Thanks for the link.

Let me first mention for anyone else reading that the graphic animation Evan is referring to is the 4th one down on the page linked to.

It shows fairly dramatically that in countries which have experienced declining fertility rates, fertility and child survival show an inverse correlation. And it’s mentioned that child mortality dropped first, and then fertility rates followed, very much in line with Jeffrey Sachs’s point that increasing child survival will reduce fertility rates.

The graphic shows a good deal of progress in reducing childhood mortality and fertility rates. (though its unfortunate the huge size of the bubbles for India and China make Africa and the Middle East — major population growth hot spots at present — look insignificant) There’s still a good ways to go though. With fertility rates around 3.0, India, for instance, is still growing fast, as is China due to “demographic momentum.” And Africa is a serious problem. Then there’s the U.S. which some say has the worst population growth problem of all, due to our extremely high per capita consumption rates.

The title, “Has the World Become a Better Place?,” bothers me a little. It would suggest that childhood mortality is the sole measure of how good a place the world is. We need to keep in mind that as some things, like childhood mortality have improved overall, there are areas (the environment chief among them) which have degraded.

At any rate, thanks for the link. It helps you see trends which would be difficult to appreciate otherwise. I also watched the 9-part presentation featured above the others. It shows quite a mixed bag of data on income distribution and percentages of people living below the poverty line globally and between and within countries. Hard to interpret, but interesting.

Fertility rate and child mortality of all countries 1962-2003 presented in an educational moving graph mode showing birth rates/income.

http://gapminder.org/index.html

1) Brad, you’re right about consumption rates. That is why some writers, like Al Bartlett as a matter of fact , say that the U.S. has the worst population growth problem of all.

2) The relevant equation is essentially: population size x resource consumption rate. So it’s always both, but with different results in different locales.

3) Of much concern though is that a lot of “developing” countries are beginning to raise their standards of living and so their consumption rates. Others are expected to do this as time goes on. So, with their fast growing populations this represents a very serious looming problem. I think it points to the need for the clean technologies that will help bring down consumption rates in developed countries and prevent them from skyrocketing in developing countries. At the same time, of course, we need to bring down fertility rates so as to address *that* side of the equation.

4) An area I haven’t had a chance to research much yet is the question of whether certain environmental problems are much more the result of pure population growth than of consumption rates. I tend to think some are. Overfishing, deforestation, and species extinction (which is currently way higher than its usual rate) come to mind, but as I said I need to research it more.

Thanks for the thought provoking comments. They get right to the heart of much of this.

Adding just one child in North America has as much impact as adding 60 children in a place like Ethiopia. A Western couple that believes they are helping the environment by stopping at “just two” children are having the equivalent impact of an Ethiopian family that stops at 120.

There are many reasons to tackle population growth, with even global warming less than some of the others in certain locales, like overcrowding and instability.

The silence on the issue is probably because the issue is largely up to non-Westerners. It means drastically lowering the birthrate in places like Kenya and Yemen. Further, it may mean reducing immigration to the West, as some immigrants have more children than they would’ve had they remained in their native country. From an American lens, the National Academies of Sciences found that two thirds of projected population growth owes to immigration ( http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=95 ).

The case of Iran permits some optimism – changes in state policy have drastically reduced fertility, to just above two children per ( http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfertility/2RevisedABBASIpaper.PDF p.10-12).