Submitted by Gari_305 t3_z7swo5 in Futurology
ajabardar1 t1_iy874u9 wrote
Reply to comment by ScaleneWangPole in How will the space economy alter society? by Gari_305
cottagers in the late 1700 where specifically? and what percentage of population where these 1700s cottagers? 0.001%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%?
society is way better in every metric possible. that is just a fact. ted, please, your manifesto was wrong. idealism is not a metric.
Shillbot_9001 t1_iy8ffzc wrote
>society is way better in every metric possible.
People back then had enough kids to prevent population decline, that's one catastrophic metric right there.
BKGPrints t1_iy94u04 wrote
No it's not. There are indications that prosperity leads to lower birth rates. A lower birth rate is not necessarily a bad thing.
It took thousands of years for the population to increase to two billion by 1900. It took less than a century to get to six billion and then another twenty years to get to eight billion.
During that time, most of the population growth was in impoverished countries in Asia, Africa and Indonesia.
As the economies of many of those countries have improved, so has the birth rate decline. But at the same time, recognize that a significant part of the population decline is because many of the population is just getting older and dying out.
And to support that poverty increases birth rates. The population for Nigeria, which more than 90% of the population is considered to live in poverty, is expected to double from it's current population of 210 million to more than 400 million by 2050.
ajabardar1 t1_iy8kreb wrote
less kids die today. i guess if you just measure quantity yeah, you are correct. if you want to measure quality, infant death is a great metric.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments