No Nigeria is not overpopulated, far from it. We have to look at the population density of Nigeria, ( people per square mile ). The population density of Europe is higher than in Nigeria, (more people per square mile than Nigeria), so in fact Europe is overpopulated and Europeans are not complaining about it. The so called "experts" are simply here to exterminate the black population. Why do you think they created Ebola for? Think again and do your math, it is Europe who is overpopulated, dont allow so called "experts" to manipulate you

United Kingdom 660 persons per square km

Belgium 919 persons per square km

Netherlands 1,059 persons per square km

Nigeria 433 persons per square km


Again it is Europe who is overpopulated, so who is fooling who?

Source http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Nigeria is not overpopulated, but the population needs to be controlled due to the high poverty rate. At the moment Nigeria's population is more of a liabilty than an asset, while the government is trying to fix issues like poverty, the number of poor individuals continues to grow rapidly year in year out.

If the government fails, the family cant afford to fail. The real problem can be noticed from the family units / households. Many poor / low income earning families breed nuisances and secure a vicious cycle of generational poverty by the actions of the family heads(man/wife). A man who barely earns N30,000 /month and has a wife and 6 kids, has most likely placed the children on a disadvantage from the outset, and except by sheer posterity has already laid a foundation of poverty for the kids, , he will barely afford to send them to "decent" schools, if they fall sick, they will barely be able to afford hospital bills, he will barely afford to feed them , talkless of feeding them well, he will barely afford to put the family in to a decent house .

It is not a crime to be poor, but to be poor and stupid simultaneously should be a crime, the almajiris in large numbers is because some parents have decided to be poor and stupid, the large and expanding slums is also because people are poor and stupid . If as a family head you live in the slum with your family members , your number one priority should be to ensure , your children do not end up like you, and you move out of slums in the shortest of time, and one way to do that is to simply cut your coat according to your material and give birth to a small unit, it aids the likelihood of you finding it easy to move out the slums or climbing out of the dungeon of poverty.

The crux of the matter is simply, each household should not give birth more than its income can cater for, and judging by the prevailing poverty rate in the country, 2/3 children per household is ok, for those who clearly can afford to have large families, there is no problem with that.

Nigeria already has the quantity but lacking the required quality in the population, and it seems increase in the quantity continues to decrease the quality

newguy1:

have u forgotten how corrupt dis guys r, if there is more money den its more for taken n bro as we r now we r sufferin in dis continent. To feed one mouth is a problem talkless of more..we either maintain dis or find a way to prevent much increase

Our leaders are part and parcel of the wider economic system established to keep us subdued. That is why they do not think twice of turning their countries into science labs for multinational pharmaceutical co.s, and foreign governments. The corruption benefits multinationals who operate without any tangible benefit to locals. There is a very symbiotic relation between our political systems and our ravished populations.

Horus:
No Nigeria is not overpopulated, far from it. We have to look at the population density of Nigeria, ( people per square mile ). The population density of Europe is higher than in Nigeria, (more people per square mile than Nigeria), so in fact Europe is overpopulated and Europeans are not complaining about it. The so called "experts" are simply here to exterminate the black population. Why do you think they created Ebola for? Think again and do your math, it is Europe who is overpopulated, dont allow so called "experts" to manipulate you

United Kingdom 660 persons per square km

Belgium 919 persons per square km

Netherlands 1,059 persons per square km

Nigeria 433 persons per square km


Again it is Europe who is overpopulated, so who is fooling who?

Source http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Exactly!

@emiye
It seems that our problem is of societal organization. Our forefathers did not live in slums. Africans started begging the UN for sustenance after introduction of the western economic system. Go to slums from South Africa to Cairo and you will find those people are working for multinationals, from miners to manufacturers. Many have no land since the colonial land grab, and they survive with no hospitals, infrastructure. Chances of survival are low and whereever that is the case, parents give birth to more children, to ensure survival of the households beyond this generation.

We need to change perception of success from dependance on employment to self sustenance, and to teach our children to grow up into self reliance just as our forefathers before us, as that is the real freedom. These foreign investors pay well in their countries while here in Africa, they pay peanuts and condemn our people to a cycle of poverty.

Taking control of our destiny starts with taking back our denied humanity.

Dnt mind those bastards.

There are also many Africans who are employers of helps, drivers, watchmen, etc. If their wages can not sustain them beyond the slum, you are part of the problem. Reduce the work hours so that they can have multiple sources of income. They may never complain to your face, but they will cry before God.

muafrika:
@emiye
It seems that our problem is of societal organization. Our forefathers did not live in slums. Africans started begging the UN for sustenance after introduction of the western economic system. Go to slums from South Africa to Cairo and you will find those people are working for multinationals, from miners to manufacturers. Many have no land since the colonial land grab, and they survive with no hospitals, infrastructure. Chances of survival are low and whereever that is the case, parents give birth to more children, to ensure survival of the households beyond this generation.

We need to change perception of success from dependance on employment to self sustenance, and to teach our children to grow up into self reliance just as our forefathers before us, as that is the real freedom. These foreign investors pay well in their countries while here in Africa, they pay peanuts and condemn our people to a cycle of poverty.

Taking control of our destiny starts with taking back our denied humanity.

I take exception to the boldened, it is outright silly. In a more competitive world, there can be no sense in churning out uncompetitve zombies. It is less in the numbers, but in the quality, Why did small/tiny belgium colonise a very large Democratic Republic of Congo.? The Governments in Africa tends to fail its people, but worse more the people fail itself, i know poor households who climbed out of poverty, through thorough planning, and a understanding that quality thrumps quantity,

A country going to an Olympics with 3 very good athletes will most likely win more medals than that going with 20 run off athletes.

China discovered early that if does not control its population, a disaster was in the offing, since it then used to have a very high poverty rate,

Having no ancestral land does not mean you live in slums. It is people who cant compete who live in slums. With good level of competitiveness, you can even buy over lost lands.

@emiye
You must be quite priviledged. The poor landless should buy land and stop making it an excuse? Climb out of poverty by planning? Let me guess, invest in business? There are two parallel worlds here. Success is a combination of many things - health, education or mentorship, connections and, well, government. This things are not equally available to all men. The difference is the word you used: Quality. Not all people can opt for quality. All some have is many times not enough for the day. That means anybody getting sick or getting an admission to an expensive, better performing school is out of the question. You are also assuming that poor man can feed two better than seven. Those two will still be in the slums because the problem is rooted somewhere in the high places of priviledge: employers of this slum dweller who do not peg his wages on his needs. That guy still won't move to a mansion. Make no mistake, the least paid do the most hard work. The least advantaged have more children as they lose more.

@emiye
The Belgians had guns, and the support of the rest of Europe. The Congolese paid for their resistance with death. The colonizing Europe, Russia and the US had a pact in which the rivers of the Congo would be accessed freely by all as they smuggled all sorts of precious things out of the land. Very few African countries, only tribes then, had guns. Note that before the invention of the gun, Europeans, stayed away. Countries that were more exposed, better armed, like Ethiopia which beat Italy, had a better chance. Even in Kenya where tribal uprisings played a big role, it was until they started, using the guns that they grabbed off fallen enemies that their terrorism of whites really started to bear fruits. As for quality, apart from weapons, I doubt that the Belgians would have had a chance if like the congolese tribesmen, what they had to use needed contact.

muafrika:
@emiye
You must be quite priviledged. The poor landless should buy land and stop making it an excuse? Climb out of poverty by planning? Let me guess, invest in business? There are two parallel worlds here. Success is a combination of many things - health, education or mentorship, connections and, well, government. This things are not equally available to all men. The difference is the word you used: Quality. Not all people can opt for quality. All some have is many times not enough for the day. That means anybody getting sick or getting an admission to an expensive, better performing school is out of the question. You are also assuming that poor man can feed two better than seven. Those two will still be in the slums because the problem is rooted somewhere in the high places of priviledge: employers of this slum dweller who do not peg his wages on his needs. That guy still won't move to a mansion. Make no mistake, the least paid do the most hard work. The least advantaged have more children as they lose more.

Let me start with the boldened, it is not an assumption , it is common sense. He will feed two better than if he had seven, he can also give them greater access to several other needs than if they were seven. , Yes , they can still be in the slums, but gradually, with great focus on the two, there is a far greater chance they can get out of the slums, thus decaying the population of the slums , rather than enlarging it and thus to a good extent break a cycle of generational poverty.. A poor but stuupid man will likely have 7 kids he cant to afford to take care and manytimes begins to distribute them as if they are puppies to strangers and wicked family members. Only a stupidd man evidently worn out from the heavy load on his back chooses to increase/ pile up the load.

Quality can also be relative i must admit, i have seen parents who can only afford to send their kids to typically ill equipped, but free public schools, they with their meagre resources strive to make up for government deficiencies in public school administration, like building chairs /tables for their wards in classrooms with no chairs , monitor the kids schoolwork and guide them with homework after school e,t,c , Little wonder , you see such children stand out among their peers.

There was no were i said" the poor landless should buy a land, and stop making it an excuse", my main grouse is when households by their actions enthrenched generational poverty, there is an adage that says "three generations must not suffer poverty". If a man fails to break a cycle of poverty, then he had better carefully invest in his/her offsprings, there are many cases of struggling parents who struggled on their offsprings, and those wards end up buying homes for their parents.

muafrika:
@emiye
The Belgians had guns, and the support of the rest of Europe. The Congolese paid for their resistance with death. The colonizing Europe, Russia and the US had a pact in which the rivers of the Congo would be accessed freely by all as they smuggled all sorts of precious things out of the land. Very few African countries, only tribes then, had guns. Note that before the invention of the gun, Europeans, stayed away. Countries that were more exposed, better armed, like Ethiopia which beat Italy, had a better chance. Even in Kenya where tribal uprisings played a big role, it was until they started, using the guns that they grabbed off fallen enemies that their terrorism of whites really started to bear fruits. As for quality, apart from weapons, I doubt that the Belgians would have had a chance if like the congolese tribesmen, what they had to use needed contact.

From the days of the early men, even till the "civilised now" life has been "survival of the fittest"

Why the black man was still entangled with spears, bows and arrows, the white man made made a gun. , that is a good testimony of quality over quantity,

We cant whine over the actions of white, most likely if it was the black man that had the same ammunition, he would have commited the same attrocities or even worse. The black man will continue to whine, cry and stay dependent, and points accusing fingers to the outside world as the cause of his quagmire except if he look inwards to solve his problem

emiye:


...Why the black man was still entangled with spears, bows and arrows, the white man made made a gun...is a good testimony of quality over quantity,

If...black man...had the same...he would have commited the same attrocities...
(To themselves, or to the whites?)

The black man...points accusing...the outside world as the cause...except if he look inwards to solve his problem

Please explain how quantity relates to the black mans choice weaponry. My understanding is one warrior, one spear. Second, the economics of a seemingly simple isolated country has alot of connections with the wider developed world. The most food dependent country in Africa is making American multinationals like Monsanto quite rich. Figure that out. That is the present, not past. If the Country X was not overflowing with minerals, would it be constantly at war?

Indeed we are looking inward, and finding we're losing more to our colonialists than we're gaining. We need a new African Order.

@emile

That poor father of seven is anything but stupid. He will have to share his kids with malaria, stray police bullets, ebola, gangs, violent robbers and other undiagnosed diseases that he never knew they had because they had no access to health care. He may just end up a father of two, as you prefer.

I disagree with the notion that quality is relative. His quality will still have to contend with yours at the job market, if not the exams. They may stand out among peers but still be dwarfed by the more resourced. These are the real competition, not his peers.

I agree that cycle must be broken - by reexamining how our economic, political and social systems impact the vulnerable. It makes little sense when entire villages are displaced, cut off from livelihood just so mining companies can replace them, and employ them casually for two dollars a day, just so the country can increase its perceived "wealth". The current economic basis is based on a European feudal system of control and forced dependance.