French elections 2017: completing the hat-trick?

That does mean a law can be voted without a public debate and vote at the Parliament then, right? At leat that's what I understand.

― Dinsdale, Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:08 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

could you link to that info?

(Africa is under-populated if anything)

― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:22 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

eeeh i don't know.

(Africa is under-populated if anything)

― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:22 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

speaking of which:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40588246
"If the population growth in Africa continues as now, the African population will double from 1.2 billion people to 2.5 billion people by 2050," Ms Tornaes said.

underpopulated?
I'm interesting in what African women think about that

it's a huge land area with countries varying wildly on population density according to demographics and climate, though!

contraception u+k of course

between us I'm sure we can work out the optimal number of africans

punching numbers in my calculator as we speak

I was actually thinking it wrt Asia I suppose. I did put it in brackets as I wasn't sure.

the countries in the world with the highest fertility rates are in africa iirc. so that wasn't necessarily factually that off the mark. "africa has a civilizational problem" from the president of a country that sacked large swathes of africa while "civilizing it" is never a good look

― -_- (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 12 July 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, but the fact that is on his mind somewhere in the question around Africa's stability...it reminded me of Tory/nu-Lab types who tell people who 'can't afford' children not have them so I'm thinking the worse. 'Optimal number' of Africans is a good summary of this.

The fuck at xyzzz not being able to tell Africa and Asia apart, and then just carrying on. every dumb remark to be accounted for right back at you, you insufferable know-nothing.

What is wrong with this world? I go to twitter and immediately there's a link to a video about eugenics, from the Guardian! https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/video/2017/jul/10/at-11-years-old-theyre-getting-pregnant-the-women-smashing-catholic-taboos-in-the-philippines-video And it was tweeted out by a Danish feminist group, so they're eugenicists too!?!?!

Phillipines, that's in South America, right?

Asia has the highest population density of any of the continents - yes, even more than Europe - so that doesn't really work either.

(xps)

Population density is only part of the picture, though. There's a huge amount of variation across Asia but a lot of the established economies (Japan, S. Korea, even China) have aging populations and below-replacement birth rates.

There has always been an argument that population growth in Africa could potentially bring a lot of economic positives, as well as challenges, but it varies by country. Africa as a whole is a net importer of food but there's no particular reason that it should be if there was sustainable development to go alongside population growth.

There's also no reason to think that Africa would be different to anywhere else in the long term - where high birth rates decline in line with decreased infant mortality.

But there's also no reason to think birth rates and infant mortality are that connected, though, are there? Birth rates has a whole lot more to do with economy, women's rights and family planning. For whatever reason Africa - and large parts of the Middle East - hasn't gotten the economic benefits that has come with medicinal breakthroughs in many other parts of the world.

And I mean 'whatever reasons' with a lot of sarcasm. The French has a fair bit to dot with it, and the world bank, etc.

It's one factor among many but it's also pretty important in understanding why population growth is happening when fertility rates are stable. Reliance on labour-intensive smallholder agriculture is another huge factor - particularly in the context of urbanisation and migration depopulating towns and villages.

The idea that 'eh, having lots of kids is cultural' and not contexualising the economic drivers that underpin that (including all those stemming from the legacy of imperialism and present-day economic colonialism) is what a lot of people were reacting to.

Yeah, but that's not what Macron was saying. That's what came from doctoring the footage.

However doctored the footage may have been, you're on thin ice when throwing words like "civilisational" about in the abstract.

Yeah, but connecting birth rates and 'civilizational' would mean he also thought trafficking routes was a 'civilizational' problem for Africa, and I don't see people making that argument.

But yeah, fuck using the word in that context anyway. And, just, fuck Macron. But still better than Fillon and Le Pen.

for a supposedly literary people, french politicians use some messed up wording!!

I think Macron meant to say "structural". Clumsy and unfortunate, sure, but missing the forest for the trees

Interesting op-ed (in French) in Le Monde on the subject

It's good, but what does this part mean?

Les travaux du politologue Gaël Brustier permettent de le situer intellectuellement et idéologiquement avec précision. C’est un « intellectuel organique du nouveau capitalisme » perpétuant un système néolibéral qui, à terme, est plus pernicieux pour l’Afrique que sa logorrhée sur la civilisation touchante de vacuité.

"que sa logorrhée sur la civilisation touchante de vacuité"? Neoliberalism is more dangerous to Africa than... something :) Help please?

talking facile shit about "civilisationnel"?

pretty much. empty and self-indulgent talk about civilization

Ok. I thought that last part connected to 'civilisation' rather than 'talk'. Got it. And yeah, I agree with that sentiment.

lol @ the suggestion that ANYWHERE in the world is "under-populated" by humans

many xps

There are places that have small populations for their area. Its not an alien notion.

The fuck at xyzzz not being able to tell Africa and Asia apart, and then just carrying on. every dumb remark to be accounted for right back at you, you insufferable know-nothing.

― Frederik B, Thursday, 13 July 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Look at the desperation of today's young film crits. Fred, dear, I swiftly thought of a difference in the populations of Africa and Asia an an aside.

I can see why you want to pile on with contortions like.

And, just, fuck Macron. But still better than Fillon and Le Pen.

This is the respectable left in one post. The racist is better than er, a racist.

There are places that have small populations for their area.

/= "under-populated"

the logical endpoint of your argument is that the human population would need to be evenly spread over the square footage of the earth for any place to be considered suitably "populated", which is ludicrous from a practical and ecological standpoint

As far as keeping citing populations numbers and crossing it with notions of what might be right and civilized. Couple of examples just over the last couple of days.

This report says to have one less child to save the environment. Never mind actually actual global action to stop emmissions.

This detail in the story over the Viscount offering 5K to kill a hardcore Remainder

He was also convicted over comments he made online in response to a news article about a man called Arnold Sube, who was reported to have turned down a five-bedroom council house for his family of eight children. “I will open the bidding. 2,000 in cash for the first person to carve Arnold Sube into pieces. Piece of shit,” he wrote.

These attitudes are all over Lib and hard-right circles. All to protect their property rights.

the logical endpoint of your argument is that the human population would need to be evenly spread over the square footage of the earth for any place to be considered suitably "populated", which is ludicrous from a practical and ecological standpoint

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 13 July 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There was a debate over population densities and I am fine to leave it at that. Its more complicated but I don't actually agree that anywhere is under-populated by humans, that's all. To infer is Fred-levels of reading comprehension. Thanks.

*isn't under-populated

To infer *anymore

i know shari vari touched on this

The idea that 'eh, having lots of kids is cultural' and not contexualising the economic drivers that underpin that (including all those stemming from the legacy of imperialism and present-day economic colonialism) is what a lot of people were reacting to.

but i would like to explicitly say: high rates of fertility are sometimes based on the fact that as children in many developing countries can start working and becoming net-contributors to their households at, say 11 or 12 years old, having lots of children, especially considering that there is a good chance some will die in infancy/childhood, sometimes is the most rational economic choice for mothers.

and the amount of people on the earth is not what creates scarcity in a malthusian manner, it's the distribution of wealth

Err depends how finite or not you consider global resources

For fucks sake. Yes, one racist can be better than another racist. Because racism is an actual thing that causes actual damage, and some people cause more damage than others. It's not just a tag to put on people so guys like xyzzz can feel better about themselves. Fucking stupid purity politics.

feels weird to be on Fred's side but here I am

Sorry, everyone, I'll ignore the troll from now on. Clearly that stupid idiot knows nothing about France, Africa, Asia, or anyplace else outside his own rectum. Waste of time to discuss anything with someone that ignorant.

Err depends how finite or not you consider global resources

― licorice oratorio (baaderonixx), Thursday, July 13, 2017 9:53 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the world's resources are finite. the world's poor use a disproportionally small amount of them per capita.

Rich Nations, Poor Nations
20% of the people in developed nations consume 86% of the world’s goods.
12% of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water.
Globally, 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% account for a minuscule 1.3%. Specifically, the richest fifth (1/5):
Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth consume 5%.
Use 58% of the total energy, the poorest fifth use less than 4%.
Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth have 1.5%.
Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth use 1.1%.
Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, while the poorest fifth own less than 1%.
An analysis of past trends shows that the gap between the richest and poorest countries are increasing:
In 1820, it was 5 to 1.
In 1913, it was 11 to 1.
In the 1950s, it was 35 to 1.
In 1973, it was 44 to 1.
In 1992, it was 72 to 1.
The cost of providing basic health care and nutrition for all people in the world would be less than the annual cost of pet food in Europe and the United States.

"purity politics" -- the respectable left in full flow now..

lots of xps:

could you link to that info?

[quote]Les commissions permanentes, qui compte jusqu'à huit parlementaires, sont composées de membres désignés à la proportionnelle des groupes parlementaires. Les commissions spéciales, elles, peuvent compter jusqu'à 70 députés ou 37 sénateurs, et sont créées pour l'examen d'un texte en particulier. Elles sont également composées de membres à la proportionnelle du poids de chaque groupe. Par conséquent, "voter la loi en commission" consisterait purement et simplement à court-circuiter le vote en séance publique, et par conséquent une disposition constitutionnelle qui garantit la publicité des débats et leur inscription au Journal officiel (article 33), en confiant à une poignée de parlementaires le destin d'un texte législatif.[/quote]

http://www.lci.fr/politique/voter-une-loi-en-commission-la-proposition-d-emmanuel-macron-qui-risque-de-faire-du-bruit-2057475.html

In other news, our PM is an asshole but at least he's more honest than our President:

Macron's prime minister, interviewed in today's FT: pic.twitter.com/ERnvQ3PzYC

— JW Mason (@JWMason1) July 11, 2017

Why an asshole (or is that simply for being right wing)?

Because of the politics he supports (so, yes, just for being right-wing, I guess).

With guns g https://t.co/ak66rfdBcv

— Young Dirty Sprite (@Ludothekid) July 12, 2017

This thread connects the dots between 7/8 children and that piece around the environment:

This line of thinking also leads us to blaming WOC in countries w high birth rates for environmental collapse. "There's not enough for all"

— vero bayetti flores (@veroconplatanos) July 13, 2017

Brainless Libs from Denmark: b-but he is not as bad a racist! Maybe my thoughts are too complex for you please look at a map of the world instead.

Yep, the Jill Filipovic piece kicked off a lot of good commentary. idk how much to read into the fact that she's currently writing from the position of a luxe ex-pat in Nairobi.

"It's not the population growth that is the problem - it's the extreme poverty that is the underlying reason," says Hans Rosling, professor of international health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. "If you continue to have extreme poverty areas where women give birth to six children and the population doubles in one generation, then you'll have problems."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34732609

Rosling's argument---for which he took heat---was that "fertility is still trending downwards" because of "a powerful combination of female education, access to contraceptives and abortion, and increased child survival." But he recognized that Africa could present exceptions to this, and that this would be a problem for those places.

This doesn't seem racist to me.