Bill Gates endorsing vaccines to lower population

[kedo1981]

Promoting humanity to be more environmentally responsible.
Using science and medicine to promote health.
Using his vast fortune to do it all
And having a hot wife to boot.
Gates you evil bastard

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Actually, the writer of that article whacking himself in the nuts a few times probably would do humanity some good.

I'd pay to watch that.

 

[BobHaulk]

i think Greggs the bakers is doing more to kill of the population with their tasty sausage rolls and doughnuts thru heart attacks than bill gates is doing

 

[Sledge]

I wonder what the conspiracy theories would look like if Alfred Nobel was around today and just starting the Nobel Prize?

 

[TheDoLittle]

I wonder what the conspiracy theories would look like if Alfred Nobel was around today and just starting the Nobel Prize?

The Nobel Stundie does have a certain ring to it.

 

[Puppycow]

I think he meant that reproductive services would lower population growth.

Vaccines would have the opposite effect. But in combination the overall effect could be to lower population growth.

 

[Puppycow]

One thing I would call attention to is to look at the population of the world on a graph over time and then think about when vaccines were invented and note the relationship.

It used to be in many parts of the world that most babies died before reaching adulthood. So it's not suprising that the invention of vaccines coincides with a population explosion.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, the writer of that article whacking himself in the nuts a few times probably would do humanity some good.

I'd pay to watch that.

Maybe you should move to Japan.

 

[AnnoyingPony]

I've read that the more unhealthy a population is, the more kids they have, because people feel compelled to bring as many kids into the world as they can to pass on their genes. Healthy people know that they have more time, and are less likely to have a gazillion kids. Since vaccines contribute to the collective herd immunity and health, they are a boon for reducing suffering and overpopulation.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

There is overwhelming evidence of what happens to the population growth in societies as the standard of living improves. There is a lag time of about a decade then people start wanting better things for their offspring and that requires they have fewer of them. There was an entire edition of Scientific American published over 30 years ago showing the effect of improving the standard of living on population growth.

It's oversimplifying things to say it's only about parents having less kids if they don't think a number of their kids are going to die in childhood. It actually depends on the standard of living altogether. For example, the middle class parent wants their child to go to college. They can't do that if there are too many kids to send. Ensuring health is one piece of the standard of living.

Yet the same drop in natality happens even in other places than the USA, where going to college is not nearly as big a burden on the parents. Heck, it even happened in Eastern Europe, where going to college was 100% free and you could even get a (miserable) bonus for doing well in college.

E.g., as of 1990 the total fertility rate of Russia was only 1.89, probably lower in the more urban areas. (E.g., in Moskow I don't find historical data on short notice, but as of 2010 it's 1.41 vs 1.54 for the whole Russia.) That's children born per woman, for those who have to ask. That's actually lower than the USA.

So while there may be factors, the extreme burden of college costs is really mostly a USA phenomenon (at least among the western countries) and doesn't seem to have done much to keep other western countries fertile.

 

[Puppycow]

I've read that the more unhealthy a population is, the more kids they have, because people feel compelled to bring as many kids into the world as they can to pass on their genes. Healthy people know that they have more time, and are less likely to have a gazillion kids. Since vaccines contribute to the collective herd immunity and health, they are a boon for reducing suffering and overpopulation.

In isolation though, probably not. People also need to be educated and to have access to birth control. Look how world population grew only very slowly until industrialization and the invention of vaccines and antibiotics, but then began to grow much more rapidly for a while before starting to taper off again.

Basic modern medicine will first increase the rate of population growth by reducing premature deaths if there is not also a corresponding change in the cultural attitudes and easy access to birth control.

This is why I worry about just giving them vaccines but not funding family planning services or education. Vaccines are cheap and save lives now, but I worry about an even greater Malthusian calamity in the future.