Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 19:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1487 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
> > Well, part of the reason that people in third-world nations have 10 kids is
> > because 80% of those kids will likely die before puberty. Obviously that's not
> > an inviolable statistic, and just as obviously it's not the only cause of skewed
> > population growth, but it's a big factor. As a remedy, we first world nations
> > should probably consider other forms of aid than abstinence-based education.
> >
> > Further, if first world nations faced a similar youth-based mortality rate, then
> > we'd see a revision of the 2.1 rule.
> 80% mortality? Not likely. In fact, the opposite is true;
Well, all right--80% is a gross exaggeration. Still, infant death rates are sharply higher in third world nations than in the "developed" countries. Lemmee take another looksee...
According to this site:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/infant_mortality_0.html
in 1999 more than 30 nations had infant mortality rates over 9% (most of them in
sub-Saharan Africa), compared with .063% in the US and .058% in the UK.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, itself a wealthy nation, had a rate of 38.8%.
That's pretty high, too.
Wait a minute--Papua New Guinea clocked a 76% child mortality rate in 2001, so
maybe I'm not too far off-track.
I hate it when you get in on a debate--it means that I always have to start
checking my figures and citations...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
