5 ms·

>A rise in standards of living is directly correlated with lower birth rates. No it isn't. That is based on a single observation, increasing standards of livi

>A rise in standards of living is directly correlated with lower birth rates. No it isn't. That is based on a single observation, increasing standards of living in the 20th century in western nations. Living standards in western nations were increasing before that and birth rates were not declining. Living standards stopped increasing decades ago, and birth rates have not gone back up. So the evidence that this is even true in western nations is quite poor, but there is no evidence at all that it holds true in other cultures. >We can't just exploit the world and then blame those who live in systems that offer no alternative. It isn't about blame, it is about solving the problem. You can not give 5 billion Africans a western standard of living, that is not a physical possibility. So we need to prevent the 5 billion Africans from happening while there's still only 1 billion Africans. We're not trying to prevent 5 billion Europeans from happening because the European population is falling, not rising.

usaar333 8y ago
It's true in East Asia as well. In fact, where is it not true? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- deialtrous 8y ago
  >It's true in East Asia as well. No it isn't. >In fact, where is it not true? Everywhere? Nothing in your link contradicts what I said already. You can only make the correlation if you cherry pick start and end dates, and cherry pick western nations or nations that had coincidental birth rate declines like China. If the correlation is real and not spurious, then why doesn't it hold now? Why didn't it hold before the 1930s? Why has it never existed in Africa?
  - usaar333 8y ago
    How is it not true in East Asia? The rich countries (Japan, South Korea) have super low fertility rates; the poor ones have higher (North Korea). Can you point out some clear violators? The inverse relationship is obvious in South Korea: https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR Before the 1930s, every country was "developing" my modern definitions. (US real GDP/capita was ~$9k in 1929 just before the recession). Also, other factors are necessary for this to happen (e.g. women empowerment)
    - deialtrous2 8y ago
      You can't just take two data points, see that they moved in the right direction and assume causation. That doesn't even get you to correlation. You need multiple data points, and the changes have to be consistent between those points. They are not. Right now 50% of US workers earn less than $30k per year. If birth rates were correlated to income then they should be having more children, but they are not. Graph GDP per capita and graph birth rates. They both move in opposite directions, but they do not follow each other like they should if one caused the other. On the other hand, sperm counts have fallen 50% since the 50s. 1 in 7 couples has trouble conceiving. These are not social changes, they are physiological changes, almost certainly caused by the massive amount of xenoestrogens we've put into our environments. We didn't lower our birth rates as a response to wealth, we were poisoned. This makes things far more ethically questionable, as now the "we'll fix developing nation's birth rates the way we did in developed nations" idea means intentionally poisoning a few billion people to reduce their fertility.

usaar333 8y ago

It's true in East Asia as well. In fact, where is it not true? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

deialtrous 8y ago
>It's true in East Asia as well. No it isn't. >In fact, where is it not true? Everywhere? Nothing in your link contradicts what I said already. You can only make the correlation if you cherry pick start and end dates, and cherry pick western nations or nations that had coincidental birth rate declines like China. If the correlation is real and not spurious, then why doesn't it hold now? Why didn't it hold before the 1930s? Why has it never existed in Africa?
- usaar333 8y ago
  How is it not true in East Asia? The rich countries (Japan, South Korea) have super low fertility rates; the poor ones have higher (North Korea). Can you point out some clear violators? The inverse relationship is obvious in South Korea: https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-per-capita https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINKOR Before the 1930s, every country was "developing" my modern definitions. (US real GDP/capita was ~$9k in 1929 just before the recession). Also, other factors are necessary for this to happen (e.g. women empowerment)
  - deialtrous2 8y ago
    You can't just take two data points, see that they moved in the right direction and assume causation. That doesn't even get you to correlation. You need multiple data points, and the changes have to be consistent between those points. They are not. Right now 50% of US workers earn less than $30k per year. If birth rates were correlated to income then they should be having more children, but they are not. Graph GDP per capita and graph birth rates. They both move in opposite directions, but they do not follow each other like they should if one caused the other. On the other hand, sperm counts have fallen 50% since the 50s. 1 in 7 couples has trouble conceiving. These are not social changes, they are physiological changes, almost certainly caused by the massive amount of xenoestrogens we've put into our environments. We didn't lower our birth rates as a response to wealth, we were poisoned. This makes things far more ethically questionable, as now the "we'll fix developing nation's birth rates the way we did in developed nations" idea means intentionally poisoning a few billion people to reduce their fertility.