The only statistics I have found so far are UNICEF report 2001 showing figures for 1980s.
"In the UK, for example, the birth rate per 1,000 teenagers in the 1980s was 75 for the Bangladeshi and 44 for the Caribbean communities, as opposed to 29 for whites and only 17 for the Indian community."
I don't know how the statistics have changed since then but will try to find some up to date figures.
Originally posted by jadeypong: [QUOTE]Originally posted by *Andrew*: And lets not forget that england has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in europe...so much for white english people breeding like rats too.
Do you have the statistics to show that these teen pregnancies are mainly white English percentage wise of the population?
I can't remember where i have that information from. However seeming as all ethnic minorities still make up under 9% of the entire population i'm thinking that speaks for itself.
I have yet to see one chav familly that is a 2.4 scenario, enforcing that is the fact that most of the under 20s in those particular famillies seem to have babies at a young age.
The three largest continents by population are Asia (pop just over 3 billion), Africa (pop 800 million) and Europe (pop 730 million).
Considering that in Asia India and China alone have a combined pop of about 2.4 billion (rising) and in Africa Nigeria alone contributes 140 million - and considering issues such as landmass, the most densely populated continent is probably Europe. But population in itself is not the issue or Europe would be impoverished instead of the opposite. Education, access to decent healthcare, stable governments, better rights for women etc are the keys to success - and the only way to reduce birth rates. Until people have the assurance that their kids will live to adulthood they won't stop having them. It is lunacy to expect a woman in a country where child mortality is about 100 in 1000 to stop at 2 kids when the chances that both will survive to the age of 5 are slim. In Europe social conditions improved BEFORE birth rates fell.
Originally posted by persian_princess: We may all end up seeing people as just members of certain cultures and not the individuals that they are. Each and every individual has the right to be respected for the person they are, not those they identify with.
I think that these days people often have a mix of cultures they can identify with, this will lead to better understanding of each other and less tension between distict groups. Although some may also say that this mixing of cultures dilutes and possibly kills off some cultural traditions. So how can future generations ensure that there is a truely multicultural society and not just a society that has people of diverse ethnic backgrounds but who have lost touch with these backgrounds?
I think that as you have mentioned above this policy can cause a great deal of disharmony, animosity and conflict. Recently I have gone right off multiculturalism and I think it would be better if there were fewer people coming into the country from cultures which are very different from the traditional set of cultures. Unfortunately different governments seem to encourage or accept more and more people from very different places and cultures and we can not begin to resolve our unknowing before multitudes of other unknown factors are pushed into our cultural space.
Aspects of different cultures are interesting but when cultural values begin to be imposed in the country it cannot but cause more and more tension and a worse living environment for all.
Originally posted by idia: The three largest continents by population are Asia (pop just over 3 billion), Africa (pop 800 million) and Europe (pop 730 million).
Considering that in Asia India and China alone have a combined pop of about 2.4 billion (rising) and in Africa Nigeria alone contributes 140 million - and considering issues such as landmass, the most densely populated continent is probably Europe. But population in itself is not the issue or Europe would be impoverished instead of the opposite. Education, access to decent healthcare, stable governments, better rights for women etc are the keys to success - and the only way to reduce birth rates. Until people have the assurance that their kids will live to adulthood they won't stop having them. It is lunacy to expect a woman in a country where child mortality is about 100 in 1000 to stop at 2 kids when the chances that both will survive to the age of 5 are slim. In Europe social conditions improved BEFORE birth rates fell.
This seems a bit chicken and egg to me. One of the reasons for poor health and hence the high mortality is poor nutrition and this is made worse by having to share what food is available among a large number of mouths.
I don't actually like Mr Blair very much but if he manages get more reasonable terms for farm subsidies in Europe it might stop subsidised food from the EU damaging African markets and then some of them might actually be able to develop better conditions. Also if he gets the G8 to give more money for welfare and education this will again help Africa, and hopefully some other places too. Whether he will have much impact on the effects of US policy on Latin America is a more doubtful matter.
On the other hand there also needs to be sanctions taken against corrupt leaders and some major naming and shaming of the worst ofenders. Mugabe is only one of many leaders who seem to care very little for large sections of the populations they govern.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by masum: i was talking about multiculturalism
I think you need to be a bit more specific about which point or poster you're referring to. Your post didn't mention multiculturalism and came directly after mine about the Mugabe regime - so it was rather confusing.
