Post reply

Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: m94r
« on: March 24, 2023, 03:12:24 pm »

Immigration fuels record-high population growth in Canada


Canada has seen a record boom in its population, with Ottawa citing higher immigration targets and a “record-breaking year for the processing of immigration applications” as being responsible for the increase.

The most recent bump has also been fuelled by new citizens from abroad, with international migration accounting for nearly 96 percent of the growth.

Trudeau’s government has doubled the pre-existing target for welcoming newcomers since coming to power in 2015. A record 437,180 immigrants landed in Canada in 2022. That number is scheduled to rise to 500,000 per year by 2025.

Statistics Canada said that “high job vacancies and labour shortages” have fuelled the high rate of immigration. It also noted Canada’s ageing population, with one in seven residents between the ages of 55 and 64, providing opportunity to welcome more people.

Posted by: guest78
« on: December 02, 2022, 08:03:26 pm »

How war is changing Russia’s population | DW Business Special
President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is causing major changes back home. Hundreds of thousands of Russian men are being mobilized to fight and tens of thousands have already been killed or injured. Meanwhile, many Russians have left their country and millions of Ukrainians are thought to have arrived.

What impact will these changes have on the Russian population? And could the public response lead to Putin’s downfall? We discuss these questions and more with UCLA’s Oleg Itskhoki in this DW Business Special.
Posted by: guest78
« on: November 14, 2022, 01:13:06 pm »

8 billion and counting
This week, the world’s population ticks over a historic milestone. But in the next century, society will be reshaped dramatically — and soon we’ll hit a decline we’ll never reverse.
Eight billion. It’s a number too big to imagine but think of it this way: In the time it takes you to read this paragraph, the world’s population grew by around 20 people.
We’re getting older and older, which means there are fewer people able to work to support more people who can’t.
Cities are expanding, chewing up arable farmland as they go.
Where are we going?
The world is likely to have a couple more billion mouths to feed in just a few decades.

The UN’s latest projections, released earlier this year, suggest the world will house about 9.7 billion humans in 2050.

“Demographic projections are highly accurate, and it has to do with the fact that most of the people who will be alive in 30 years have already been born,” the UN’s population division director, John Willmoth, says.

“But when you start getting 70, 80 years down the road, there’s much more uncertainty.”
Under its most likely scenario, the UN projects the world population will reach about 10.4 billion in the 2080s.

From there, it’s set to plateau for a couple of decades, before falling around the turn of the 22nd century.
But the range of reasonable possibilities in 2100 is considerably wider, between 8.9 and 12.4 billion.

Entire article:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 05, 2022, 09:31:52 pm »

Russia already had a huge gender imbalance before the Ukraine invasion, dating back to massive battlefield losses in World War II, Paul Goble writes at Eurasia Daily Monitor. Results from the 2021 census are expected to show that Russia has 10.5 million more women than men, almost the same disparity as a decade ago — the double blow being that Russian men at "prime child-bearing age" are dying in Ukraine or fleeing Putin's draft, which will "further depress the already low birthrates in the Russian Federation and put the country's demographic future, already troubled, at even greater risk."


"The mobilization is upending families at perhaps the most fraught moment ever for Russian demographics, with the number of women of childbearing age down by about a third in the past decade" amid the country's broader population decline, Bloomberg reports. "While demographic traumas usually play out over decades, the fallout of the invasion is making the worst scenarios more likely — and much sooner than expected."

Continuing with the Ukraine war and mobilization efforts until the end of next spring would be "catastrophic" for Russia, Moscow demographer Igor Efremov tells Bloomberg. It would likely bring birth rates down to 1 million between mid-2023 and mid-2024, dropping the fertility rate to 1.2 children per woman, a low mark Russia hit only once, in the 1999-2000 period.


Might there be a Russian post-war baby boom?

It's possible. Sometimes wars "lead to higher fertility," as when "sudden bursts of conception" occur as men deploy for battle, Goble writes at Eurasia Daily Monitor. "For example, monthly birth data from the 1940s clearly shows that U.S. baby boom began not as the G.I.'s returned from war, but as they were leaving for war." After the fighting stops, he adds, "wars may trigger a surge of nationalist ideas making people susceptible to pro-natal ideas and policies, even as so-called 'replacement fertility' often leads families to 'respond' to high-casualty events by having 'replacement' children.'"

Preventing this is why Russia must be invaded the moment the Ukraine war ends.

And in the meantime, "downloads of dating apps have significantly increased in the countries to which Russian men fled," the Times reports, noting sharp rises in downloads in Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan.

This is why we need:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 18, 2022, 05:39:17 pm »

Why the war in Ukraine should be dragged out for as long as possible:



Besides casualties in the thousands on the battlefield, the enlistment of 300,000 reservists to join the fight -- and an even bigger flight of men abroad -- is derailing Putin’s goals of starting to stabilize the population already this year.
“The chief blow to the birth rate will be indirect, because most families will have their planning horizon completely destroyed as a result,” Efremov said. “And the impact will be stronger the longer the mobilization lasts.”

This is why I do not blame Iran for supplying Russia:

The more weaponry Russia has, the longer we can keep the war going, and hence the more we can decimate Russia's population.

as Russia approached the invasion of Ukraine in February, it was coming off its deadliest year since World War II -- made worse by the pandemic -- with the population in decline since 2018. It reached 145.1 million on Aug. 1, a fall of 475,500 since the start of the year and down from 148.3 million in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The continuation of the military campaign and mobilization until the end of next spring would be “catastrophic,” according to Efremov, likely bringing births down to just 1 million in the 12 months to mid-2024. The fertility rate may reach 1.2 children per woman, he said, a level Russia saw only once in 1999-2000.

Of course, the correct Russian fertility rate should be 0.

At the point when the Ukraine war is about to end (hopefully still years away), Russia will be at its weakest. At that point, every country geographically capable of invading Russia should invade Russia simultaneously to finish it off.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 22, 2022, 07:38:12 pm »

Encouraging news reported by our enemies:


Actually, Canada is capable of carrying a much higher population than merely 50 million:

therefore Canada should be a significant destination country for climate refugees.

If you ask me, 100 million by 2041 would still not even close to enough given that climate refugees will eventually number in the billions.

I also agree that Quebec should be a destination for climate refugees from Francophone countries in particular:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 21, 2022, 06:15:02 pm »

I am no fan of Macron, but on this occasion he displays common sense (to our enemies' horror):

French president Emmanuel Macron has proposed creating a bill next year to reform France’s immigration and asylum policies, including a proposal to redistribute migrants to rural areas facing demographic decline.
“We have a policy that is both inefficient and inhumane, inefficient because we find ourselves with more foreigners in an irregular situation than many of our neighbours, inhumane because this pressure means that they are too often badly received,” President Macron said, the newspaper Le Figaro reports.
President Macron, who made his remarks on Thursday, also called for a new system to redistribute migrants across France, specifically in “rural areas, which are losing population,” arguing that “the conditions for their reception will be much better than if we put them in areas that are already densely populated, with a concentration of massive economic and social problems.”

France is merely arriving late to obvious solutions that other EU countries had already reached years ago:

Similar policies have been suggested in other countries in recent years, including Germany, where in 2016 it was suggested that villages and small towns could help integrate asylum seekers better and the asylum seekers would help counter demographic decline.

A University of Milano-Bicocca study released last year also proposed using asylum seekers to repopulate rural areas and small towns in Italy, arguing that if the local governments limited migrant centres to no more than 25 people, there would be little economic cost.

See also:

How do we know this is the correct solution? We look at who are opposing it:

Some in France, such as populist National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, have come out against Macron’s proposal, however.

“Emmanuel Macron wants to distribute foreigners in an irregular situation [illegal aliens] to rural areas. We believe that they should go back home. Unable to apply the law, he wants to change it. We will oppose this new madness!” Le Pen said on Twitter on Friday.

Rival populist Eric Zemmour had proposed €10,000 “birth grants” during the French presidential elections, to repopulate the countryside naturally

What is madness is encouraging more new births when there are already so many people desperately in need of housing.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 09, 2022, 09:12:09 pm »

Elon Musk claims 'Japan will eventually cease to exist' because of its declining birth rate
According to the article, Japan's population dropped by a record 644,000 people to just over 125.5 million in 2021, which saw 831,000 births and 1.44 million deaths. The East Asian country’s population decline is now in its 11th consecutive year.

In reality:

reducing Japan's population by 100 million would merely bring it closer to the pre-Meiji population, as I previously discussed here:

which was a population (while still high) at least had not yet exceeded the carrying capacity of the land, and hence is what we should be actively trying to get back to ASAP. And at least back then Japanese were not Eurocentrists, whereas now this is how they respond to Musk:

Master, thank you for raising the issue.

This Eurocentrist Japan is what Musk is actually worried about ceasing to exist.
Posted by: guest55
« on: April 09, 2022, 12:21:41 pm »

Russia's Demographic Crisis Explained - TLDR News
Putin's invasion of Ukraine hasn't gone as well as he had planned, but things aren't going much better at home either, with Russia's fertility rate verging on a demographic crisis. Can Putin do anything about it, or will the war just make things worse?

Sounds like a positive development to me at this particular juncture in the timeline!?

A Russian has recently married into our family. She said that there was no way she was going to marry a Russian male. Apparently there is an imbalance between the number of males to females in the populace with less men. The males apparently take advantage of the situation and the females get treated poorly, so she wanted out.
This wasn't mentioned in the TLDR video.
Maybe the Ukrainian war will have an impact on the out of balance male-female ratio. She did mention the low male life expectancy as all her father's friends have died.
Worth thing noting and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned here is the domestic violence issue in Russia. It was decriminalised in 2017. Many many women have been harmed at the hands of their own men and many ended up dying in their own homes due to brutality occuring there. I can't imagine all this encourages women to have children when violence is so rampant. Then again, the head of the Russian church has remarked that "beatings are mere blessings" so maybe this might actually have nothing to do with birth rates going to hell.

Perhaps integration of some Ukrainians into Russia is the purpose of the "filtration camps" then?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 28, 2022, 09:02:47 pm »

Posted by: Zhang Caizhi
« on: January 28, 2022, 12:34:11 am »

I think the 3-child policy is driven by the need for manpower and survival of China by the government.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 27, 2022, 09:15:55 pm »

Keeping track of what our enemies are thinking is crucial to defeating them:

What advocates of our people should focus on is birth control in the Third World, especially Africa. In 2018, the average cost of a victorious Congressional run was over two million dollars; winning senators spent an average of 15.7 million dollars. That’s to say that having 30 Paul Gosars in Congress would cost 60 million dollars every two years. Those 30 Congressmen could create a “Patriotic Immigration Reform” caucus that would be stymied by the Republican mainstream and the entire Democrat Party over and over again. This caucus would not increase white birthrates, nor would it lower non-white birth rates. And again, actually sending this caucus to office — even at that steep cost — would be a political miracle.

Those 60 million dollars could be much better spent. Consider the average cost of an abortion in the US: $320 to $500 at ten weeks, $500 to $700 at 16 weeks, and $1,000 to $2,000 at 20 weeks or later — and 88% of abortions are carried out before week 13. In America, for every one white woman who aborts, six non-white women do. With that in mind, I would happily forfeit Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Congressional seat to any Democrat in exchange for a new abortion clinic in Los Angeles. Don’t like abortion? No problem. Condoms, IUDs, and oral contraceptives are all even cheaper options. Making them readily available to teenagers and the poor today will do more to improve the quality of your grandchildren’s high school than a President Trump, Jr. ever will.

But while expanded access to “family planning” is needed both at home and across the pond, we need to go further. Sub-Saharan Africa is the biggest demographic threat the world faces. In 2015, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán spoke clearly about this in the European context:

The countries of North Africa once functioned as a defence zone protecting Europe, absorbing the masses of people coming from Africa’s interior. And the real threat is not from the war zones, Ladies and Gentlemen, but from the heart of Africa. With the disintegration of North African states this line of defence has been spectacularly breached, and North Africa is no longer able to protect Europe from a vast flood of people. As a result, a problem has developed on a truly unimaginable scale. I agree with former President Sarkozy, who said on French television just the other day that the current wave of mass migration is only the beginning. There are one point one billion people in Africa today, more than half of them under the age of twenty-five. According to Mr. Sarkozy, before long hundreds of millions of people will have nowhere to live, and insufficient food and water. Following in the footsteps of today’s migrants, these people will leave their homelands. In other words, what is at stake today is Europe and the European way of life, the survival or extinction of European values and nations — or, to be more precise, their transformation beyond all recognition. The question now is not merely what kind of Europe we Hungarians would like to live in, but whether Europe as we now know it will survive at all.
No member of the Trump family or the Republican Party can do much about these fertility differentials and what they portend for the West. But abortion, reliable condoms, and “the pill” could make quite the impact. Let’s stop wasting so much of our time and resources on domestic politics and instead focus on something more concretely productive: lowering Africa’s fertility rate.

I would support a one-child policy for all bloodlines of victims of Western colonialism if in conjunction with a zero-child policy for all bloodlines of Western colonialists. Of course our enemies would not accept such a deal. So we will just have to exterminate them.
Posted by: Killthebank
« on: October 08, 2021, 09:16:38 pm »

China huge crisis: short of childbearing age women/3-child policy is ridiculed by the masses

Most of the comments are all talking about how the one child policy bit China in the ass. OR, maybe,  it was the culture of it being more desirable to have boys rather than girls for some stupid reason.

Posted by: guest55
« on: August 31, 2021, 10:44:16 pm »

Global population hit by extreme drought set to double

I'm actually shocked it took humans this long to destroy our futures.  Oh well, RIP humankind, it was a good run.  PS the animals left in the world after we are gone thank you for leaving before killing off the rest of them first.

No, it was not a good run at all....
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 31, 2021, 10:26:11 pm »

China has officially lost its biggest narrative advantage. It could have gone down in history as the country which led the world in depopulation via state control over reproduction, and hence displayed the superiority of autocracy that enabled it to forge ahead while the democratic countries languished behind. All it needed to do was stick to the One-Child Policy already in place and encourage other countries to copy it:

Instead, right as this juncture when global warming is demanding more heavy-handed countermeasures all around the world, and at the same time China has unprecedented economic leverage over large parts of the world, in other words when conditions are optimal for other countries to start copying, Xi's "New China" itself gives up! Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.....

Worse, the False Left is cheering this as "human rights" progress.

China's population was <400 million before the Century of Humiliation:

This should be what it should be trying to get back to at the absolute minimum! Heck:

why not <100 million? That was its spontaneously comfortable population for millennia! It is no coincidence that that was when China was the world leader in aesthetics. Look at your own ancient paintings FFS! Look how few people there are in them!

This is the ideal that China should be aiming at!