14-04-2008, 08:04 PM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
|
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,849
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier
Aardvark: Let us not jump to conclusions too readily. I agree with birth control for a multitude of reasons, but we have to deal with the paradox of that policy. A massive birth control policy in the Third World, will result in the populations of those countries increasing for a generation or two. Why? Because such a policy will see a dramatic fall in the infant mortality rate (IMR), so, although the birth rate falls, the survival rate, of the reduced birth rate increases.
|
I understand your explanation but I don’t think you can draw a firm conclusion about population increase. Population is about actual numbers rather than rates.
As an example, Chad has a fertility rate of about 5.6 children born/woman and an infant mortality rate of about one in ten live births.
For 100 women there would be 560 births and 56 child mortality cases. So, 504 surviving children.
Reduce the fertility rate to 4 children born/woman. Reduce IMR dramatically – to say, zero. You then get 400 surviving children.
A 30% reduction in fertility rate.
A 100% reduction in infant mortality rate.
A 20% reduction in the actual number of surviving children.
Sure, there are different fertility rates, different infant mortality rates, different traditional cultures, different religious influences..... My point is that there is no one size fits all conclusion about the effects of birth control on population growth.
In my opinion. |
|
|