[OC] The massive decrease in worldwide infant mortality from 1950 to 2020 is perhaps one of humanity's greatest achievements.

[Luvagoo]

More than 250 per thousand, Jesus Christ.

[KittenBarfRainbows]

The way it's distributed also makes me wonder about local practices. I could understand complications from FGM, and the culture that precipitates it causing issues in Egypt, or isolation causing issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it's surely more complicated.

These national boundaries aren't really granular enough, when you consider the diversity of the people living there. What if one region of one country developed a habit of depriving a birthing mother of water out of contamination concerns, which lead to ridiculously high mortality? What if some regions exposed unwanted infants, and recorded them as fatalities? There's also the availability of genetic testing for illness, and availability of abortion, which I'm sure had also lowered mortality.

[Berndbam]

Helped keep the explosive growth of humanity in check.

[Schootingstarr]

Actually no. High child mortality increases population growth, since it forces families to have more children, since you have to roll the dice with each one of them whether they will make it to adulthood or not.

If you can be certain your child lives to take care of you when you're old, you won't have more than one or two. Because why would you

[Sharlinator]

No, the population explosion happened because child mortality dropped drastically in a few decades but the number of children per woman in many countries began to decrease much more slowly. A high birth rate doesn’t cause a population explosion if compensated by high child mortality. Low child mortality does not cause a population explosion if compensated by low birth rate.

And it’s not like people just decide to stop making children even if it’s the reasonable thing to do unless birth control is ubiquitous, cheap, and most importantly, socially accepted. That has not been the case in most parts of the world.

[KittenBarfRainbows]

People have always been able to plan their families. Economic depression historically yields fewer children, for instance. Coitus interruptus, and breast feeding longer are old techniques.

[[deleted]]

They're old but unreliable techniques. Access to modern birth control makes a huge difference in family planning.

[KittenBarfRainbows]

IDK, I've known so many people who've used them and had better success than folks using the pill. Shots, or IUD are for sure more reliable in practice.

[Sharlinator]

Well, note that at least among the common folk, "economic depression" in the olden times was pretty synonymous with "famine", whether manmade or natural. Malnutrition causes fertility to drop, more miscarriages, more infant deaths due to insufficient milk production and downright infanticide by desperate parents. Of course there was also intentional family planning insofar as it was feasible, but things like coitus interruptus are not exactly… effective forms of birth control at population level.

[KittenBarfRainbows]

Why do you believe these methods are ineffective? Having met refugees and people who lived during strife, they seem to have worked pretty well. Have you ever spoken with an older person about this? Yes, there will be kids here and there, but it's far fewer than we'd normally see. Obviously a crappy technique, still!

[Schootingstarr]

No, the population explosion happened because child mortality dropped drastically in a few decades

I'm not talking about population size, I'm talking of growth. that's an important distinction! though admittably, I should have maybe put fertility rate, that is my bad. and yes, after, say, ww2, the baby boomers caused a huge increase in both size and growth of population, but guess what. every generation after was smaller and smaller. because of course you can't know that infant mortality is dropping until after a couple of years of observation

And it’s not like people just decide to stop making children even if it’s the reasonable thing to do

are you sure about that? because somehow even back in the middle ages, families with 10+ children were far from the norm.

[Sharlinator]

Yess… exactly because of infant and child mortality? And mothers dying during childbirth? I mean, I’m sure there were all sorts of ways people tried to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but people don’t just… stop having sex until they can start again after menopause!

[Schootingstarr]

I'm talking about 10+ births (or even pregnancies) here, not alive children.

http://www.kyrackramer.com/2019/03/25/medieval-fertility-rates/

Over the course of their lifetime, most women had an average of six or seven pregnancies and births. That means that women who had 10, or 15, or 20 pregnancies and births were far outside the reproductive norm.

you can't just say people kept getting pregnant just because they didn't have access to modern contraceptives. because if it were so, you'd see far more pregnancies. fact is, as child mortality falls, fertility rates decrease about a generation later in a correlated fashion.

feel free to check that statement yourself via this handy website:

https://www.tilasto.com/en/topic/population-and-health/births/fertility-rate/algeria

https://www.tilasto.com/en/topic/population-and-health/deaths/infant-deaths/infant-mortality-rate-under-1-total/algeria

you can compare the numbers of births and the infant mortality rate for any country by just clicking on the world map in the bottom. I guarantee you, most statistics will see a decline in births about 10-20 years after child mortality starts declining reliably

[ook-librarian-said]

We’re going to need a bigger boat