a recent survey, nearly 30% of young Africans would like to go to Europe in the coming years ... (1)
Population regulation through education as it has been possible in Bangladesh (2) is unlikely to succeed in Africa, just as for global warming it is now too late, we will have to live with ... the consequences migratory flows are already starting to have an impact on European policy, as few people have noted with the rise of populism in the EU, which unfortunately still goes hand in hand with the theorem cited above.

All countries have experienced this phenomenon where the grass is always greener in the neighbor's field. Except that most of the time it results in a change of misery only.

(2) The fertility rate has gone from 6 children / women in the 70 years to 2,1 nowadays, ie at the same level as France, [*] but it took more than 40 years!

6 children per woman was linked to high infant mortality. The other aspect also comes from urbanization where the rural world has gone from 98% to 72% in a century and the urban population has fewer children than the rural population. However, this is not what should be seen, but the continued population growth in this country like the others.
Between 1950 / 55 the birth / death balance was de1.100.000 and passed to 2.2 in 2005 / 2010, i.e. A DOUBLE ALSO in 50 years, demographic education or not!
[*] the current rate is 1.88 in France

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

All countries have experienced this phenomenon where the grass is always greener in the neighbor's field.

What has given rise to major migratory phenomena (apart therefore, from these marginal cases of people interested in "going to see next door"), is either repulsion from the place of origin (religious persecution in England, anti-Semitism in Europe from the east, famine in Ireland, war in Syria ... either the attraction for a symbol of the dominant ideology or, of course, a combination of the two These tropisms are therefore clearly oriented.

[sen-no-sen]

either the attraction for a symbol of the dominant ideology or, obviously, a combination of the two. These tropisms are therefore clearly oriented.

In the latter case it is a thermodynamic exchange between a hot source and a cold source.

To my knowledge, no politicians offer viable solutions to stop migratory flows, the "extreme" left defends an unconditional welcome to economic migrants, something which should quickly lead us to fascisms, as for the populists their only solutions would be to close the borders ... naively thinking that this would stop migratory flows ... in fact we would quickly be faced with the formation of a coalition of destitute peoples and our only outcome would be war ... damn or fuck choose your future!