Food production dictates population growth (??)

Leifer

Senior Member.
Let me try to upload a video file.
Tell me (us) what you think.
I think it has some validity, that has consequence.

The format is a conversation between two people....Daniel and Elaine.

Credit:
author: Daniel Quinn, "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways" Steerforth (January 2, 2007)
copyright by Daniel Quinn (Author), Charles Bice (Narrator)
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
Why are under-developed nations (coined by developed nations).....increasing in population growth, while developed nations have decreasing growth rates ?
.....given that developed nations have more food availability ? Strange ?
Reasons.....
A child in a developed nation is more expensive to raise. They contribute little to the overall family net income. In fact, these children contribute little if any to the family net income. They take from it....in forms of upper education and independence.
In under-developed nation families, the added children >>contribute to the family's income (by becoming workers for the family) in ways that allow and often promote more child bearing. (less education, more manual labor)

These are the ideas in this book.
I'm open to discussion.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Non industrial farming needs more physical labor, children are useful for things like pulling weeds and plucking insects off the crop.

As women become more educated they want a better life for their children and they see that education is important for that.

Something else that I think is often discounted is the availability of a leisure activity other than sex.

Even Aristotle noted that the aristocrats of ancient Greece were not having as many children as their slaves were.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
birth control unavailability, child mortality rates too. children are starving to death in undeveloped countries so I don't think food supply is a primary reason for having more children. and child mortality rates are getting better but the culture hasn't caught up with that yet. still I think its mainly birth control. If I didn't have a retirement fund I guess I'd figure on 4 children to make sure enough would survive to take care of me in my old age.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems this was a major point of discussion from the late 1960s forward and before but I was not around to hear or read about it . . . the simple facts appear to be birth rate is inversely proportional to standard of living . . . controlling for religious practices and custom. Why? When people see progress in their living conditions they intuitively want it to continue and realize more children is not necessarily the way to accomplish or sustain the improvements . . . they also want more for their children and more for themselves because it is now possible . . .
 

Related Articles

Top