|
|
#11
10-27-2007, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Plumpy Nut
You're not going to get out of poverty without building up human capital. Being malnourished is not a good way to build up your human capital.
|
|
#12
10-28-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down? [/ QUOTE ] It will much more likely go up, since we are increasing the optimal number of children per parent(from a genetic perspective).
|
|
#13
10-28-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] C'mon guys, surely you can think more deeply than this? Do you really think that if more of the children survive that birth rates won't go down? [/ QUOTE ] It will much more likely go up, since we are increasing the optimal number of children per parent(from a genetic perspective). [/ QUOTE ] This makes no sense at all.
|
|
#14
10-28-2007, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
Think in terms of birds.
Why would a bird restrict the number of children it rears? Limited resources. The bird's (more specifically the bird's genes) "want" to create as many copies of themselves as possible. If they create too many copies(too many offspring), then they will waste resources trying to raise children that will die that would have increased the survival chances of their other children. Their is an optimal number of children that a bird can raise given its resources. If you then gave birds extra resources (like food), then over generations birds would start raising more children because it increases the number of genes they pass down.
|
|
#15
10-28-2007, 01:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
Think in terms of birds. Why would a bird restrict the number of children it rears? Limited resources. The bird's (more specifically the bird's genes) "want" to create as many copies of themselves as possible. If they create too many copies(too many offspring), then they will waste resources trying to raise children that will die that would have increased the survival chances of their other children. Their is an optimal number of children that a bird can raise given its resources. If you then gave birds extra resources (like food), then over generations birds would start raising more children because it increases the number of genes they pass down. [/ QUOTE ] Are you seriously making this argument in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence throughout human history?
|
|
#16
10-28-2007, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
Think in terms of birds. Why would a bird restrict the number of children it rears? Limited resources. The bird's (more specifically the bird's genes) "want" to create as many copies of themselves as possible. If they create too many copies(too many offspring), then they will waste resources trying to raise children that will die that would have increased the survival chances of their other children. Their is an optimal number of children that a bird can raise given its resources. If you then gave birds extra resources (like food), then over generations birds would start raising more children because it increases the number of genes they pass down. [/ QUOTE ] Over what period of time? I think Copernicus is correct (bleck!) and that eventually, the birth rate would decrease because people wouldn't need to try and have so many children to insure that some survive.
|
|
#17
10-28-2007, 07:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Think in terms of birds. Why would a bird restrict the number of children it rears? Limited resources. The bird's (more specifically the bird's genes) "want" to create as many copies of themselves as possible. If they create too many copies(too many offspring), then they will waste resources trying to raise children that will die that would have increased the survival chances of their other children. Their is an optimal number of children that a bird can raise given its resources. If you then gave birds extra resources (like food), then over generations birds would start raising more children because it increases the number of genes they pass down. [/ QUOTE ] Over what period of time? I think Copernicus is correct (bleck!) and that eventually, the birth rate would decrease because people wouldn't need to try and have so many children to insure that some survive. [/ QUOTE ] The only way you and Copernicus could be right is if the 15-year old girl in Niger, who already has three malnourished kids she can't take care of, is purposely getting pregnant for survival reasons.
|
|
#18
10-28-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
The only way you and Copernicus could be right is if the 15-year old girl in Niger, who already has three malnourished kids she can't take care of, is purposely getting pregnant for survival reasons. [/ QUOTE ] You do realize that this is more or less what is going on, right? People have more kids because when kids die, you need to have more to ensure that some are still around when you are old and need to be taken care of.
|
|
#19
10-28-2007, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plumpy Nut
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The only way you and Copernicus could be right is if the 15-year old girl in Niger, who already has three malnourished kids she can't take care of, is purposely getting pregnant for survival reasons. [/ QUOTE ] You do realize that this is more or less what is going on, right? People have more kids because when kids die, you need to have more to ensure that some are still around when you are old and need to be taken care of. [/ QUOTE ] Can any kids in Niger actually take care of their parents? Do people in Niger live to an old age?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
