As Hans Rosling pointed out in Factfulness, the birth and literacy rates in Sweden in the 19th century were on par with the poorest of African countries today, resulting in fully 20% of the population becoming refugees in North America to escape famine. And today, 150 years later, it's... Sweden. The ideal of modern civilization. He said he was born in "Egypt", by which he meant the economy of Sweden in the late 1940s was similar to Egypt today.

With that in mind, is there any reason that the poor countries of Africa today can't be the Sweden of tomorrow? It's more irrational to say they'll stay poor and overpopulated than it is to say they'll become wealthy and modern with zero population growth.

Sweden has 10 million people, Egypt has 100 million.

Egypt doesn't have the resources or space to grow to a Swedish standard of living.

Egypt's per capita income grew over 20x from 1965 to 2015. And consider the population increase that happened over the same period. The overall GDP (constant US dollars) grew from $5B to around $335B.

Don't give me that "They can't do it" nonsense.

It's a water-scarce country that is the seventh largest food importer; much of the population lives in the Nile delta.

Swedes have a huge country and increased from a very small population to a relatively small population.

The resource constraints are different; you can't have infinite growth in every country.

Singapore?

Egypt is the cradle of civilization. The Nile hasn't gone anywhere. As soon as they get their heads out their asses and let farmers own farms rather than military cronies, they'll be able to feed themselves again.

cradle of civilization doesn't have much to do with resource constraints or the realities of Egypt's ability to reach a Swedish level of consumption.

No, see, "cradle of civilization" is exactly about resource constraints. They have water and sunlight and good soil, and those are the resources needed for agriculture. People living in Egypt and running short on grain is a temporary condition that condemns their government not a permanent one that condemns their land.

That's okay, because the population density of Africa is very low (it's comparable to that of the Americas, much less than Europe/Asia)[1], it's currently only 15% of the world's population[2], and Africa is an enormous continent[3] the fact of which the Mercator projection distorts[4].

[1][2] https://www.geolounge.com/continents-population-density/

[3] https://io9.gizmodo.com/africas-true-size-will-blow-you-away...

[4] http://www.petersmap.com/

It's an enormous continent, but a lot of it is covered by deserts and other inhospitable environments

You're right there, however I'm afraid the issue won't be density but a much different issue: Unemployment. [1] Reason this could be a worldwide issue is the opportunity cost. Can we afford not to have a billion or more minds on board to solve some of the worlds most pressing problems? China is trying its best to industrialize and capitalize on the growth. But many are claiming their tactics are almost neocolonialist. [2]

[1] https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/news/2018/african-governance-p... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/magazine/is-china-the-wor...