Contrary to what many people assume, when child mortality is low then population growth tends to be low, not high. http://OurWorldInData.org pic.twitter.com/p6Mk5pj7y9
-
-
And put total number of births on the x axis, though this is not as critical to prove your point.
-
Thanks to both of you! I'll look at that data this week and make the chart you suggest.
-
Here is the data on Gapminder http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=1890;&marker_axis/_x_which=children/_per/_woman/_temporary/_update&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=dead/_kids/_per/_woman&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null;;;&chart-type=bubbles … The issue is that the cut-off age for babies is 35 years(!)
-
Hi Paul and Gerard, here is my current version of this chart. With fertility from 4 to 7.5 most countries had 2 to 3 children surviving.pic.twitter.com/hDJ4aOGQgs
-
Impressive ! Seems like families 'aimed' at slightly more than 2 children surviving: I am still surprised by strength of relation in 1800 !
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But a good suggestion nevertheless !
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not quite: aiming at two may still mean you can 'overinsure' when mortality is high=having more kids. Net result will then be pop growth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.