Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Babies watch

Screenshot 2017-08-22 12.59.57

Chinese media celebrate the success of the 2 Child Policy: 18.46 million births in 2016. 2 million more than 2015. Hurray. Long live the party and its core leader Xi Jinping. 萬歲萬歲萬萬歲.

Why the Chinese would want even more people escapes me. But given how modern economics (either through this Landian catallactic capitalist logic or whatever) hates demographics vacuums and tends to fill every empty spot with whatever human-like DNA it finds; well I don’t blame them for wanting to take care of that. And who knows; the whole First World is depopulating, maybe there is a grand plan of colonizing the whole world once the Great Famine happens and all those “refugees” die of their own ineptitude.

At any rate, let’s review the Baby production statistics worldwide:

China: 18.46 million Chinese babies (source)

Japan: 0.98 million babies (source)

US: 2 million white babies (source)

EU: 3 million white babies (source)

Greater Russia: 2 million white babies (source)

India: 27 freaking million babies (source)
Maybe some commenters can illustrate the breakdown between Hindu et al.
I’m guessing caste-based dysgenics must be quite serious.

Subsaharan Africa: 37 damn million black babies (source)

30 responses to “Babies watch

  1. Pingback: Babies watch | @the_arv

  2. djz242013 August 22, 2017 at 17:06

    you should multiply the # of babies by the odds of survival to 20 years or whatever to account for the much higher odds of a black child dying young than a white baby. but even if you do the multiplying, it’s still grossly lopsided

    • spandrell August 22, 2017 at 18:31

      Not that much higher. If it were the population wouldn’t be increasing in Africa as it is.

      • Cavalier August 22, 2017 at 20:11

        Mortality gets accounted for in the TFR. One thing about Africans, though, is that the mean intergenerational length is much shorter. Where it might naturally be 30-ish for whites and yellows, it might be more like 20-ish for blacks. So, TFR, which is 5-8 in most SSAfrican regions, actually understates the enormity of the population expansion — hence your 37 million.

  3. Lalit August 22, 2017 at 17:54

    Muslims are 15% of India’S population and the average Muslim woman pops out one baby more than her Hindu counterpart. Basically 22% of those babies are Muslims. So out of 27 million births, I estimate Muslim babies at 6 million and Hindu + everyone else at 21 million. Note that Hindus are trying to keep up with the Muslim rate and failing, while the Euros ain’t trying at all.

  4. Dirtnapninja August 22, 2017 at 18:31

    This is a temporary bump. han birthrates are going to plummet

    • Cavalier August 22, 2017 at 20:21

      Why? The Party can do whatever it wants, and if it wants more babies, it will find a way — cough cough — to get more babies.

      • Dirtnapninja August 23, 2017 at 03:44

        Because the Tiger moms cant afford to raise more than one. Han have the lowest fertility rates in the world in places like singapore and taiwan. Han fertility is significantly lower than non-han chinese.

        • Cavalier August 23, 2017 at 06:18

          I have a two-part plan for Chinese world domination. Really, this is all they have to do:

          1. Make women property again.

          2. Tamp down on meritocracy. Absolute meritocracy is absolute status-striving, and balls-to-the-wall striving is expensive. Plus, it’s boring; there’s no room for eccentricity.

          Fertility, solved.

          • spandrell August 23, 2017 at 21:36

            China has been meritocratic for, at least, 1,000 years. It didn’t affect their fertility. So point 1. is more than enough.

            • Cavalier August 24, 2017 at 05:16

              I’m using “meritocratic” here in a very specific way, and the manifestation of Chinese overcharged meritocracy (which was not “merely” social but also economic thanks to rice) did, in fact, manifest undesirable characteristics in the Chinese people. It’s a big part of why they’re so collectivist, conformist, and drone-like. And, hyper-competitive. You can’t compete with a Chinaman in any activity even vaguely intersecting repetition because they’re better grinders than anyone anywhere. Hell, their whole society and its entire history is about living closer to the knife’s edge than anyone else. Who wants to deal with that?

              There’s a definite trade-off between striving and creativity, hence the tremendous drop-off in original science. Had Darwin lived in the “publish or perish” bureaucrat’s dream-world, he wouldn’t have had 17 years to spend writing On the Origin of Species. It’s a miracle that biology has survived as long as it has to produce CRISPR and hopefully — cross your fingers! — refine it sufficiently to save our freakin’ civilization. What a last gasp.

            • Cavalier August 24, 2017 at 05:37

              Only in China.

  5. Garr August 22, 2017 at 18:39

    It’s nice to have kids around. If you’re in a place that’s devoid of kids you start feeling as though something’s wrong, and then you figure out what it is.

    Part of what makes colleges so weird-feeling is that there are all of these young women around but no small children. Wherever there are lots of young women around there should be lots of kids around too.

    So maybe if there are too many people in a country it’s best to shoot for 1.99 kids per couple, just to make sure that there are enough children around to keep things sane.

    • Cavalier August 22, 2017 at 20:26

      The physical space of a country is quite irrelevant. The important bit is the social space. The population of Wyoming doubled for the eclipse, and there are entire regions with nothing but cactuses and desert lizards, but there’s no physical expansion into such places because most of the social space is clustered in a few coastal cities.

      And yes, “social space” is basically quality pussy.

      • Garr August 22, 2017 at 23:49

        Sure; I was just saying that human beings need to have some kids around, that’s all.

        • Cavalier August 23, 2017 at 06:24

          I agree with you, and was just using your comment as a springboard. I would go even a step further, however, in saying that there’s an entire pathological age separation problem; there should be grandparents around, too. It isn’t just expensive to fund their “retirement”, it’s stupid — they should be pulling their weight, around their grandchildren. Schooling also needs to be revamped. And suburbia needs to be struck.

  6. Pingback: Babies watch | Reaction Times

  7. Pingback: Babies watch | AlfaNL

  8. Pingback: Running Silent Running Deep in the Labyrinth - American Digest

  9. Cantman August 24, 2017 at 18:20

    Looks like China really will rule the world. Indians are mostly dumb Austronesians (or hopelessly diluted with Austronesian). Two times advantage of Africa is nothing when comparing the military capability of a population of Chinese vs a population of Africans. Whites are gone.

  10. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/08/27) - Social Matter

  11. Tb March 18, 2019 at 15:12

    To quote Anatoly Karlin: demographics is power.

    (Although probably not in the case of the US where half the babies average IQ 85-90, then demographics is just giant millstone around your neck requesting handouts to make more of those babies starting right about age 15.)

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s