I'm not sure if "SA" means South Africa or Saudi Arabia, but South Africa is, according to official reports, at a replacement rate of 2.4 and declining rapidly (down from 6.1 in 1960), and Saudi Arabia is at 2.2 and declining even more rapidly (down from 7.4). Both countries are on the same graph I just linked.
These are graphs of population deaths v. births AKA the "replacement rate" or "fertility rate." In a world were all people who are born live long enough to give birth to their exact "replacements" (a population steady state condition) the replacement rate would be exactly 2. We do not live in such a world, and that rate depends on the rate at which people (babies, children, etc.) die or are reproductively injured before they reach maturity, thus the steady state replacement rate is between 2.1-2.4 depending on the country.
Any population increase graphs in a country where replacement rate is below steady state are based on the fact that people take a while to die. Those graphs level out and then start to decrease as you advance it in time. The UN projects that the world population will begin to decline by 2080 as deaths catch up to the birth rate decline efforts of the past 60 years.
I'm just telling you about my experience in my country...They multiply like rabbits...Because for each child the mother receives a grant from the government so what do you think these young black girls do because unemployment amongst the youth is very high...They have kids...They get pregnant from as young as 13 and 14 whilst still at school and palm the kids off with grandma that lives out in the rural areas to be brought up...No foresight ...
What I am showing you is the official numbers. This data is corroborated in primary sources going back over a hundred years. I will be presenting a much more comprehensive report on this soon.
Why do you suggest they are incorrect? More importantly, why would they lie? On the contrary, they have been lying about the opposite for a very long time. They have been inducing a panic in the populations of all countries with regards to "too much population." This (among many other efforts) drives people to have fewer children, thus accomplishing their goal. The opposition party (Republican in America) complains about exactly such incentives to have children in minority populations as you describe, thus creating the belief of "too much population" on that side as well. But America is even worse with regards to replacement levels, and perhaps more important, the numbers are even worse for minority populations, despite the constant narrative to the opposite (which it sounds like it is the same in your country).
All sides are controlled by the "too much population" narrative, but the numbers tell a very different story. They don't advertise those numbers, but they are available if you look.
I'm not sure if "SA" means South Africa or Saudi Arabia, but South Africa is, according to official reports, at a replacement rate of 2.4 and declining rapidly (down from 6.1 in 1960), and Saudi Arabia is at 2.2 and declining even more rapidly (down from 7.4). Both countries are on the same graph I just linked.
These are graphs of population deaths v. births AKA the "replacement rate" or "fertility rate." In a world were all people who are born live long enough to give birth to their exact "replacements" (a population steady state condition) the replacement rate would be exactly 2. We do not live in such a world, and that rate depends on the rate at which people (babies, children, etc.) die or are reproductively injured before they reach maturity, thus the steady state replacement rate is between 2.1-2.4 depending on the country.
Any population increase graphs in a country where replacement rate is below steady state are based on the fact that people take a while to die. Those graphs level out and then start to decrease as you advance it in time. The UN projects that the world population will begin to decline by 2080 as deaths catch up to the birth rate decline efforts of the past 60 years.
I'm just telling you about my experience in my country...They multiply like rabbits...Because for each child the mother receives a grant from the government so what do you think these young black girls do because unemployment amongst the youth is very high...They have kids...They get pregnant from as young as 13 and 14 whilst still at school and palm the kids off with grandma that lives out in the rural areas to be brought up...No foresight ...
What I am showing you is the official numbers. This data is corroborated in primary sources going back over a hundred years. I will be presenting a much more comprehensive report on this soon.
Why do you suggest they are incorrect? More importantly, why would they lie? On the contrary, they have been lying about the opposite for a very long time. They have been inducing a panic in the populations of all countries with regards to "too much population." This (among many other efforts) drives people to have fewer children, thus accomplishing their goal. The opposition party (Republican in America) complains about exactly such incentives to have children in minority populations as you describe, thus creating the belief of "too much population" on that side as well. But America is even worse with regards to replacement levels, and perhaps more important, the numbers are even worse for minority populations, despite the constant narrative to the opposite (which it sounds like it is the same in your country).
All sides are controlled by the "too much population" narrative, but the numbers tell a very different story. They don't advertise those numbers, but they are available if you look.
That shit almost makes you support on-demand abortion.