Jan 8, 2022·edited Jan 8, 2022Liked by Stoichastic
Good little article and well made points.
Spot on I think with points 1 and 2.
In regards to point 3 I know since this whole mess started we would now look askance at that term but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are referring to the fact that an old concept in population geography is that societies that have heavy disease burdens and low levels of industrialization typically tend to see many children being born to each couple since chances are at least some of the children will die before adulthood. So reducing disease incidence is seen as one way to remove the pressures for couples to have more than one or two children.
Of course this argument might itself be flawed. It might be looking at what happened in the US and Western Europe and assuming that:
1. It was indeed the reduced burden of diseases leading to the deaths of children that resulted in couples having more children (rather than this being coincidental for some other reason/factors instead of causal). If those factors aren't also replicated you could see other places reduce disease incidence while still having high birth rates/fertility rates. (For instance these days it simply is now very expensive to even have children in some countries (almost unaffordable in some circumstances), that growing expense might be a reason for declining fertility rates independent of the disease aspect)
2. Other countries will follow the same path regardless of any potential differences in these societies and their cultures and outlooks/values in ways that would lead to the persistence of high birth/fertility rates.
Generally the idea of reducing the deaths from disease is a very good idea. And the idea of giving couples the freedom to choose to have fewer children as they can be more certain that the ones they do have will make it is a good goal too I believe. As long as a population is having fertility rates at replacement levels it should promote continued economic growth and social stability (versus having an aging population that isn't going to be replaced as is happening in Europe, Eurasia/CIS (parts of it anyway) and East Asia which suggests a future of social instability as welfare schemes become much more expensive as each succeeding generation will have to give it up a larger percentage of their earnings and time to care for the preceding generation and even for themselves when they get old).
“At a cost of pennies per person, great hardship and suffering can be [displaced from “remedied by human biology” into “managed by chronic medical intervention”].
Good little article and well made points.
Spot on I think with points 1 and 2.
In regards to point 3 I know since this whole mess started we would now look askance at that term but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are referring to the fact that an old concept in population geography is that societies that have heavy disease burdens and low levels of industrialization typically tend to see many children being born to each couple since chances are at least some of the children will die before adulthood. So reducing disease incidence is seen as one way to remove the pressures for couples to have more than one or two children.
Of course this argument might itself be flawed. It might be looking at what happened in the US and Western Europe and assuming that:
1. It was indeed the reduced burden of diseases leading to the deaths of children that resulted in couples having more children (rather than this being coincidental for some other reason/factors instead of causal). If those factors aren't also replicated you could see other places reduce disease incidence while still having high birth rates/fertility rates. (For instance these days it simply is now very expensive to even have children in some countries (almost unaffordable in some circumstances), that growing expense might be a reason for declining fertility rates independent of the disease aspect)
2. Other countries will follow the same path regardless of any potential differences in these societies and their cultures and outlooks/values in ways that would lead to the persistence of high birth/fertility rates.
Generally the idea of reducing the deaths from disease is a very good idea. And the idea of giving couples the freedom to choose to have fewer children as they can be more certain that the ones they do have will make it is a good goal too I believe. As long as a population is having fertility rates at replacement levels it should promote continued economic growth and social stability (versus having an aging population that isn't going to be replaced as is happening in Europe, Eurasia/CIS (parts of it anyway) and East Asia which suggests a future of social instability as welfare schemes become much more expensive as each succeeding generation will have to give it up a larger percentage of their earnings and time to care for the preceding generation and even for themselves when they get old).
Love this! I have been preaching #1 but sadly nobody listens. The more I listen to Dr. David Martin, the more I believe #3.
“At a cost of pennies per person, great hardship and suffering can be [displaced from “remedied by human biology” into “managed by chronic medical intervention”].