# World Overpopulation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 31, 2014, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597 "2014-12-31T07:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/61 "2015-01-02T21:48:23Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Saying ‘Africa’ here is a gross oversimplification. Southern Africa has an acceptably low fertility rate right now, 2.6 or thereabouts. That proves that reducing African fertility _can_ happen, it just hitherto hasn’t. The problem is the rest of the continent, but if we can figure out what the causative factors in southern Africa were, then we can maybe solve the problem. > > 2. Fertility rates in the rest of Africa are decreasing, women in west and central Africa have fewer children than they did a few decades ago. They’re just decreasing very slowly. > > 3. ‘We’ aren’t going to be cruel, but it’s possible that African governments may eventually take coercive measures of their own to limit population. Or they may not. The explicitly Islamic-theocratic government of Iran made an about-face on population policy and rapidly achieved a lower fertility rate than America, so I wouldn’t rule out suprising political changes in the future. I believe what I said was “african countries.” In any case,from [here](http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/) (UN projections, referenced [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234.abstract)) : \*Numbers continue to stack up against the world’s poorest continent. Global population levels are expected to increase from a current figure of 7.2 billion to nearly 11 billion by 2100, according to figures released Thursday by the U.N. Previously, it was believed the world’s population would peak at around 9.5 billion. Nearly all of this new growth, meanwhile, will occur in Africa, which is expected to quadruple in size. It’s unknown how many of these three billion additional people will funnel into cities, but the continent’s urbanization rates are among the highest in the world. And many policymakers predicted a strained future for Africa’s urban centers even prior to this new information. “The ability of African cities to cope with these numbers is questionable since they generally lack the institutional and infrastructural capacity to absorb the additional urban dwellers,” the U.N.’s housing authority reported earlier this year. The 2014 State of African Cities report adds that “massive population growth in a context of wide-spread poverty … generate[s] complex and interrelated threats to the human habitat.”\* But keep hope alive, I guess. It’s been a popular theme to do so over the decades, as has figuring out “causative factors.” If reliance on either economic success for the masses or central governments functional enough to drive “coercive” measures are prerequisites, it’s not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/62 "2015-01-02T21:56:43Z")
ETA for CP post above: Study in Science the first article references was based on UN population data for 2012; not UN population projections. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/63 "2015-01-02T22:29:59Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I believe what I said was “african countries.” > > In any case,from [here](http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/) (UN projections, referenced [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234.abstract)) : > > \*Numbers continue to stack up against the world’s poorest continent. > > Global population levels are expected to increase from a current figure of 7.2 billion to nearly 11 billion by 2100, according to figures released Thursday by the U.N. Previously, it was believed the world’s population would peak at around 9.5 billion. Nearly all of this new growth, meanwhile, will occur in Africa, which is expected to quadruple in size. > > It’s unknown how many of these three billion additional people will funnel into cities, but the continent’s urbanization rates are among the highest in the world. And many policymakers predicted a strained future for Africa’s urban centers even prior to this new information. > > “The ability of African cities to cope with these numbers is questionable since they generally lack the institutional and infrastructural capacity to absorb the additional urban dwellers,” the U.N.’s housing authority reported earlier this year. The 2014 State of African Cities report adds that “massive population growth in a context of wide-spread poverty … generate[s] complex and interrelated threats to the human habitat.”\* > > But keep hope alive, I guess. It’s been a popular theme to do so over the decades, as has figuring out “causative factors.” If reliance on either economic success for the masses or central governments functional enough to drive “coercive” measures are prerequisites, it’s not going to happen. One big source of hope will arise for Africa, and I mentioned it above. So many countries, some of them quite large, have or will eventually have labor shortages in certain sectors. That leads to migration (temporary or permanent), which will take some of the strain off of African countries directly, but more of the benefits will accrue in terms of remittances, as well as the skills, languages, and so on that migrants will gain. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/64 "2015-01-02T23:39:34Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Saying ‘Africa’ here is a gross oversimplification. Southern Africa has an acceptably low fertility rate right now, 2.6 or thereabouts. That proves that reducing African fertility _can_ happen, it just hitherto hasn’t. The problem is the rest of the continent, but if we can figure out what the causative factors in southern Africa were, then we can maybe solve the problem. > > 2. Fertility rates in the rest of Africa are decreasing, women in west and central Africa have fewer children than they did a few decades ago. They’re just decreasing very slowly. > > 3. ‘We’ aren’t going to be cruel, but it’s possible that African governments may eventually take coercive measures of their own to limit population. Or they may not. The explicitly Islamic-theocratic government of Iran made an about-face on population policy and rapidly achieved a lower fertility rate than America, so I wouldn’t rule out suprising political changes in the future. Here is some info about variances within Africa. > **[Why Has the Demographic Transition Stalled in Sub-Saharan Africa?](https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transition-stalled-sub-saharan-africa/)** > > In a recent post on the new United Nations population projections, I discussed the risk in assuming that countries in sub-Saharan Africa will progress through the demographic transition at a pace \[...\] Someone posted an article in another thread several months ago discussing how pretty much all the population growth of this century (as the world grows to 9-10 billion) will occur in Africa. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/65 "2015-01-04T13:07:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Nothing, because there is no issue of overpopulation. Right now, with a population of about 7 billion persons, we can provide food and water and all other necessities to everyone. The only reason why anyone goes hungry is obstacles to the distribution of food in certain countries, not obstacles to production of sufficient amounts. And we can do this while still having vast amounts of land preserved as parks, wildlife refuges, and so forth. > > Overpopulation has always been a fictitious threat. This line of argument is complete nonsense and always has been. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/66 "2015-01-04T15:23:22Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > This line of argument is complete nonsense and always has been. I think we could provide basic food and water to everyone. Basic healthcare too. But everyone wants to live a western lifestyle which isn’t possible with todays technology due to resource depletion. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/67 "2015-01-04T18:45:34Z")
As I understand it, the earth has seven billion acres of arable land. Using current technology, the average yields work out to something like 0.8 acres to feed one person – as long as the energy resources for maintaining that kind of output are available, and as long as we are not steadily converting arable land into suburbs. And barring some sort of extensive crop/climate catastrophe. We are living on the knife-edge, it would not take much to push us all off. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/68 "2015-01-04T21:11:07Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > We are living on the knife-edge, it would not take much to push us all off. I find that very hard to believe. In the developed world, we have much more food than we need. Maybe some people are malnourished, but obviously they’re not really starving as you can only go through the starving process for so long until you’re done—one way or the other. One thing we need to stop doing immediately is grow crops for fuel, as that’s ridiculously inefficient compared to using solar energy directly. Then, if we start running out of food, we can simply eat less meat and stop wasting as much food. And last but not least, eat less. That way, we should be able to feed 10, 15, 20 billion people, no problem. Holland, a country that has 0.0022% of the world’s land area and 0.24% of the world’s population, is a food exporter. (Although growing produce in gas-heated and electrically-illumnated green houses is not exactly sustainable.) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/69 "2015-01-05T01:02:54Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > As I understand it, the earth has seven billion acres of arable land. Using current technology, the average yields work out to something like 0.8 acres to feed one person This is obviously false. If it were, there wouldn’t be seven billion people in the world. There would be just 5.6 billion, and that’s assuming no food was ever wasted. In fact, a huge amount of food is wasted - probably a third of all the food grown or harvested by humans isn’t eaten. **And that’s not even mentioning the fact that much food production is inherently wasteful;** eating cows is incredibly wasteful, even if you never throw away a scrap of beef, because it’s just a wildly inefficient way of converting plants into food. The stupidity of growing corn for fuel is noted above. World food production could theoretically feed 9-10 billion people now, and that’s without any further effort to increase it or make it more efficient; with a more intelligent approach, which you’ll get eventually if you need it, we could feed twice as many people as there are in the world today. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/70 "2015-01-05T02:06:43Z")
> [@iljitsch](#): > > One thing we need to stop doing immediately is grow crops for fuel, as that’s ridiculously inefficient compared to using solar energy directly. Then, if we start running out of food, we can simply eat less meat and stop wasting as much food. And last but not least, eat less. That way, we should be able to feed 10, 15, 20 billion people, no problem. Good luck getting Americans to go along with that. They already think that the foreign aid budget is dozens of times larger than it actually is, and asking them to change their lifestyles because of the effect it is having on “those people” is basically blasphemous. > [@RickJay](#): > > This is obviously false. If it were, there wouldn’t be seven billion people in the world. There would be just 5.6 billion, and that’s assuming no food was ever wasted. > > In fact, a huge amount of food is wasted - probably a third of all the food grown or harvested by humans isn’t eaten. **And that’s not even mentioning the fact that much food production is inherently wasteful;** eating cows is incredibly wasteful, even if you never throw away a scrap of beef, because it’s just a wildly inefficient way of converting plants into food. The stupidity of growing corn for fuel is noted above. World food production could theoretically feed 9-10 billion people now, and that’s without any further effort to increase it or make it more efficient; with a more intelligent approach, which you’ll get eventually if you need it, we could feed twice as many people as there are in the world today. Food isn’t really the issue, as much as clean water, breathable air, and a _climate that can support enough people_ are. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/71 "2015-01-05T02:55:56Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Food isn’t really the issue, as much as clean water, breathable air, and a _climate that can support enough people_ are. Breathable air’s an issue? The atmosphere’s oxygen content remains the same. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/72 "2015-01-05T03:03:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Breathable air’s an issue? The atmosphere’s oxygen content remains the same. Sure, but when unsavory things get added to it, that’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/73 "2015-01-05T11:13:01Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > One big source of hope will arise for Africa, and I mentioned it above. So many countries, some of them quite large, have or will eventually have labor shortages in certain sectors. That leads to migration (temporary or permanent), which will take some of the strain off of African countries directly, but more of the benefits will accrue in terms of remittances, as well as the skills, languages, and so on that migrants will gain. I’m not sure what this means, but africa’s population excess will not be solved by exporting labor nor “remittances” to africa. We are talking about billions of people. A lucky few unskilled laborers who escape will not change the equation, and if the best and brightest escape, the continent’s problem will only worsen. “Remittances,” if it means what I think it means, worsens african countries lot as being beggar countries. Hardly a source of hope. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/74 "2015-01-05T12:15:43Z")
Some here may be interested in Hans Rosling’s “The Overpopulation Myth”. Sometimes teen birth rate tells us more than overall birth rate. More importantly, changes in birth rate can help us guess about future populations. Someone mentioned South Africa recently. The teen birth rate there is trending down, and decreased by a third 1997-2010. You can make pretty plots of populations, growth, GDP, and all sorts or other stuff at [gapminder.org](http://gapminder.org) . ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/75 "2015-01-05T13:16:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > “Remittances,” if it means what I think it means, worsens african countries lot as being beggar countries. Hardly a source of hope. Remittances are when people working abroad send money directly to their families back home. They are among the largest sources of foreign assistance in the world, right up there with official foreign aid. Managed well, they can be a powerful engine of economic growth. The Philippines, to give an example, sends skilled workers around the world. A family saves up to send one bright family member to one of the many trade schools and colleges focused on overseas work (nursing school is huge), and that family member sends back money, often for education, seed funds for small businesses, and home improvements. This fuels more demand for education, and also brings money in to the economy, stimulating local demand and bolstering the local economy. With enough growth, those skilled workers will eventually have opportunities at home and emigration will slow down. The Philippines is hardly a country of beggars. It has experienced rapid growth and an enormous rise in education. This has been attributed directly to overseas workers. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/76 "2015-01-05T15:07:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m not sure what this means, but africa’s population excess will not be solved by exporting labor nor “remittances” to africa. No it is the economic growth that will solve problems and despite a certain disdain fundamental for the black african lands that comes through so often, in fact the African economic growth over the past decade has been very strong in many countries for a large economic leap foward in the sub-saharan africa. And the forecasts of the conservative and liberal IMF is positive for the largest number of the african countries. Your ignorance and negative views are not based on [the current facts,](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/CAR102014A.htm) but the old stereotypes. > [@](#): > > . “Remittances,” if it means what I think it means, worsens african countries lot as being beggar countries. Hardly a source of hope. This is 100% completely wrong but then it s the ‘black people’ and not racially hopefu? The history of the [positive impact of the remittances is deep](http://ereh.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/3/443.full) and includes the white european countries which are more impressed and the [current development](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fels%2Fmig%2F38840502.pdf&ei=AaWqVOaeB8LuatGEgdgD&usg=AFQjCNGyW7dKcT02dDgKnrc0tFtN-tHx7w&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d2s) in the eastern europe and asia, and of course north africa and sub saharan. But african “beggars”. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/77 "2015-01-05T15:13:15Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > In fact, a huge amount of food is wasted - probably a third of all the food grown or harvested by humans isn’t eaten. Yes this is important as a fact. From the lack of good infrastructure, and in particularly the lack of good storage in the developing countries, both the African and the Asian countries, leads to the losses after the harvest of 40 to 60% before reaching consumers. The american initiative for the development of the power generation infrastructure in the sub saharan africa I would think is connected to this, it is not possible for the storage and the transformation to more easily preserved forms is not possible without the economical energy sources. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/78 "2015-01-05T15:15:18Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Remittances are when people working abroad send money directly to their families back home. They are among the largest sources of foreign assistance in the world, right up there with official foreign aid. > > Managed well, they can be a powerful engine of economic growth. The Philippines, to give an example, sends skilled workers around the world. A family saves up to send one bright family member to one of the many trade schools and colleges focused on overseas work (nursing school is huge), and that family member sends back money, often for education, seed funds for small businesses, and home improvements. > > This fuels more demand for education, and also brings money in to the economy, stimulating local demand and bolstering the local economy. With enough growth, those skilled workers will eventually have opportunities at home and emigration will slow down. > > The Philippines is hardly a country of beggars. It has experienced rapid growth and an enormous rise in education. This has been attributed directly to overseas workers. Exactly this, **Chief Pedant**. There are more examples than just the Philippines, and it gives me hope. This sort of thing might just save the world. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/79 "2015-01-05T15:17:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Some here may be interested in Hans Rosling’s “The Overpopulation Myth”. > > Sometimes teen birth rate tells us more than overall birth rate. More importantly, changes in birth rate can help us guess about future populations. Someone mentioned South Africa recently. The teen birth rate there is trending down, and decreased by a third 1997-2010. You can make pretty plots of populations, growth, GDP, and all sorts or other stuff at [gapminder.org](http://gapminder.org) . Overpopulation is no myth, but it is very circumstantial, if that’s the correct term. It depends on particulars of the environment and the ecosystem, among other things. Plus, as I’ve mentioned earlier, there’s the simple desire to see fewer people born into poverty as mouths to feed. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597/80 "2015-01-05T15:28:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I believe what I said was “african countries.” > > In any case,from [here](http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/africas-population-will-quadruple-by-2100-what-does-that-mean-for-its-cities/380507/) (UN projections, referenced [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234.abstract)) : > > \*Numbers continue to stack up against the world’s poorest continent. > > Global population levels are expected to increase from a current figure of 7.2 billion to nearly 11 billion by 2100, according to figures released Thursday by the U.N. Previously, it was believed the world’s population would peak at around 9.5 billion. Nearly all of this new growth, meanwhile, will occur in Africa, which is expected to quadruple in size. > > It’s unknown how many of these three billion additional people will funnel into cities, but the continent’s urbanization rates are among the highest in the world. And many policymakers predicted a strained future for Africa’s urban centers even prior to this new information. > > “The ability of African cities to cope with these numbers is questionable since they generally lack the institutional and infrastructural capacity to absorb the additional urban dwellers,” the U.N.’s housing authority reported earlier this year. The 2014 State of African Cities report adds that “massive population growth in a context of wide-spread poverty … generate[s] complex and interrelated threats to the human habitat.”\* > > But keep hope alive, I guess. It’s been a popular theme to do so over the decades, as has figuring out “causative factors.” If reliance on either economic success for the masses or central governments functional enough to drive “coercive” measures are prerequisites, it’s not going to happen. I’m not really sure what this even means. As I pointed out, African countries aren’t one undifferentiated block. Some of them (the southern African countries) have been able to reduce their fertility rates to under 3.0, so there’s clearly nothing _inherent_ in ‘African people’ or ‘African culture’ that makes them unable or unwilling to reduce fertility rates. Zulu culture is traditionally as male-centric as any other (just ask Jacob Zuma) but in spite of that, South Africa has gotten its fertility rate to just a bit over replacement. Incidentally, Black South Africans in the 1950s had a fertility rate as high as the _worst_ African country today (either Mali or Niger, I forget which), and while I’m not sure what the Black South African TFR is today, I doubt it’s all _that_ much higher than the national average of 2.23. So the question here really isn’t ‘how do we get African people to follow American reproductive patterns’, which seems like an inexplicable problem. It’s really ‘how do we get Malian people to follow South African reproductive patterns, or even Batswana reproductive patterns’, which seem much more manageable. I agree with you that mass immigration (which I’m not a fan of anyway) and remittances aren’t much more than a small part of the solution, but look, the success of southern African countries at reducing fertility clearly shows it can be done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-overpopulation/708597.md?page=5)