Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#1,437,188
Africa was colonized in the late 1800s when Europe had about 2x the population of Africa despite Africa being approximately 3 times larger than Europe by land area.
In 2100, Africa will have approximately 6 times the population of Europe despite only being 3 times larger than Europe by land area.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,437,189
This link has an animation that can help visualize how in the past when Europe dominated they made up a larger portion of humanity and how that compares to Africa in the future.
All I’m saying it’s interesting nobody in politics left or right seems to acknowledge this reality that the future might not be like the past and maybe we should plan for that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,437,191
I’m pretty convinced the future world order hundreds of years in the future will be a struggle between Africa and Asia rather than Europe and Asia just based on the population distribution. And instead of China, it will probably be India.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 14 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,437,192
@1,437,190 (B)
Infant and childhood mortality in Africa was higher than in other parts of the world historically due to malaria. Everyone had a lot of children in the past, but people were less likely to make it to adulthood due to diseases which were more prevalent in Africa than Europe due to Africa’s warmer climate. Then due to Europe’s colonization of Africa during the industrial evolution, Europe stunted Africa’s industrialization and development leaving Africa with higher rates of poverty and worse infrastructure, access to education, and healthcare, which maintained Africa’s higher birth rates even as technologies were introduced that significantly lowered Africa’s child mortality rate causing their population to grow much faster than Europe in the present.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,437,201
Which is ironic because a future where there are 6x as many Africans as Europeans would horrify the racists who colonized Africa because that’s the exact opposite of what they wanted. After the 2080s, humanity’s population will undergo a global decline, and East Asia and the West will be the furthest along in that decline so they probably won’t regain their previous dominance for at least several hundred years.
Anonymous C replied with this 42 minutes ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,437,208
@1,437,203 (D)
Historically, India was very rich. The United States is wealthy because of World War Two, but the United States has been in relative decline since World War Two. The United States is geographically isolated from the rest of the world so after World War Two we had no industrial competition, so our GDP as a percentage of world GDP peaked in 1960. Now it’s closer to 25%.
The success of western nations is relatively recent in the grand scheme of things. Reasons include the discovery of the Americas and the luck that European diseases killed the native Americans and not the other way around giving European empires access to the vast resources of the Americas which enabled Europe to industrialize first and colonize Africa.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 37 minutes ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,210
It’s projected that by the end of the century India will have the largest economy not China or the United States due mostly to the rapid demographic decline of China.
Anonymous C quadruple-posted this 34 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,211
Now if you’re wondering why China developed before India, China has had lower dependency ratios than India for decades. Why has China had lower dependency ratios? Their birth rate fell faster meaning women had fewer children, they didn’t have to spend as much time and money raising children so they were more economically productive. Why did China see a faster decline in birth rates than India? The one child policy. But it is a double edged sword for China, they rose faster, but they’ll also fall faster.
Anonymous C quintuple-posted this 30 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,212
And now if you’re wondering why the Europeans were more advanced than the Native Americans and why America now is so much more prosperous than it was when it was populated mostly by Native Americans before Europeans arrived: it’s because the Native Americans did not have contact with the rest of the world. For example, China invented guns, Europeans came with guns. Europeans didn’t invent guns. The Native Americans didn’t have guns, because unlike Europeans, they were not trading with China, because they had no idea China or Europe existed.
> Historically, India was very rich. The United States is wealthy because of World War Two, but the United States has been in relative decline since World War Two. The United States is geographically isolated from the rest of the world so after World War Two we had no industrial competition, so our GDP as a percentage of world GDP peaked in 1960. Now it’s closer to 25%.
(I meant to say it peaked at 40% in 1960 so the US is roughly half as powerful economically as we were almost 70 years ago.)
Anonymous C replied with this 17 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,216
@1,437,213 (C)
Of course, the president doesn’t act like it, but that’s because he’s over compensating, really he’s just digging our grave faster but idiots don’t understand the mechanisms at play because they only care about culture war idiocy that focuses on completely immaterial and intangible things like "culture" instead of facts and statistics.
Anonymous C double-posted this 14 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,218
It’s based on the whole fallacy that past success is an indicator of future success - it’s not. If you’re playing Russian roulette and you tell yourself, "This must be safe I’ve pulled the trigger so many times before and I keep winning there must be something special about me" well guess what you’re going to do on the next spin? You’re gonna blow your brains out.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 minute ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,222
@1,437,219 (D)
The United States is the third most populous country in the world, and the next largest economy after the US is China which has 20% of the world’s GDP. China was poorer than most African countries in the 1960s and it’s already in close competition with the United States. This is only possible because China’s large population.