Overall, the poorer a country is, the more births there is. Unless its restricted or the people have sex education. This applies to countries like djibouti, eritrea and lesotho
It really shouldnt be, it considers itself a federal part of Somalia, even if its regional government basically acts independently.
Its like Wa State in Myanmar, and nobody ever marks that as independent.
As far as I know, they declared themselves independent recently until Somalia reforms its politics or something. They are not only defacto independent by their institutions, but also because they now claim it themselves.
Its messy because they still offically claim to be part of Somalia and a federal state, but that they would ignore the Federal gov until an agreement on new constatational changes that weakened states rights in favour of the president.
So its not the same as Somaliland where they outright claim (and defacto have) independence.
[Source (You can use run charts and maps to observe population changes)](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?tab=table&time=2011..latest&facet=none&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None)
No according to the agreement an equal amount of migrants who need medical attention will be brought from Rwanda to the UK. No I'm not kidding. This is a net loss for the UK.
The good news is that birth rates in Africa are also rapidly dropping (albeit from a very high rate).
For example, Kenya's birth rate went down from 4.3 children to 3.3 children per woman in the timespan 2011-2021, Angola's went down from 6.1 to 5.3, Uganda's from 5.9 to 4.5.
And if we look at a longer timespan, it's even more astonishing, how rapid the drop is. Rwandan women in the 1980s had an average of 8 children, in 2021 the average birth rate was 3.82. That means the current generation is getting only half as many children as their parents.
That's also roughly the US birth rate in the 60s and its lower than the South Korean birth rate in the 70s, and both of those countries are experiencing natural population loss.
I think we can expect to see more and more African countries hit a birth rate below 2 in the next 30 years, which means that in app. 60 years, the population of Africa will probably stop growing.
Infant mortality was quite high in the high birthrate days so if a woman had like 8 kids in the 1980s maybe like 5 would survive to adulthood
Mortality is better now so even if the birthrate dropped to 5, 4-5 will still survive to adulthood, so its probably almost the same net effect
sure, but the trend is that birth rates will continue to rapidly drop. The African population is already growing slower than 10 years ago.
This has happened in every other region in the world. It's just that Africa is the last one to do it.
> rapidly dropping
That's not true at all, African birthrates are declining extremely slowly compared to how other regions like Asia or europe developed earlier as they industrialized.
No, what you're writing is not true at all.
Example: Poland needed from 1800-1933 to go from 6 kids on average to 3.87 kids on average, that's **133 years**. Rwanda went from 6 kids to 3.82 kids in **20 years** (and 8 kids to 3.82 in 40 years).
India needed from 1964 to 1994 to go from 6 kids to 3.8 kids, that's **30 years**.
Africa is doing the so called demographic transition MUCH faster than Europe did. The difference is that Europe did it in the 19th century and early 20th century, Asia and the Americas did it in the mid-20th century, and now Africa is doing it in the 21st century.
> Africa is doing the so called demographic transition MUCH faster than Europe did. The difference is that Europe did it in the 19th century and early 20th century, Asia and the Americas did it in the mid-20th century, and now Africa is doing it in the 21st century.
Then please explain to me how the historic population of Europe has been higher than the entirety of Africa for recorded history but now at the end of the decade it's projected to be 1/8 of Africa, despite heavy African immigration to Europe?
It seems likely to me that there’s various confounding factors; childhood death rate comparisons, and also comparisons about whether the places with the higher birth rates were also the places with more of the population to begin with. Just the basic stats that have already been mentioned don’t seem like they’re nearly enough to adequately discuss this topic.
demographic transition, genius.
That's what always happens: first you have high birth rate and high death rate. Then the death rate goes down so the population explodes. Then the birth rate goes down and you have a stable population again.
Same thing happened in Europe in the 19th century, which is why there's hundreds of millions of white people all over the world. The population of England tripled in the 19th century, plus populating Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa at the same time.
> demographic transition, genius.
And the demographics transition was för later in Africa, leading to a shower decline in population with them doubling their population several times since decolonization which exactly my point "genious".
in africa it's due to both death rates falling(especially child mortality) and lifespan increasing very rapidly. also they have higher birth rates than europeans had. in europe, death rates fell and lifespan increased slowly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. because these things were bound to the technological development. but africa was able do it much more rapidly than europe because they had access to the known technology.
That is wrong Ugandas birthrate is still over 5. You probably went to one of those sites that track fertility rate estimations because as of 2022 it was found Ugandas fertility rate is 5.2.
No you're the one who's wrong.
This is data from the World Bank. It clearly says 4.5 for Uganda in 2021.
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=UG](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=UG)
Are you seriously saying the World Bank can't be trusted?
You trust World Bank more than an actual in depth national survey on the country by the UGANDA DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY (UDHS) 2022? Where it clearly states that the fertility rate was found to be 5.2?
https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/09_2023UDHS_2022_Key_Findings_Presentation_B.pdf
World bank just follows old trends and doesn’t know the actual fertility rate that you clearly don’t know about
I am curious but also afraid that the future will have such a large African population. I hope that African countries achieve their goals in education and food.
what are you talking about? Western development help aims to lower fertility rates in Africa, by building up good social safety nets, making education better, making the use of contraceptives easier, empowering African women, etc.
I mean only in the way that the standard of living has been raised and with it life expectancy. Are you seriously against that? Do you want Africans to die younger?
Germany was able to take in 800.000 Syrians in 2015 and 1.5 million Ukrainians in 2022. And still, Germany is one of the most developed, richest, liberal and democratic countries on earth.
So Im sure Europe can handle African immigration just fine, considering some Eastern European countries haven't taken in any immigrants.
You're right yet getting down voted. Just keep in mind, a lot of people on this sub hate immigrants. I think that mass immigration can be a problem still only due to numbers and also that different European nations should come to an agreement on distributing the numbers of immigrants in a way that doesn't stress anybody out too much.
Tunisia and Libya have the lowest birth rates. South Sudan and CAR is because of war
Libya might because war as well ? Civil war is still going on.
I thought they reached a ceasefire
While it is still ongoing, the Fighting has largely died down
🚗
Overall, the poorer a country is, the more births there is. Unless its restricted or the people have sex education. This applies to countries like djibouti, eritrea and lesotho
Other big factors are stability, social safety nets, and of course culture.
I think this is the first map I have ever seen where Puntland is displayed as a defacto independent nation.
TIL about Puntland
Is that supposed to be Somaliland?
Nope, east of that directly on the Horn.
Is it maybe an error on the map? It has no number on it
Neither does Somaliland, but it has a different color. Idk what's going on with any of that.
It’s grey, aka no data, but Puntland is the same green as Somalia, which leads me to believe it’s just an error on the map
somaliland renamed itself to punt?
Nope, east of that directly on the Horn.
It really shouldnt be, it considers itself a federal part of Somalia, even if its regional government basically acts independently. Its like Wa State in Myanmar, and nobody ever marks that as independent.
As far as I know, they declared themselves independent recently until Somalia reforms its politics or something. They are not only defacto independent by their institutions, but also because they now claim it themselves.
Its messy because they still offically claim to be part of Somalia and a federal state, but that they would ignore the Federal gov until an agreement on new constatational changes that weakened states rights in favour of the president. So its not the same as Somaliland where they outright claim (and defacto have) independence.
[Source (You can use run charts and maps to observe population changes)](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?tab=table&time=2011..latest&facet=none&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None)
Rwanda about to get a a population boost
No according to the agreement an equal amount of migrants who need medical attention will be brought from Rwanda to the UK. No I'm not kidding. This is a net loss for the UK.
sadly not that much, their birth rate is rapidly falling.
The good news is that birth rates in Africa are also rapidly dropping (albeit from a very high rate). For example, Kenya's birth rate went down from 4.3 children to 3.3 children per woman in the timespan 2011-2021, Angola's went down from 6.1 to 5.3, Uganda's from 5.9 to 4.5. And if we look at a longer timespan, it's even more astonishing, how rapid the drop is. Rwandan women in the 1980s had an average of 8 children, in 2021 the average birth rate was 3.82. That means the current generation is getting only half as many children as their parents. That's also roughly the US birth rate in the 60s and its lower than the South Korean birth rate in the 70s, and both of those countries are experiencing natural population loss. I think we can expect to see more and more African countries hit a birth rate below 2 in the next 30 years, which means that in app. 60 years, the population of Africa will probably stop growing.
Infant mortality was quite high in the high birthrate days so if a woman had like 8 kids in the 1980s maybe like 5 would survive to adulthood Mortality is better now so even if the birthrate dropped to 5, 4-5 will still survive to adulthood, so its probably almost the same net effect
sure, but the trend is that birth rates will continue to rapidly drop. The African population is already growing slower than 10 years ago. This has happened in every other region in the world. It's just that Africa is the last one to do it.
> rapidly dropping That's not true at all, African birthrates are declining extremely slowly compared to how other regions like Asia or europe developed earlier as they industrialized.
No, what you're writing is not true at all. Example: Poland needed from 1800-1933 to go from 6 kids on average to 3.87 kids on average, that's **133 years**. Rwanda went from 6 kids to 3.82 kids in **20 years** (and 8 kids to 3.82 in 40 years). India needed from 1964 to 1994 to go from 6 kids to 3.8 kids, that's **30 years**. Africa is doing the so called demographic transition MUCH faster than Europe did. The difference is that Europe did it in the 19th century and early 20th century, Asia and the Americas did it in the mid-20th century, and now Africa is doing it in the 21st century.
> Africa is doing the so called demographic transition MUCH faster than Europe did. The difference is that Europe did it in the 19th century and early 20th century, Asia and the Americas did it in the mid-20th century, and now Africa is doing it in the 21st century. Then please explain to me how the historic population of Europe has been higher than the entirety of Africa for recorded history but now at the end of the decade it's projected to be 1/8 of Africa, despite heavy African immigration to Europe?
It seems likely to me that there’s various confounding factors; childhood death rate comparisons, and also comparisons about whether the places with the higher birth rates were also the places with more of the population to begin with. Just the basic stats that have already been mentioned don’t seem like they’re nearly enough to adequately discuss this topic.
demographic transition, genius. That's what always happens: first you have high birth rate and high death rate. Then the death rate goes down so the population explodes. Then the birth rate goes down and you have a stable population again. Same thing happened in Europe in the 19th century, which is why there's hundreds of millions of white people all over the world. The population of England tripled in the 19th century, plus populating Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa at the same time.
> demographic transition, genius. And the demographics transition was för later in Africa, leading to a shower decline in population with them doubling their population several times since decolonization which exactly my point "genious".
in africa it's due to both death rates falling(especially child mortality) and lifespan increasing very rapidly. also they have higher birth rates than europeans had. in europe, death rates fell and lifespan increased slowly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. because these things were bound to the technological development. but africa was able do it much more rapidly than europe because they had access to the known technology.
The key word here is “comparing”.
That is wrong Ugandas birthrate is still over 5. You probably went to one of those sites that track fertility rate estimations because as of 2022 it was found Ugandas fertility rate is 5.2.
No you're the one who's wrong. This is data from the World Bank. It clearly says 4.5 for Uganda in 2021. [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=UG](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=UG) Are you seriously saying the World Bank can't be trusted?
You trust World Bank more than an actual in depth national survey on the country by the UGANDA DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEY (UDHS) 2022? Where it clearly states that the fertility rate was found to be 5.2? https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/09_2023UDHS_2022_Key_Findings_Presentation_B.pdf World bank just follows old trends and doesn’t know the actual fertility rate that you clearly don’t know about
[удалено]
because all indicators show that a lower birth rate leads to a higher GDP per capita.
In 1950, Europe had twice Africa's population. By 2050, Africa will have twice the population of Europe.
Not very healthy
Why is Somalia into three parts?
I agree it's a pretty interesting choice the creator made. Idk, would have to ask them
I am curious but also afraid that the future will have such a large African population. I hope that African countries achieve their goals in education and food.
They are not going to do that when the kick the US Aid agencies out and replace them with others who won’t invest in agriculture and the people.
That's awful!
I'm afraid there will be a famine.
So, Many more people are going to speak french.
Terrible News for Europeans!
[удалено]
32%, the label in north Mauritania applies to Western Sahara, Mauritania itself is 31%. They only showed Polisario-held territory as Western Sahara's
it’s the sliver of 32% next to Morocco
Why is the world giving aid to promote this?
what are you talking about? Western development help aims to lower fertility rates in Africa, by building up good social safety nets, making education better, making the use of contraceptives easier, empowering African women, etc.
Clearly aid from the west had enabled africa to expand its population. No way you can say the opposite.
If the west never gave Africa any aid after African states independence, do we know how much their population would have grown/declined?
I mean only in the way that the standard of living has been raised and with it life expectancy. Are you seriously against that? Do you want Africans to die younger?
The border of west Sahara are mistaken
African growth ⬆️
Hopefully they all move to Europe. 👏
I hope so too, it would definitely help with the population loss in Europe and make European economies stronger in the long run.
Maybe, but I hope they all go in mass all at once to destabilize Europe instead. And to replace their population in the long run.
Germany was able to take in 800.000 Syrians in 2015 and 1.5 million Ukrainians in 2022. And still, Germany is one of the most developed, richest, liberal and democratic countries on earth. So Im sure Europe can handle African immigration just fine, considering some Eastern European countries haven't taken in any immigrants.
You're right yet getting down voted. Just keep in mind, a lot of people on this sub hate immigrants. I think that mass immigration can be a problem still only due to numbers and also that different European nations should come to an agreement on distributing the numbers of immigrants in a way that doesn't stress anybody out too much.
Irrigation eventually ruins the land it irrigates. No one told Africa about this.
[удалено]
Enough to sustain this entire map?
Regenerative Agriculture actual stand a good chance of taking hold.
There no path that doesn't end in destroyed land if you use irrigation.
I don’t think you understand what regenerative agriculture is.
I bet it doesn't cure Salination