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).
Well given that the Global South (Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia except for East Asia - ie China and Taiwan, Japan and Koreas) forms just over 60% of the global population it would seem reasonable to suggest that the authors might well have been thinking of the world and the Global South interchangeably. Especially as the Global South is expected to form ab even greater proportion of the world's population as totality fertility rates remain high in parts of the Global South and continue to stagnate at below sub-replacement levels or even decline further in parts of the Global North (for example most dramatically in places life South Korea). Also they might even be thinking globally insofar as the underlying assumptions might be that if disease incidence were to rise again in the Global North and result in more children generally dying then there might be a reversion to higher birth rates as a response.
I'm also not surprised the medical book/paper/article authors would use generalisations (and possibly poorly articulated ones at that) when discussing concepts in geography/demography.
I can definitely appreciate that even if they were referring only to the Global South that it triggers our suspicions as the medical community has been trying their hardest to get us to lose all trust in them these past 2 years.
In discussing the Global South though it comes to mind that places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are including in the Global South despite in some cases having average per capita wealth/GDP levels that are very high and comparable to the Global North thanks to their incredible levels of oil wealth. However in places like these we can see factors that could work against the concept that reducing disease incidence can inevitably lead to the desired drop in birth/fertility rates to replacement levels (just over 2 children per couple).
Firstly even though Total fertility rates in those 3 countries have declined to such levels (or below) since the 1960s in line with the Global North's experience, in these places it is still possible for legal polygamy. If you have 4 wives and only have 1.5 children per wife you will still end up with 6 children. However this is balanced by the fact that more men will end up with zero marriage partners and zero children in such a society unless women form a disproportionately large percentage of the population. Note though that some of the wealthiest of those societies such as a the royals tend to still have large families. In other countries in the Global South we might find that having large families is seen as traditional independent of any motivation to have enough children to counteract the death toll of disease. If you live in a society where there is pressure to get married (or even arranged marriage) and pressure from the older generations of family members for you to have children, chances are you will be more likely to start having them unlike in those societies where such pressures are much much weaker.
Secondly in some parts of the Global South such as the Middle East (including North Africa) parts of South Asia and other parts of Asia, consanguineous marriage (those involving cousins to some degree) are a bit more common than in the Global North. Consanguineous couples though tend to have more children than non-consanguineous ones (see for instance the articles discussing a study based on Iceland's population data some years ago:
This in turn is somewhat balanced by the fact that there is an increased risk of children inheriting a recessive disorder (something like 3-4% vs 1-2% for children from non-related couples) and that the children might die younger on average and in turn go on to have fewer children themselves.
But since in the West the social taboo against such marriages developed from the eugenics movement (yes the very same movement that underpinned some of the worst expressions of racism up until the 1940s) then unless something similar happens in places like the Greater Middle East this aspect is unlikely to change.
So the upshot might be that increased access to vaccines and other medicines the reduced child mortality might not bring the totality fertility rates down out of the 2.5 to 5 range for places like Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria or Congo due to a combination of factors (some applying differently in different countries)
Even simple Vitamin D supplementation was obvious at the start of 2020. I am yet to see any developed country encourage any level of self-directed holistic well being / health to combat COVID.
In fact the idiotic government of Northern Territory are now locking unvaccinated down: they are not allowed to leave home to go to work or even exercise. It is a putrid dismissal of all sense and unjustifiable at any level of scrutiny.
“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”].
There's another section in 8th edition that disappears in the 9th:
"In previous chapters we have mainly discussed adaptive immune responses that are initiated in lymph nodes and spleen-the peripheral lymphoid tissues that respond to antigens that have entered the body via the skin, are present in the internal organs, or have spread into the blood. *** These are the immune responses most studied by immunologists, as they are the responses evoked when antigens are administered by injection. *** There is, however, an additional compartment of the adaptive immune system, of even greater size, located near the surfaces where most pathogens actually invade. This is the mucosal immune system-the subject of this chapter."
I nearly posted it as one more wtf example here, interpreting it as "this is where we can make $$$ so we study it, who cares about all the other shit where pathogens actually invade", but thought it too cynical. Irony of "actually invade" escaping apparently most efforts of vaccine development wrt respiratory viruses.
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).
Do you think they were speaking of Africa et al, not the world in general? If so my bad take on it. It seemed very generalised though.
And even if it is Africa, I guess there is so much tied up in that concept (population control) that it triggers me regardless huh?
Appreciate the balanced response - this is what we need more of, everywhere.
Well given that the Global South (Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia except for East Asia - ie China and Taiwan, Japan and Koreas) forms just over 60% of the global population it would seem reasonable to suggest that the authors might well have been thinking of the world and the Global South interchangeably. Especially as the Global South is expected to form ab even greater proportion of the world's population as totality fertility rates remain high in parts of the Global South and continue to stagnate at below sub-replacement levels or even decline further in parts of the Global North (for example most dramatically in places life South Korea). Also they might even be thinking globally insofar as the underlying assumptions might be that if disease incidence were to rise again in the Global North and result in more children generally dying then there might be a reversion to higher birth rates as a response.
I'm also not surprised the medical book/paper/article authors would use generalisations (and possibly poorly articulated ones at that) when discussing concepts in geography/demography.
I can definitely appreciate that even if they were referring only to the Global South that it triggers our suspicions as the medical community has been trying their hardest to get us to lose all trust in them these past 2 years.
In discussing the Global South though it comes to mind that places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are including in the Global South despite in some cases having average per capita wealth/GDP levels that are very high and comparable to the Global North thanks to their incredible levels of oil wealth. However in places like these we can see factors that could work against the concept that reducing disease incidence can inevitably lead to the desired drop in birth/fertility rates to replacement levels (just over 2 children per couple).
Firstly even though Total fertility rates in those 3 countries have declined to such levels (or below) since the 1960s in line with the Global North's experience, in these places it is still possible for legal polygamy. If you have 4 wives and only have 1.5 children per wife you will still end up with 6 children. However this is balanced by the fact that more men will end up with zero marriage partners and zero children in such a society unless women form a disproportionately large percentage of the population. Note though that some of the wealthiest of those societies such as a the royals tend to still have large families. In other countries in the Global South we might find that having large families is seen as traditional independent of any motivation to have enough children to counteract the death toll of disease. If you live in a society where there is pressure to get married (or even arranged marriage) and pressure from the older generations of family members for you to have children, chances are you will be more likely to start having them unlike in those societies where such pressures are much much weaker.
Secondly in some parts of the Global South such as the Middle East (including North Africa) parts of South Asia and other parts of Asia, consanguineous marriage (those involving cousins to some degree) are a bit more common than in the Global North. Consanguineous couples though tend to have more children than non-consanguineous ones (see for instance the articles discussing a study based on Iceland's population data some years ago:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.562 ) and this may be thanks in part to immunological/genetic compatibility.
This in turn is somewhat balanced by the fact that there is an increased risk of children inheriting a recessive disorder (something like 3-4% vs 1-2% for children from non-related couples) and that the children might die younger on average and in turn go on to have fewer children themselves.
But since in the West the social taboo against such marriages developed from the eugenics movement (yes the very same movement that underpinned some of the worst expressions of racism up until the 1940s) then unless something similar happens in places like the Greater Middle East this aspect is unlikely to change.
So the upshot might be that increased access to vaccines and other medicines the reduced child mortality might not bring the totality fertility rates down out of the 2.5 to 5 range for places like Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria or Congo due to a combination of factors (some applying differently in different countries)
And thank you!
I appreciate your very balanced articles and discussion. Definitely agreed that this is something that is needed more!
Love this! I have been preaching #1 but sadly nobody listens. The more I listen to Dr. David Martin, the more I believe #3.
Even simple Vitamin D supplementation was obvious at the start of 2020. I am yet to see any developed country encourage any level of self-directed holistic well being / health to combat COVID.
In fact the idiotic government of Northern Territory are now locking unvaccinated down: they are not allowed to leave home to go to work or even exercise. It is a putrid dismissal of all sense and unjustifiable at any level of scrutiny.
We are living in a clown 🤡 world! As Malone says, Mass Formation Psychosis
“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”].
So much this.
There's another section in 8th edition that disappears in the 9th:
"In previous chapters we have mainly discussed adaptive immune responses that are initiated in lymph nodes and spleen-the peripheral lymphoid tissues that respond to antigens that have entered the body via the skin, are present in the internal organs, or have spread into the blood. *** These are the immune responses most studied by immunologists, as they are the responses evoked when antigens are administered by injection. *** There is, however, an additional compartment of the adaptive immune system, of even greater size, located near the surfaces where most pathogens actually invade. This is the mucosal immune system-the subject of this chapter."
I nearly posted it as one more wtf example here, interpreting it as "this is where we can make $$$ so we study it, who cares about all the other shit where pathogens actually invade", but thought it too cynical. Irony of "actually invade" escaping apparently most efforts of vaccine development wrt respiratory viruses.