|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 10, 2024 10:26:52 GMT
140 million works out to between 4 and 5 per sq km. Too low to have an impact on the environment, especially since technical knowledge and industrial activity will also be returning to pre-colonial levels as well. Back to the stone age. Perhaps they will even forget about the wheel.
Rather than the current 'death control' measures orchestrated by the West, the neo-colonists will be re-introducing more natural forms of birth control.
Under such circumstances 140 million is probably too high anyway. Most estimates of the pre-colonial (16th century) population are under 50 million and without Western inputs of food, medicine, technology and capital it's likely that the long-term population will decline towards this level rather than increase to 4 billion over the course of the present century, as appears likely.
If we don't interfere Veronika will get her continental-scale nature reserve and biodiversity sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 10, 2024 11:53:37 GMT
The problem is that they won’t stay between 4 to 5 kilometres . They will form tribes and villages and produce more people .
Africa isn’t the Antarctic . There is potential for population growth .
Your idea to restrict growth by forcing the natives to live in the Stone Age wouldn’t stop babies being born . It would restrict growth by child fatalities.
Which contradicts your previous claim ..
YOU ..” So if the Anglo-Germans had decided to turn Africa into a giant game reserve in the 1930s it wouldn't have called for the eradication of millions of people since they hadn't yet been born.”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 10, 2024 12:17:50 GMT
Then you have to explain where you believe friction might have occured, and which side you believe would have been the cause of it.
It could have occurred anywhere that the British Empire and the Third Reich’s interests clashed. The British Empire was a declining one and the German empire would have been an ascending one ….thats not a good mix. The thing was the US at that time was already a formidable power. It was because of the railways, oil and the steel industries of the last quarter the 19c led to its huge manufacturing capacity, which of course was what you need to fight big wars. The US gained most out of WW2 effectively stealing our empire from under our noses. We could not argue since we were broke after WW1 and about to get even more in debt as a result of WW2. The decision to go to war was decided behind closed doors. We will never know all of what was said. The US at that time had built a media empire and as you know, the most noticeable thing about WW2 was the huge amounts of propaganda our ancestors were subjected to. War is good for you proles! Churchill had elite connections. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on May 10, 2024 12:47:43 GMT
Britain was an empire in WW1 and WW2.
An European empire would have hurt our market penetration in Europe and possibly cut off our shorter trade route to the Far East.
Not sure we had a chance though we did not foresee the US empire taking off and its demands on our colonies that had to open up their markets meaning we no longer had the markets for our mechanical goods,like bikes and cars etc.
Our time was up people were questioning the class system by the end of WWII.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veronika on May 10, 2024 13:14:08 GMT
Dear Dan Dare,
Yes the situation could now have been of endless herds of elephants roaming across the land, so happy and unhindered. Lions and gorillas all unbothered by people. While a swastika flag flutters softly in the light breeze. And a solitary classic Mercedes car passes by on an otherwise empty Trans-Africa autobahn.
Veronika Oleksychenko
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 10, 2024 16:43:59 GMT
As it is we're confronted instead by a 21st century dilemma. What does the world need more, great herds of large mammals of great diversity, or another two billion Africans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 10, 2024 18:14:28 GMT
Britain was an empire in WW1 and WW2. An European empire would have hurt our market penetration in Europe and possibly cut off our shorter trade route to the Far East. Not sure we had a chance though we did not foresee the US empire taking off and its demands on our colonies that had to open up their markets meaning we no longer had the markets for our mechanical goods,like bikes and cars etc. Our time was up people were questioning the class system by the end of WWII. I think around the mid 20s we started to milk the empire too much. There was a debate in parliament at this time to the effect of why have an empire if we are not gaining something from it, and so it came to be that the countries which belonged to it felt the pinch which would have helped the cause for independence. I presume this was to do with our nation's finances being squeezed by the damage of WW1. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on May 10, 2024 18:27:48 GMT
Britain was an empire in WW1 and WW2. An European empire would have hurt our market penetration in Europe and possibly cut off our shorter trade route to the Far East. Not sure we had a chance though we did not foresee the US empire taking off and its demands on our colonies that had to open up their markets meaning we no longer had the markets for our mechanical goods,like bikes and cars etc. Our time was up people were questioning the class system by the end of WWII. I think around the mid 20s we started to milk the empire too much. There was a debate in parliament at this time to the effect of why have an empire if we are not gaining something from it, and so it came to be that the countries which belonged to it felt the pinch which would have helped the cause for independence. I presume this was to do with our nation's finances being squeezed by the damage of WW1. In the 1920s we had 250,000 troops in Iraq and other places too I expect so empire was still costing us and on top of WWI debt. I am not a fan of empire as it costs the lives of it citizens to die to keep it and they get replaced by people from far away or at least in our case. Having said that I would not give up the Falklands or desert N.I as long as they want to remain with us. |
|
