Topic: Sweden's rape epidemic is a statistical fluke due to women feeling safe to report, not immigrants.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago#131,905
But by coincidence women suddenly felt more comfortable reporting rape as immigration increased.
By coincidence, nearby countries that restricted immigration like Norway and Denmark, have not created an environment where women feel it's worth reporting SA.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later[^][v]#1,409,666
Finland, Sweden, and Norway each are decently sized counties, but due to their cold climate, they all have incredibly tiny populations. There are literally cities in Europe that have populations as big as those countries. Obviously, there are people in Sweden who are going to overreact to immigration, because they think their country is perfect because they have a special culture, instead of thinking their country is perfect because it has a smaller population than Moscow with more land than Germany. It’s not hard to keep people in line when you have that few of them.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,409,667
It’s actually interesting when you look into population densities:
Sweden: 67 people / km^2
The United States: 38 people / km^2
China: 150 people / km^2
Nigeria: 261 people / km^2
Pakistan: 331 people / km^2
There are counties in Asia like South Korea or Japan that are nicer with really high population densities. But those countries usually have very low birth rates. It’s a very common pattern that densely populated counties only develop once the population growth slows down enough that the infrastructure can actually catch up to the population size. People make a bunch of racist arguments about "culture," but I bet if you made a table of population density and birth rates, you’d see a very strong correlation.
So people think, "Oh well Africa is poor because they’re having too many kids, let’s just get Africans to stop having kids!" Except, China tried that, it works in the sort term, in the long term, their population is projected to decrease very rapidly which will make it harder for them to be globally competitive, so it’s better to let birth rates decline naturally. Africa could get rich faster with a one child policy, it will take much much longer for them to develop if you let their birth rates fluctuate naturally, but when they do develop, their total GDP will stay high for much longer than China’s will. So it might actually be worth it if African countries don’t develop for another century, because China probably will only be powerful for a century, but African countries could eventually dominate for multiple centuries.
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,409,669
Because you also have to keep in mind, Nigeria would develop if they had a birth rate similar to Japan. But right now they have 200 million while Japan has 100 million so if they were equally wealthy per capita, they could have an economy about twice as large as Japan’s. Or they could choose to not develop, let women keep having lots of kids, then maybe in the future Nigeria could have 400 or 500 million people, then when they develop they could have an economy 4 or 5 times larger than Japan’s, but after everyone who’s alive today is dead. But in the long term, it’s an infinite game, so maybe that’s actually the better strategy.