Where do babies come from?

[Rasputin]

if abundance of food was sole dictater of pop growth then US would probalby be around 1bill pop now, but instea dof more kids from all that food, the US is now jsut topping the obesity scales instead... I guess excess of junk food doesnt count for pop growth

[Maniac]

Right on! Just what I think.

[Sava]

Population Growth is not related to food at all. Survival of the people is dependant upon food. Case in point, Africa. Those people are starving, yet their population keeps growing? That's because those damn African women can't keep their legs closed. They are having babies faster than their babies are starving to death. Is it any wonder AIDS and HIV has infested that whole continent?

Also, there has never been a time in human history when people have NOT been able to grow enough food to support the population on a large scale. Sure, there are famines and people starving all over the world, but look at the heavily populated countries like China and India. They don't have any problem feeding the masses, and in fact, India is the fastest growing country.

What does this mean for Civ? Population growth should be a constant, not dependent upon anything, even food growth. But keeping the people's bellies full should be part of Civilization. I'd also like to see immigration be a factor in population growth. As to somebodies earlier post of the US population growing from 3 million to 90 million during the 19th Century. You should go back to school buddy, it was 10 million to 70 million with 60 percent of growth due to immigration. Then from 1900 to 1950, over 70 million people immigrated to the US. The rest has been just Ma and Pa getting jiggy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Population Growth is not related to food at all. Survival of the people is dependant upon food. Case in point, Africa. Those people are starving, yet their population keeps growing? That's because those damn African women can't keep their legs closed. They are having babies faster than their babies are starving to death. Is it any wonder AIDS and HIV has infested that whole continent?

Also, there has never been a time in human history when people have NOT been able to grow enough food to support the population on a large scale.

As to the first paragraph: go screw yourself, you racist piece of detritus. Your sanctimonious drakh doesn't fly here. I'm sure that if you'd been born in Africa, you would have gotten a college education and become CEO of a multinational.

In response to the rational part of your post, it is a proven fact that, all else being equal, people who are fed better reach puberty sooner, marry younger, and have more children. The average girl in the developed world today reaches puberty sometime around eleven. Five hundred years ago, the average was fifteen. Have you ever heard of the potato famine? A million and a half people died of starvation. The country was decimated. In ancient times, food supply was uncertain, and a bad harvest could have an immediate effect upon population growth. For most of history, people have existed just barely above the starvation line. Along with improved health care, more efficient food production is the primary reason for the population explosion we've witnessed in the last two centuries. It took the 2000 years before 1800 to quadruple the population of the Earth from 250 million to 1 billion. It's taken the last 200 years to increase that figure sixfold. The reason for the population explosion in Africa is the same as it was for Europe: increased food availability and better medical care. For your information, India does not have the world's highest growth rate; Kenya does. China's population is growing at a slower rate than that of the US. It is true that in the last 50-100 years in the devloped world, the growth rate has been slower than would be predicted by simply natural factors, and this is mainly due to the availability and acceptance of birth control methods WHICH ARE GENERALLY UNAVAILABLE IN POORER NATIONS, YOU PIGFUC*ER.

[Immortal Wombat]

Despite SoulAssasin's distateful comments, calling him a Pig****** is probably not the best way to debate the point.

In reply to the rational part of your post: It has also been shown that girls in developing countries reach puberty earlier, to have more chance of spreading their DNA before dying of malnutrition.

[KrazyHorse]

IW, your statement is absolutely untrue. Secondly, if someone were to punch your mother in the face, would you not feel justified in using some form of derogatory language when referring to them? The self-righteous attitude espoused by SA is a large part of the reason that the undeveloped world will remain undeveloped for the forseeable future. He wants the third-world nations to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but other nations have already purchased, taken, or stolen those bootstraps. Disease and hunger kill millions every year, and SA's response is "It's their own d*mn fault". That attitude is more offensive than any amount of swear words I could utter.

[Immortal Wombat]

Whatever derogatory language I would use, I would keep it from a public forum. Apolyton has a perfectly good Private Messaging system which you can use to discuss SA's sleeping habits with him.
I agree with you that his attitude is wrong, and offensive. But from viewing other debates, some online, some not, the person you are debating with will tend not take your arguements as seriously if you resort to that sort of language. I am sure it would be perfectly possible to disagree with him, argue the point, and show SA the error of his opinion as you have explained it to me. Using swear words is neither needed, nor appropriate.

My statement was mistaken, but not absolutely untrue. It was a while a go I read the article, and I had mistaken a few/many details.
The article by the way is not online, but is on page 12 of the 19th May issue of New Scientist.
It reports immigrants from developing countries (presumably the only places where such studies have been done) have hit puberty as young as 8 possibly because of pesticides containing DDE (like DDT) in their blood, from where it is used in developing countries.
But,

The effect was thought to be because children who were under-nourished... gain weight on reaching the West... [but] this theory couldn't explain what they saw.

I did make one assumption, that the pesticide would have the same effect in developing countries, malnutrition or not.
Nevertheless, it still shows that population growth is not dependant on food sources.

[KrazyHorse]

I have never claimed that food supplies are the only determining factor in population growth. However, in order of importance, at any time before the twentieth century, I would say that the factors are:

1)Food Supply
2)Medical Technology
3)Various Social Factors
4)Other Factors (Environmental, etc.)

In the twentieth century in developed countries, the order would more resemble:

1)Social Factors (most importantly the attitude towards various methods of birth control and towards early parenthood)
2)Medical Technology
3)Environmental Factors
4)Food Supply

Food supply drops to the bottom of the list because most developed countries can (for the first time in history) produce more food than it is possible to consume. The article you cite is very interesting, but something of a sidenote, don't you think?

If someone makes an irrational statment, it is somewhat optimistic to assume that they will respond to rational arguments.

[Immortal Wombat]

The article you cite is very interesting, but something of a sidenote, don't you think?

yes.