Weird Question on population.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-02 08:33pm

I am reading a history book for my class, by Spielvogel: We are in the period of the late 19th century second industrial revolution: the time of mass society.

1. One of the changes of the increased industrial revolution and agricultural revolution was a dramatic population increase (he says).

a .Probably due to better sanitation in urban developments (product of social reformers and socialism)
b. Better medical tech (smallpox vaccines and such)
c. Better pay = more money to purchase cheaper and more readily available food: better diet)
d. Decreased infant mortality (also a result of above I think)
F. Housing projects

However: HE also goes on to describe (from 1870-1895) another new devolupment of the mass society: A transformation of the family of the lower class to be more like the middle class. Society becomes increasingly nuclear. Fewer children are had

1. Birth rates decline Dramatically he says.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Question:

How can populations increase dramatically if birth rates decrease dramatically at the same time!?!?!?

I can understand there would be more people because of longer life spans and better conditions, but would that connote "dramatic" population increase while way fewer babies are born?

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-02 08:44pm

Easy: Less children are born, but more children are surviving.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-02 09:07pm

That can make a dramatic increase in population?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-02 09:08pm

You didn't used to name a child for the first few months, so in case it died you wouldn't have gotten to attached to it.

Infant mortality rates have a HUGE effect on population, all others things held constant.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-02 09:11pm

Cornelius wrote:That can make a dramatic increase in population?

Consider, if 8 children are born to a family, and three of them survive to have children of their own, as opposed to four or five children being born, and all of them surviving. Also consider that the first generation after the improvements is likely to not change their rate of propagation at all.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-03 12:48am

Ahh ok. I didn't get how much the infant mortality rate contributed compared to other things. I guess now it makes sense.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-03 12:50am

Oh. For some reason I was thinking dramatically meant almost no kids, but that can mean one or two right? I forgot. They must have had really large families in the Industrial Revolution prior to the anti-child and women labour laws.

So the new urban reforms, better diets and food, cleaner better work places, better wages of the mass consumer mass society allowed for fewer babies and more concentration on the individuals. Ok

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-03 01:35am

It's not just infant mortality. There's a reason why the UN monitors the mortality rate for children under 5. Once you pass that age, it's reasonably certain that you'll make it to adulthood. Between birth and five, however, you have the greatest chance for disease, starvation, and most other causes for death because your body is small, weak, rapidly growing, and delicate, not to mention that there's just about no way you can take care of yourself if the worst case scenario came about and you were left alone, even for a little while.

Also, less kids wouldn't mean one or two children; it would be more like three or four, which is still much less from the six to ten many people used to have (although most of them died in infancy or early childhood).

Just a couple nitpicks.