Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 20:11:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1636 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Richard
> > > > Still baldly going...
> > >
> > > Now this is why I hang out here..
> > >
> > > Very nicely stated, Richard.
> >
> > Hmmm, I thought it was a bit long winded and sort of lost track at
> > the per capita part. In my politically incorrect world it seems a
> > large part of the problem is those darned capitas. The third world
> > produces so many of them it messes up the whole per thing. In first
> > world public school we were beaten senseless with the "no more than 2.1
> > per" mantra. But following that rule in the first world, and not in
> > the 3rd leads to an even greater imbalance between the per capitas.
> > I think that's the real reason for all the really nasty problems, but
> > I don't know how to fix it.
>
> 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.
>
> Dave!
There is a negative correlation between the average family size and the per
capita GDP (or any of a number of other economic maturity indicators), in that
as GDP goes up, people have less children. This is attributed to the shift away
from agrarian lifestyle, or to the need to spend more per kid, or any of a
number of other factors.
So to defuse the population bomb, help countries become wealthier. Foreign aid
won't do it, though. There's a positive correlation between workable property
rights and per capita GDP too.
Further, average family size seems to be negatively correlated to income levels
even within a country... richer households tend to lave less kids too.
Also there's an even more interesting correlation between income level and
longevity. ("the rich live longer") This is a known correlation but one that has
in the past been attributed to better access to medical care.
This weeks Forbes has info on a new study:
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2004/0607/113.html
which says that's not it. They studied places where health access is pretty
uniform across income levels and still see it.
You'll have to read the article (which may require free registration) to see a
good summation of their argument. However, their thesis is that as a society
moves past the easy fixes to mortality (fixing drinking water supplies and
eradicating infectious disesase) and as death proportionally shifts to more
chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer, that the correlation
is to IQ!
That's right. Smarter people live longer. They find positive correlation between
higher income levels and higher IQs. They also did some digging into causes of
death for chronic disease, and into things like deaths from taking medication
wrong and etc... and they find that modern medicine requires you to be smart. If
you are a SD or two below average, you won't be able to follow the directions on
the pill bottle (what does "empty stomach" mean???) or the directions from your
doctor, or won't be able to recognise that your blood sugar is out of whack or
whatever.
Also, they assert there's a (negative) correlation between income level and
smoking level as well as a (negative) correlation between intelligence level and
smoking level... smarter people smoke less. Richer people smoke less. And
smoking is a cause of a lot of chronic diseases.
Agree or not, I think readers of this group might find it fascinating reading.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
