Forum: Arts / Debates

Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Ballet_Baibemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Fri Mar 23, 2012 04:14 PM

I know this is a terrible thing to say but I would like hear opinions and this one is not necessarily my own.

I'm watching sport relief and suddenly wondered this:

If they were to stop children in less economically developed country dying of preventable illnesses like dihorrea would there be a population explosion which could mean there were not enough resources to sustain life on Earth?

So more people would die from starvation and rather than solving a problem we would have created a new one.

Now I did not study geography and don't know about these things except in the animal world where I could talk for hours about fish ponds, If you do know or just have an opinion please join the debate.

I must stress that I do not think charities that help in the parts of the world affected by this are bad or doing the wrong thing, please do not just reply to say that I am evil. I would like to hear some real opinions on this.

16 Replies to Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control

re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By reel_faerie85member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:53 AM
Ah a good old nature verses nurture debate. Will reply when I have access to a comp would take forever on my phone.

One element I would like to see discussed is just because its the way westernised countries live and work and survive does it mean that is the right thing for every country. Plus take the UK we have eradicated diseases such as small pox and polio but now kids are plagued by allergies and mental health issues, hospitals are full of superbugs that kill.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By toroandbruinmember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 01:14 PM
Edited by toroandbruin (202876) on 2012-03-24 13:15:37
There is already a population explosion. The increasing over-abundance of human beings is already affecting the earth's ecology. Of course it is modern medicine, plus the knowledge of common-sense health practices which even people in less-developed countries can adopt, which have led to the problem. The only solution is for people to have fewer children. China has a one-child policy which, although not universally enforced, has been successful in at least slowing their population growth.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Coccinellamember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 01:30 PM
I feel like it's a slippery slope. You could say the same about any untimely mortality in any part of the world. Any time we intervene with medicine we are usually extending the life span of someone who would probably not have been able to naturally continue to survive themselves.

So, if we are going to view infant's dying in LDC's as population control than I think we need to evaluate our own practices of keeping 90 year olds on life support and trying to keep 2 pound babies alive.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Nyssasisticmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 06:07 PM
^yeah, but we have to keep in mind that people in 1st world countries that have the luxury of keeping 90 year olds and 2 pound babies alive tend to contracept more, so their population isn't exploding because families are generally smaller. In poorer countries, the parents tend to not use any sort of contraception, so instead of having 2 planned children they end up having 10 children with only 2 living to adulthood.

I don't have a lot to debate here, but that popped up while I was reading the thread.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control (karma: 2)
By ChristinePremium member
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 09:06 PM
The horrific lack of adequate medical care as well as food, and fresh water should be addressed without regard to the population. Proper medical care should include full reproductive care, including birth control,and abortion.

Human suffering can NEVER be viewed at natural population control.

Keep On Dancing*
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Cienmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 09:37 PM
Christine wrote:

Human suffering can NEVER be viewed at natural population control.

This, this, and a bajillion times this. I'm having a very hard time even THINKING about how to begin addressing this level of ignorance without getting overwhelmingly mad, so Christine, thank you for saying it more eloquently than I could.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By slice
On Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:42 PM
Edited by slice (109495) on 2012-03-24 22:45:44
CienPorCientoPAZ wrote:

Christine wrote:

Human suffering can NEVER be viewed at natural population control.

This, this, and a bajillion times this. I'm having a very hard time even THINKING about how to begin addressing this level of ignorance without getting overwhelmingly mad, so Christine, thank you for saying it more eloquently than I could.


Agreed, Christine phrased it very well.

I won't say the R-word, but suggesting that the death of "children in less economically developed count[ries]" is a form of population control, and that the improvement of these conditions would only "create a new [problem]" smacks of ethnocentrism.

And given the amount of waste created by many Western/Northern countries... we are just as much, if not more, of a stress on our lovely Mother Earth :)
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:58 AM
Nature always wins. What do you think HIV/AIDS is? For that matter, MRSA and similar drug-resistant strains? As we cure old diseases, new ones will turn up that we don't have the cures for. It will balance out. The planet always wins.

Though I will say, I am not at all comfortable with the line of thinking which claims that we should find a cure for EVERY disease. We cannot and should not: people need to die sometime. That is a very scary slippery slope. It would be far healthier to spend that time and effort wrapping our heads around the concept of mortality.

As for as how this pans out in real life... the more industrialized a nation becomes, the more its birth rate declines. This could be due to widespread access to birth control, females adapting roles outside of the home (thus not wanting to be mothers), or to some other factor entirely. We aren't sure.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By CheesePlusCakemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sat Mar 31, 2012 09:56 AM
You can't just say to let babies die and that will solve everything... You have to think about why people in less developed countries have more children in the first place. High infant mortality (people have more babies because they are likely to die while young), low access to birth control (or taboos for using it), need for more children for economic reasons (working in agriculture)... I believe those are the things that need to be looked at rather than focusing on after a child has already been born.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By saaammiemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:32 AM
Thinking this way implies some people are worth more than others.

The only reason all of us in this thread are healthy and live well are because of 1) te luck we had in being born here instead of someplace else 2) the actions of others (settlers, politicians, etc)

The reverse is true about the babies you talk about, they die because of things they have no control over.

It's simply unfair. To say that their suffering is good for the planet is like to me like saying "we"'re worth more.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By ChristinePremium member
On Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:40 PM
In the world of apocalyptic science fiction, I might be able to address this subject without the seething emotion I feel reading some of these posts.

To even suggest that "nature" is an equal force in this discussion is an insult to our "Mother". War, greed, and failed governments are all human situations that could be solved without solving the mysteries of evolution or the intervention of science. We humans could easily behave our way out of most of the messes which now plague the planet.

We already have the means to end world hunger tomorrow, were it not for the 200 or so wars going on at the moment. (and please note...almost half of the combatants in these blood baths are CHILDREN!) Shame on ALL of us. There is nothing "natural" about the so called natural selection of famine, maternal and infant mortality, or for that matter the unnecessary spread of HIV/AIDS in underdeveloped nations compared to developed nations.

Some "food for thought"
www.scu.edu . . .

As we who enjoy the comforts of modern industrial societies complain that "someone should do something", it is time for all of us to look into our own hearts, educate ourselves about the realities of global politics, and do whatever we are able to make the world a better place.

(sorry about the rant....)

One of my son's worked with three young men who were known as, "The Lost Boys of the Sudan." Spend a day with people your own age who really know just how hard life can be and I promise, you will never view life through the same lens again.
www.unicef.org . . .

Peace!

Keep On Dancing*
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Sat Mar 31, 2012 04:45 PM
Image hotlink - 'http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-08-21/1250827861758.png'

Oh wow, I knew there was data for this, but turns out there's an entire theory.

The demographic transition

Image hotlink - 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Stage5.svg/300px-Stage5.svg.png'

Wiki says:

The transition involves four stages

1. In stage one, pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates are high and roughly in balance. All human populations are believed to have had this balance until the late 18th century, when this balance ended in Western Europe. In fact, growth rates were less than 0.05% at least since the Agricultural Revolution over 10,000 years ago. Birth and death rates both tend to be very high in this stage. Because both rates are approximately in balance, population growth is typically very slow in stage one.

2. In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop rapidly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life spans and reduce disease. The improvements specific to food supply typically include selective breeding and crop rotation and farming techniques. Other improvements generally include access to technology, basic healthcare, and education. For example, numerous improvements in public health reduce mortality, especially childhood mortality. Prior to the mid-20th century, these improvements in public health were primarily in the areas of food handling, water supply, sewage, and personal hygiene. Interestingly, one of the variables often cited is the increase in female literacy combined with public health education programs which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In Europe, the death rate decline started in the late 18th century in northwestern Europe and spread to the south and east over approximately the next 100 years. Without a corresponding fall in birth rates this produces an imbalance, and the countries in this stage experience a large increase in population.

3. In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off. The birth rate decline in developed countries started in the late 19th century in northern Europe. While improvements in contraception do play a role in birth rate decline, it should be noted that contraceptives were not generally available nor widely used in the 19th century and as a result likely did not play a significant role in the decline then. It is important to note that birth rate decline is caused also by a transition in values; not just because of the availability of contraceptives.

4. During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population, a threat to many industries that rely on population growth. As the large group born during stage two ages, it creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population. Death rates may remain consistently low or increase slightly due to increases in lifestyle diseases due to low exercise levels and high obesity and an aging population in developed countries. By the late 20th century, birth rates and death rates in developed countries leveled off at lower rates.

As with all models, this is an idealized picture of population change in these countries. The model is a generalization that applies to these countries as a group and may not accurately describe all individual cases. The extent to which it applies to less-developed societies today remains to be seen. Many countries such as China, Brazil and Thailand have passed through the Demographic Transition Model (DTM) very quickly due to fast social and economic change. Some countries, particularly African countries, appear to be stalled in the second stage due to stagnant development and the effect of AIDS.


Key points
1. It's a transition all nations go through.
2. The birth rate will drop. As far as I'm aware there is zero evidence to the contrary. It's just what happens in developed nations.
3. Human population is linked to resources and capability. If you are having more children than the land and society can support, they are going to die. That IS natural population regulation. (I would argue that AIDS is as well, because lack of access to medical care is part of that, but this isn't my field so I'm limited in how far I can comment on it.)
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By SoloJazzDancer
On Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:51 PM
What about countries where they kill all the females before or soon after they are born because the families would have to shell out big bucks for a wedding and a dourary and now there are way more men then woman? If they can't reproduce, because there are no females to have children w/, won't there race die out?
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By OliveCo
On Mon Jul 19, 2021 03:16 AM
This is due to the quality of water resources
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By lafnian1990
On Mon Jul 19, 2021 04:23 AM
I agree with you. A young body is very susceptible to various substances. Water is the main ingredient in baby food and water purity is key to a child's health. I recommend reading a few essays on this topic. We live in a time of polluted water resources and high infant mortality is the result of water pollution. We are obliged to engage in environmental education because it is the foundation of our life.
re: Infant mortality in LDCs is natural population control
By lafnian1990
On Thu Jul 22, 2021 03:52 AM
Water is composed of many organic and inorganic elements. Good water has a balance of these components, but we forget that ecological imbalance brings its own correctives. I recently read some interesting facts envrexperts.com . . . about underground rivers. Earth is a filter that can trap a large amount of hazardous substances, but a natural filter has limitations. Our children suffer from phosphates and nitrates which cannot be filtered.

ReplySendWatch

Powered by XP Experience Server.
Copyright ©1999-2021 XP.COM, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS