• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

CFLarsen said:
The pattern of members of the former Soviet bloc having a negative population growth.
Click to expand...

That's not the pattern.

The pattern is

Countries having a negative population growth are members of the former Soviet bloc.

Also North Korea and Cuba are not contiguous with the rest.
 
Last edited:
Even the ones that are not in the negative are still some of the lowest in the world. Not a big difference between -.1 and 0.2.
 
CFLarsen said:
Serbia and Montenegro was not part of the former Soviet bloc.



Well, they all have trees, too.
Click to expand...

No, apparently it, (and the rest of Yugoslavia) weren't.

Yes, they all have trees, and as your hypothesis explains one more data point than mine, it becomes the best current explanation.

It also proves my point that "You may spot a pattern there."

[ETA spelling]
 
Last edited:
sphenisc said:
No, apparently it, (and the rest of Yugoslavia) weren't.

Yes, they all have trees, and as you're hypothesis explains one more data point than mine, it becomes the best current explanation.

It also proves my point that "You may spot a pattern there."
Click to expand...
But not all of your data points live up to this pattern of yours.
 
CFLarsen said:
But not all of your data points live up to this pattern of yours.
Click to expand...

If they did then it wouldn't be possible for your hypothesis explains one more data point than mine. As I've already said that it (your hypothesis) does, I think you might have worked out that your above statement provides me with no new information.
 
sphenisc said:
http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/demographic/products/indwm/ww2005/tab1c.htm


From this world list, here's a list of countries with <=0 Population growth

Armenia -0.4
Georgia -1.1
Kazakhstan -0.3
Belarus -0.6
Bulgaria -0.7
Czech Republic -0.1
Estonia -0.6
Hungary -0.3
Latvia -0.6
Lithuania -0.4
Poland -0.1
Republic of Moldova -0.3
Romania -0.4
Russian Federation -0.5
Serbia and Montenegro -0.1
Slovakia 0
Slovenia 0
Ukraine -1.1



You may spot a pattern there.
Click to expand...

I may question your choice of statistic. Population growth rates for a nation include the net of emmigration/immigration. Birth rates are the relavent statistics.

Aaron
 
sphenisc said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because some countries may have a positive net migration while others have a negative net migration.

You can't just look at 1 set of data, if you want to derive some meaning out of a complex issue such as this.

You do want to derive some meaning out of this, don't you?
 
CFLarsen said:
Because some countries may have a positive net migration while others have a negative net migration.

You can't just look at 1 set of data, if you want to derive some meaning out of a complex issue such as this.

You do want to derive some meaning out of this, don't you?
Click to expand...

You don't explain their lack of relevance.
 
sphenisc said:
You don't explain their lack of relevance.
Click to expand...
They are highly relevant. If you want to point to some cause, it certainly isn't because people in general are fleeing the countries.

You do want to derive some meaning out of this, don't you?
 
sphenisc said:
You don't explain their lack of relevance.
Click to expand...

The - relative - lack of relevance of population change is this: population change is influenced by other factors, most importantly immigration and emigration, but also living standards. The latter is important because, if you have two countries with identical birth rates, but living standards in one of them are so bad that half the children don´t survive into adulthood and thus cannot have children of their own, of course they will have dramatically different population change numbers.
 
Chaos said:
The - relative - lack of relevance of population change is this: population change is influenced by other factors, most importantly immigration and emigration, but also living standards. The latter is important because, if you have two countries with identical birth rates, but living standards in one of them are so bad that half the children don´t survive into adulthood and thus cannot have children of their own, of course they will have dramatically different population change numbers.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken the death before maturity figure IS accounted for in birth rate. The figure is usually children born per woman. For girls that never mature that figure is 0, which is averaged in. If you're referring to live births per annum/per capita, you are clearly correct. But if that's the statistic you are tracking then it becomes important to also measure deaths per annum/per capita and then take the net.

Aaron
 
CFLarsen said:
What do you think the pattern is?
Click to expand...


The emasculation of the male in modern western culture:
avatar9807_1.gif
 
CFLarsen said:
They are highly relevant. If you want to point to some cause, it certainly isn't because people in general are fleeing the countries.

You do want to derive some meaning out of this, don't you?
Click to expand...

I'm now completely confused as to what point you're trying to make.

The original post stated
"The above post is one of the reasons why the developed world is dying out."

I took "the developed world is dying out", to mean that, as a generalisation, the countries in the developed world have population counts which are a) currently positive but b) heading towards zero c) due to deaths.

I take a) as a given.
To examine b) I consider that population growth rates are the relevant statistic, a negative growth rate, in combination with a) implies b) is true.
If b) is demonstrated then that's the time to consider the truth of c).

My conclusion from the population growth rate statistics is that b) has not been demonstrated. There are relatively few countries with a negative growth rate, none of these appear on the list of developed countries given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_countries

Therefore I regard b) as unproven. Thus, I don't need to consider the factors which influence b) i.e births,deaths and migration.

----

Yes, I'd like to derive some meaning out of this.

----
ETA

But I see that under Other Cases on the link, that Russia, Slovenia and 'other EU countries' are sometimes regarded as developed countries. Perhaps greater clarity about what people mean by this term would avoid confusion. I'll state my preference for the generally agreed 'Developed Countries' list on the link.
 
Last edited:
It's not me who is trying to make a point here. You are.

What meaning are you trying to derive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom