4 ms·

Gates seems to imply in the first paragraph that vaccinating children will somehow lead to population control. He made the same connection in a TED talk. I don'

Gates seems to imply in the first paragraph that vaccinating children will somehow lead to population control. He made the same connection in a TED talk. I don't see the link. Does anybody know what he's referring to?

m0nastic 16y ago
I assumed he was referring to the idea of families in areas with higher rates of infant mortality and childhood disease having more kids to perpetuate their families. If kids are less likely to die, then in theory, parents don't need to have as large a family in order to ensure that some survive.
- adammichaelc 16y ago
  Interesting. I always thought that people stopped having large families mostly due to the economic reasons. ie In an agrarian society more kids = more wealth because they can work on the farm and so on, whereas in an industrialized society more kids = less wealth because they mostly eat up resources for 2 decades or more.
  - m0nastic 16y ago
    I don't have any data to back up my theory (so by all means take it as an uninformed opinion), but I think that was probably more true in the past. I'm pretty sure that nowadays, counter to what might seem logical, there is a direct correlation between poverty and family size (ie: the poorer the culture, the more children they tend to have). I know I've read articles about India where this seems to be true, at least.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    I don't think your analysis is correct: in general, most families in the agrarian developing world do not have a surplus of land, so larger families are not helpful....
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      Even a small amount of land is labour intensive when you're farming it by hand.
dereg 16y ago
There is a significant link between the health of a population and its economic growth. When societies are ailed by preventable diseases, the labor force productivity remains hindered. By working to improve the health of people within impoverished countries, they can better spend allocate (which includes time) to education, industrialization, etc. The goal is the increase the labor force productivity. Eventually, with growth, people find that it's not as much of a necessity to have as many children, so they produce less. http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/riesman.htm http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/riesman.htm The key here is to get to the top of the 'S'-shaped curve, and the only way to do that is to first improve public health.

m0nastic 16y ago

I assumed he was referring to the idea of families in areas with higher rates of infant mortality and childhood disease having more kids to perpetuate their families. If kids are less likely to die, then in theory, parents don't need to have as large a family in order to ensure that some survive.

adammichaelc 16y ago
Interesting. I always thought that people stopped having large families mostly due to the economic reasons. ie In an agrarian society more kids = more wealth because they can work on the farm and so on, whereas in an industrialized society more kids = less wealth because they mostly eat up resources for 2 decades or more.
- m0nastic 16y ago
  I don't have any data to back up my theory (so by all means take it as an uninformed opinion), but I think that was probably more true in the past. I'm pretty sure that nowadays, counter to what might seem logical, there is a direct correlation between poverty and family size (ie: the poorer the culture, the more children they tend to have). I know I've read articles about India where this seems to be true, at least.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I don't think your analysis is correct: in general, most families in the agrarian developing world do not have a surplus of land, so larger families are not helpful....
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    Even a small amount of land is labour intensive when you're farming it by hand.

dereg 16y ago

There is a significant link between the health of a population and its economic growth. When societies are ailed by preventable diseases, the labor force productivity remains hindered. By working to improve the health of people within impoverished countries, they can better spend allocate (which includes time) to education, industrialization, etc. The goal is the increase the labor force productivity. Eventually, with growth, people find that it's not as much of a necessity to have as many children, so they produce less. http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/riesman.htm http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/riesman.htm The key here is to get to the top of the 'S'-shaped curve, and the only way to do that is to first improve public health.