It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are equating living conditions with birth rates and claiming that this is the causal factor.
The average (average!) number of children borne by an Afghan woman is 6.2. What was the average number of children borne by Australian women 50 years ago? What was the rate of population growth in Australia 50 years ago?
I agree that there seems to be a relationship here, but then, only half a century ago in Australia, it was typical for us to have large families with 4 of more children. Living conditions were very good and still large families were the norm.
You don't need an investigation to see a correlation. You don't need a scientific investigation when that correlation applies to a great number of different locations with different cultures and standards.
There are other factors. You need a science based investigation rather than straight assumptions.
No. They aren't. People die faster and live shorter in underdeveloped regions. Those same regions have the highest population growth rates on the planet. If something is nonsensical here it's human nature.
Don't be silly! Of course they do! I don't know what you were trying to convey to us, but you missed. These two statements are just nonsensical.
People dying does not reduce the population. Killing people does not reduce the population. Improving the lot of underdeveloped regions does.
People dying does not lower population growth. Longer life spans does not increase population growth. Fewer children being born does. Improving living conditions in underdeveloped nations is the "key" to reducing population growth where it is highest and causes the most misery.
originally posted by: john452
The best way to decrease population growth is to educate women and empower them.