4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like the title is misleading. >If the number of children is not growing, why is the population still increasing But, it

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like the title is misleading. >If the number of children is not growing, why is the population still increasing But, it is, isn't it? The best TLDR I can grok (and forgive me, it's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in) is that there are fewer births per woman but more women in the reproductive age, so more births overall? Hopefully someone can help correct my misunderstanding.

delecti 7y ago
From the article, the number of children hasn't increased. The decrease in births per women cancels out the increase in women of reproductive age, resulting in the same rough number of births per year. It really comes down to this: > But it of course also matters that all of us today live much longer than our ancestors just a few generations ago. Life expectancy is now twice as long in all world regions.
- cblades 7y ago
  twice as long?! That is nuts, what's the math on that. Am I wrong in understanding that to mean, e.g., in lots of places the life expectancy was 40 and now it's 80?
  - cadlin 7y ago
    Life expectancy is largely driven by infant mortality. Each marginal child that lives to 60 is equal to 12 adults living 5 years longer.
YayamiOmate 7y ago
Because new people are still being crated and they live longer, it means that saturation level is higher. To me the title sounds like we were in "children of men" or "handmaid's tale" but the supply of people is the same. Amount kids is the same because they "die" when they become adults. So simple math tells us there's more adults. It's easy to imagine as a stream of ants going out of a wall crack. they walk straight and they die. If you take 1st few inches or cm, those are children, they enter and leave this area at a constant pace so the count is the same. Now you count ants on the rest of the path. How there can you make more ants there? They gotta die later. You can make them die statistically, cut path into sections and see how total or each section count change.

delecti 7y ago

From the article, the number of children hasn't increased. The decrease in births per women cancels out the increase in women of reproductive age, resulting in the same rough number of births per year. It really comes down to this: > But it of course also matters that all of us today live much longer than our ancestors just a few generations ago. Life expectancy is now twice as long in all world regions.

cblades 7y ago
twice as long?! That is nuts, what's the math on that. Am I wrong in understanding that to mean, e.g., in lots of places the life expectancy was 40 and now it's 80?
- cadlin 7y ago
  Life expectancy is largely driven by infant mortality. Each marginal child that lives to 60 is equal to 12 adults living 5 years longer.

YayamiOmate 7y ago

Because new people are still being crated and they live longer, it means that saturation level is higher. To me the title sounds like we were in "children of men" or "handmaid's tale" but the supply of people is the same. Amount kids is the same because they "die" when they become adults. So simple math tells us there's more adults. It's easy to imagine as a stream of ants going out of a wall crack. they walk straight and they die. If you take 1st few inches or cm, those are children, they enter and leave this area at a constant pace so the count is the same. Now you count ants on the rest of the path. How there can you make more ants there? They gotta die later. You can make them die statistically, cut path into sections and see how total or each section count change.