Will saving poor children lead to overpopulation?

Hans Rosling explains a very common misunderstanding about the world.
CC by www.gapminder.org
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/DxtA/

[@MarcoDeCarli]

Great video, explained in a simple visual way. Congratulations to the Gapminder Foundation. I read youtube people's comments, looking for some further inspiration. I have read a lot of nonsense, many of them did not understand the video. I doubt there is salvation around the corner, but please continue to show us the way.

[@laacisbezgalvas]

Another problem in 3rd world countries is lack of healthcare system. In Bangladesh, one of the most overpopulated countries of the world, having children means that you will be provided when you are old.

[@nugzarmikeladze]

people in bangladesh have only two children on average now.

[@mayankbisht7691]

He gave a lecture on this. Bangladesh's growth rate has stopped.

[@amyh2755]

education, contraception, as well as social and political reform will help minimize the overpopulation of the planet.

[@mireilleblanc9582]

Yep!!! Especially women's education and empowerment.

[@MixedFruit876]

People here in the comments don't seem to understand that he's not making some wild forecast, the process of demographic transition is fairly known and has been watched, by now, in hundreds of countries and societies (that cover, by now, most of the world). There are a few countries in the world that are now in relatively early stages of the transition, and the forecast he's making is rather modest - that the process will continue, in these countries, as it has in all of the countries before them. That's all. Look up the terms demographic transition and TFR, to get the full picture.

[@BernardoPatino]

Rest In Peace Ted Talk Grandpa ♥

[@GustavoHCardenasAlegre]

thank you Hans Rosling, we need more people like you around the world.

[@phillips78]

In Haiti, Save the Children Fund set out to learn if women who had lost children compensated by increasing their total number of births. The exactly opposite effect was found: women who had never lost children had the most births; women who had an infant die were least likely to continue childbearing. Indeed, studies in several continents fail to find that high child mortality leads to more births.

[@OliJoGar3651]

Having the volume on full blast is not a good idea. The moment he opened his mouth, I jumped LOL

[@sorenwintherlundbys]

Hans Roslings is setting the next standard for communication - the video lasted 3 minutes and 31 seconds. We are NOT talking about a book with 331 pages..

[@me282uk]

A great fine-tuning and condensing of his other talks for those who just want a summery of the situation. Still love his full on stage talks, but this is great for sharing the overall ideas of it. Top man Hans!

[@rafatejera329]

in my country in uruguay, poor people have more childrens than midium and high life quality, and the people says that they want to have childs because they haven't nothing so they want to have that ''something'' sorry about my english im learning

[@flabenelli]

Pero Uruguay no es África Los niños pobres en Uruguay viven mucho mejor e en los país es pobres de África

[@HP-ws2vx]

The production style of this video is very nice :)

[@daedra40]

His Ted talks are so worth their time ; trust me, don't let the large minute numbers scare you from watching certain vids, especially if its by Hans Rosling ;)

[@hannahanagnostou6724]

I love Hans Rosling, He is such a great public speaker and gets so excited about​ the information he is sharing!!

[@Wul-Lop]

Great initiation. Thanks from Thailand.

[@KeithHeggaton]

Why is he yelling?

[@theDudeOfDudes]

The beginning literally made me jump.

[@opnasd]

So acording to this logic, if saving poor children would cause overpopulation, would we let them starve to death?

[@ukmoore]

that may be logical but not moral, I think most would say. So no we wouldn't do that hence the addition 4 billion he mentioned.

[@opnasd]

So if it is pure logic without any morals, isn't it better to kill rich people and distribute their wealth between poor people? Instant solution without having that 4 billion extra people... Would we do it?

[@ukmoore]

if what is pure logic without morals? His argument? letting kids die to lower pop growth is logical, just like taking the wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor is logical but not moral. Morality is logical decision making filtered through empathy and compassion as it pertains to other people. I hope that cleared up my point.

[@opnasd]

Chris Moore Actually I am not trying to learn something. My questions are hypothetical and you are trying to answer them. My point is this: We should not need to be persuaded, that it is beneficial for us to save poor children from starving to death. When someone is trying tell you not to stab babies because you could hurt yourself during the process, you don't agree with that persons point of view. I don't.

[@MrBeastknows]

Wait, what? I don't know if it's just that I'm tired or that you are accidentally making no sense. Instead of pointing out what I'm confused by, I'll just ask: what argument are you for? The one made in this video by Hans Rosling or the one that states that leaving the poor helpless helps stop overpopulation? I'm just asking because I want to be part of the argument, too! (I truly do, but the excitement exhibited by the exclamation point was to add a tad of shade).

[@CamF64]

He says the reason people in poor countries have large families is that they are compensating for high child mortality. This is doubtful. People in poor countries have many children because they often live a subsistence lifestyle and need a large family to rear cattle and raise crops. Better healthcare will not immediately reverse this trend.

[@dianabsierra]

The best explanation ever!

[@RainierKine]

I like all the props used.

[@DavidJohnsonPix]

Unfortunately, this argument makes too many assumptions. Not only that, but it doesn't take into account the principle of Exponential Growth.

[@shlockofgod]

Human populations do not grow exponentially in the sense that people commonly use that term. There will never be "over-population". If you think about a city like New York then you would not say it is "over-populated".

[@DavidJohnsonPix]

We have not been under 1% population growth per year. On top of that, we continuously find ways to extend life expectancy. Even if we managed to get down to a 1% population growth year over year, the population of the earth will double in approximately 70 years. When I think of overpopulation, I'm not thinking about the availability of real estate. I'm thinking of the amount of available natural resources to maintain that population.

[@shlockofgod]

It doesn't matter if the population grows ten times in 70 years. There will never be global over population. The natural resources need to be there in order to have the humans in the first place or extend their lives. To worry about the availability of resources is like worrying about not having enough building materials to build the house you've just built.

[@Lerkero]

shlockofgod Considering the limited space and resources in New York. Yes, I would say it is overpopulated. If more cities become like New York that would be a real problem.

[@snowsquirrel11]

Humans (and most mammals) don't adhere to the principle of Exponential growth. Bacteria and microbes do because they constantly are reproducing. Exponential growth isn't 1% growth or event 10% growth, exponential means that the population growth continues to get larger year after year (this isn't happening).

[@thestonylein]

great video!

[@strahlemann6248]

A typical example for confusing correlation with causation.

[@TadasSlimas]

+Strahlemann Why so? Are you saying there's no causality? Is the sample size too small? Why is there no causality?

[@strahlemann6248]

Tadas Slimas I think it's much more likely that this is a confounding effect of economic growth, better education for women and generally rising living standards in a society. Factors like these cause both a decline in fertility rates AND child mortality rates at the same time. Besides, a big sample size doesn't help you to deduce causal relationships from mere correlations.

[@MosesShelby]

+Strahlemann I think he symplifies the argumentor this 3 mn video. Watch the other videos, it is well explained. Here he just shows the link between child mortality and population growth, he doesn't take the time to explain it.

[@strahlemann6248]

"In his case: how do you think he wants to reduce child mortality?" By providing people in those countries with better medical care. Rosling makes the argument that a reduction in child mortality leads in itself to lower birth rates. And that's just preposterous. In reality, this is a confounding effect. Modernization, economic development, and access to education for women are the root causes that lead to both lower birth rates and lower child mortality rates. What happens when child mortality rates are just improved by better medical care in absence of all these factors can be seen in sub-Sahara Africa. People just keep breeding like rabbits and, with most natural controls removed by Whitey, the population size explodes. In 1900, the African population was about 100 million. Now, it's more than a billion. At the end of this century it will be 4 billion. It's crazy to assume only lowering child mortality rates in these countries through better medical care would do anything to stop this development. That's not to say that medical care shouldn't be improved. But this improvement must not come from outside intervention. It has to be a result of societal modernization and better education for women. Only then will it lead to a reduction in birth rates.

[@MosesShelby]

Strahlemann​ I encourage you to watch his other videos. He has interesting exemples to illustrate his argument.

[@10ohanna]

the big reason of overpopulation is that we all get older and older

[@KismetBP]

Mind = Blown. Great video. :) Explained to perfection.

[@as7river]

Nutella will save the world, just put a Nutella jar in every family, everyone will be happy... and diabetic, but happy.

[@nonchalantd]

great demonstration

[@nn99nn99]

These are some goodass vids!

[@dennou2012]

This is very interesting! Spread the word :)

[@phillips78]

+dennou2012 No don't. In Haiti, Save the Children Fund set out to learn if women who had lost children compensated by increasing their total number of births. The exactly opposite effect was found: women who had never lost children had the most births; women who had an infant die were least likely to continue childbearing. Indeed, studies in several continents fail to find that high child mortality leads to more births.

[@horseman1st1]

That to me sounds completely logical. I disagree completely with the video.

[@blobli9253]

You are right

[@bluetictacthatshootspingpo536]

Why do poor people have so many kids if they can't feed them?!

[@maxandshakira]

In the uk the more kids you have the more money you get givin by this soft as shit government

[@bluetictacthatshootspingpo536]

maxandshakira ???

[@brigingthemap]

Hans Rosling.. Wow.. I loved this book FACTFULLNESS. 😊

[@vikitheviki]

Make sense!

[@drstrangelove09]

I'm not sure that one is the consequence of the other. How do we know that the large number of children isn't a consequence of religious tenets and/or cultural influences? How do we know that it isn't a cause of poverty and not a result? Seems like we're making the error of "correlation is cause," in other words because families with high infant death rates have more kids that it must be the high death rate that is the cause of higher birth rates. I would think that a much better analysis is needed to prove the cause and effect claim.

[@Jwesstrom]

Because each and every country that has gone from poor to rich has followed the same cycle of less kids. And you know what? Pretty much every country in the entire world used to be poor. The same tendencies can be seen in your own country as well. The poor people have more children then the rich ones. So, no. This is not a consequence of religion or culture.

[@drstrangelove09]

Jon Wesström Nope, that does not show that simply increasing income will lead to less children.

[@Jwesstrom]

And why is that?

[@drstrangelove09]

Jon Wesström Just because A and B have been correlated in the past does not mean that A is the cause of B. So we cannot assert that in the future A will cause B.

[@drstrangelove09]

Derek Noonan Yes, I'm for that everywhere. It's a no-brainer. It's the correct path.

[@studentadmin5821]

Well stated and explained to maximum. Great video. ;)

[@canismagus]

It makes sense

[@astronot1997]

Noone is going to understand him. It seems like people can't understand cultural change speed. It's freakin' low. So he is actually having a point here

[@belindaelisa5618]

"Arahat Athersata and the Plejaren repeatedly advise us in particular about our out-of-control overpopulation problem and, as of 1975, recommended a strict, humane plan of world-wide birth control (which we arrogantly and self-destructively ignored, and continue to ignore. Countries like Australia even promote the growth of our population for economic reasons even as our water and other resources are increasingly reduced and contaminated!). Arahat Athersata says, that one of the most important tasks of the realm of material life of the Earthly humanity is to pay attention to the fact that the population must be very severely restricted and the number of human beings must not exceed 500 million. (According to the Plejaren we had 7.5 billion at the end of 2004, which is one billion more that was acknowledged at the same time by the USAmerican Census Bureau!) According to the Creational laws and directives the correct formula for maintaining the human species is not one of simply increasing, as is wrongly proclaimed by Earthly religions, but is based in the adherence to the natural laws so that there is order, meaning that population growth is overseen and supervised. Through the irrationality and false religious teaching of the Earth human the mass of humanity is driven into boundlessness, whereby problems, which are containable and can be restricted for a small humanity, spread and become uncontrollable to an unspeakable extent. With the breaking and abuse of the law of maintenance of the species humanity has been driven to a mass of overpopulation in only a few hundred years, and with that all problems, need and degeneration climb (and because of this millions are forced to die a degenerate death.) (Please refer to the FIGU overpopulation pamphlets for more on this.) To follow Creational laws and directives also means the correct raising of children, in which, by adulthood, they are entirely equipped for self-reliance and independence from their parents. Other laws concern respect for all life forms, not killing in degeneration, (which includes not committing suicide), learning from mistakes rather than condemning them, taking responsibility for one's own thoughts, words and deeds, not judging falsely but instead making judgments according to logic, respecting one's spiritual and physical needs, the requirement for leadership in each family, community and population, etc., the obligation of a leader to guide, teach and protect the people, the implementation of correctional measures for wrong behavior instead of torture or the death penalty, which entirely go against the Creational laws and directives, and so on."

[@NoWay1969]

Every problem humanity has is made better by empowering women.

[@spockinrockin]

his voice was so unexpected

[@ahhyee8070]

Halla Hans lever du?

[@Nico-bz5ll]

1:25 one child policy in China ??? or

[@SillySillyBoy11]

That was excellent .......I learned something today.....thanks

[@user-ju8wb1id2h]

Please sum this video in 300 words. Someone please. Help me!

[@BjornSvenson]

So according to this, poor families will have an average of 4 children in order to compensate for a fifth which will probably die. But if we save that fifth child the poorer families will choose to have fewer children. Why would a family with 1 dead child choose to have four others instead of 2 in the first place? If that fifth child is saved, what's to stop those families from continuing to have 5, 6, 7 or more children, increasing the population further? The stats are interesting but they don't seem to take into account the decisions people can make.

[@MosesShelby]

I think you did not understand the point : wealthy educated populations tend to have less children so the best way to reduce population growth is to fight powerty.

[@BjornSvenson]

I see. I agree on that point, yes. But if we fight poverty I think we need be sure to stress EDUCATION, and not just health. Otherwise it'll solve nothing.

[@notinterested]

yupp

[@joresvanwensen922]

lets hope this video goes viral lets comment and like as much as possible ;)

[@Exist64]

Fighting poverty of such measures is no easy thing to do. But he makes sense.

[@Panamenya]

This may or may not be true. But it IS true that many people, no matter their socioeconomic status, will have many kids because their religion, culture, or government compels them to, OR they want to have a large family out of more narcissistic, personal, self-centered reasons. It unfortunately will still happen. So it's not just a "poor" vs. "not-poor" problem. Also, part of why people continue to suffer in poverty is *because* they choose to reproduce too soon, too many times, with little education, and without any good prospects for making money. The condition of poverty is exacerbated, if not *caused* by reckless, abundant reproduction. If people really understood this, and if they had the ability to prevent it, perhaps they would choose to delay reproduction so that they could have half a chance of escaping poverty altogether and not passing on that misery to the next generation. This would be the ideal way to eliminate poverty: prevention via education. Instead of outsiders "saving poor kids" (their lives, presumably, but nothing more, not working on getting them OUT of poverty) and patting themselves on the back for enabling the perpetuation of generational poverty, people of reproductive ages who are currently living in poverty could work on self-actualization and bettering themselves BEFORE reproducing (and society could strongly ENCOURAGE this via campaigns, scholarships, etc.), to the point that their kids won't need saving from strangers because they won't automatically be born into poverty from people who hastily, selfishly, and recklessly reproduced, knowing they couldn't support themselves. Millions of people born into poverty have already done this around the world, improving conditions for themselves AND their subsequent offspring, so it's not like it's impossible or inappropriate for society to work on this goal. Perhaps we could all acknowledge that everyone can improve their own circumstances and not take as inevitable that "the poor" will always remain that way.

[@Jacmall-hf4ms]

I agree because if the world is overpopulation, then the government of all country have to think everyone in the country, which not only cost so much money of the government, but the people that lives on this world

[@masterpep7218]

I second that. Every word, literally.

[@FalloutUgglan]

I thought he sounded Swedish

[@godhedsmanden]

well, depends on the definition of "saving" a child. I think the idea is more that u save that 1out of 5 that dies, so they now have 5 poor people growing up instead of 4

[@mireilleblanc9582]

and those 5 people having each two children instead of 5. 5x5=25 whereas 5x2=10. Worth it.

[@mikesty]

Good comments from a system dynamics point of view but not the greatest illustration. He also didn't really come full circle but mad ea good point nevertheless.

[@OldProVidios]

AND lifting them out of poverty. AND AND AND. How do we stop poverty?

[@Panamenya]

Poverty is exacerbated by reproduction. So if you want to stop poverty, encourage people to delay reproduction as long as possible and get as much education and save as much money as possible. The poorest people are that way because they (1) are born into poverty, (2) reproduce early, (3) reproduce abundantly, and (4) have little to no education or skills that are considered useful for earning money. A person can't control whether they are born into poverty or not, but they usually have some control over (2), (3), and (4). And many people have worked their way out of poverty by delaying reproduction and educating themselves instead. Education AND delayed reproduction are the key to getting out of poverty.

[@Random-pu2fr]

Well, it is 2022 and right now more than 3.3 billion out of 7.8 billion people are below the poverty line. Even the people slightly above the line are not doing so well. 3.3 billion would have been higher if there was no covid. These Stats are in the world bank report.

[@Gekkejoep23]

Let’s start a real hunger games for poor people and for normal people

[@henrybrun936]

Wait is he telling us that we should stop with our population growth. For I think I am lost. It would be pretty chaotic if we were to certainly and eventually merge into just one family. Which surely is gonna get things out of control.

[@kaloriinn]

now with what I said being noted.. I do commend that this message is at least sending out a help the poor message.. But I must ask how much of Mr. Gate's money is actually going towards this while asking help from those who obviously earn far less than him

[@kaloriinn]

Did I say I hated him? Nope.. My question was valid because I didn't know.. But I have huge doubts the numbers are really that high.. You know like the myth that 25% of the American budget is foreign aid

[@JuanMPalacio]

***** What?

[@justanotherview3243]

Simply put: Bill Gates attracts this much attention mostly because of his personal wealth and a significant proportion of which he's putting to a good use. If he suddenly becomes poor donating everything to others, do you honestly think he'd still have as many followers among those high profile people who are still holding some key positions to decide upon important humanitarian things?

[@franklyngodwin]

This is wrong precedence leading to wrong conclusion. Saving poor children's lives doesn't end poverty; if poverty is the factor, saving the poor child's life doesn't end poverty. It actually increases the burden on the poor parents. Education and improvement of the standard of living is the key, not vaccines and drugs.

[@jaapznl]

You agree with what's said in the video, 1:48 and further he explains that "saving" children does not just mean saving them from sickness but increasing their standard of living (in part through education).

[@cameronholmes8872]

My g

[@georgkrger2155]

Anabody else here because of school?

[@jackdumanat49]

i still remember learning this in economics and geography gsce, but I always thought that even if we could make all families richer, we wouldn't solve overpopulation but just slow down the rate of population. i thought back then, that having an epidemic or another world war would solve overpopulation.

[@quam0091]

Wouldn't a world war or epidemic spark higher growth rates. Take the baby boomers for example after world war II.

[@jackdumanat49]

i don't know man. this was a long time ago... don't do economics any more. But probably yeah. It depends with how many babies were born with regards to the number of deaths form the war/epidemic.

[@RaoulosCA]

Every world war is a new revolution, the first killed the soldiers the second killed the population, you surly focus on the result of the second war. But it's done, we invented a new war, for destroy an army from the air, befor we destroyed all the city with the population too, now it's with high precision weapons, thx specialy to the space satellite and intelligent bombs. I don't say the war is more clean than before(2ww) but it's impossible to have the same death result because the war changed, the only solution with the war for reduce the population is a nuclear war, but why destroy the planet for reduce the population with the idea to....protect the planet ? Like Quam said, in the country destroyed by the war there is a strong baby boom for exemple in france since 1896 and during 40 years(so just befor the war) the population stay around 38-41 millions of poeple, 10 years after the 2nd war the number grow up to 48 millions, now it's doesn't looks important but the impact of the 2nd war complety tranformed the french demography.

[@SpeaksToDragons]

*Saving poor children will lead to overpopulation* Cultural will take longer to change because of the influx of free medication population will grown not shrink. Parents need large families not only because of replacement, but as a sign of prosperity. Children are workers which bring in more income and girls can be sold off to other families. When you have a increase of population but its based on technology outside the community like the west, food production doesn't keep up, when you have a drought, you have a rapid decline of population through hunger. If you hadn't cured those children population wouldn't have grown to fast and populations would have remain smaller.

[@signalarssen9415]

This helped my with school

[@masterpep7218]

Yeah, go literacy, go!

[@Hejsvejs142]

Personly I prefare "The River of Myths by Hans Rosling" (video called this), there hldemi you will get some of your anwsers from where he got the data from. And of course - no rule will apply on everybody, but what there is is trends and statistics, and Hans Rosling is the guru of statistics. He has used thousands of data from all countries to understand this. Not any experiments.

[@perico781028]

Ridiculous theory.

[@a1ex4e]

This video touches only one reason for high number of children in poor countries. It's high child mortality. But what about other reasons? Such as low education, absence of good contraceptives, influence of religion and tradition, low women employment, low urbanization, higher percentage of young people and so on. I think some of the reasons have a much bigger impact on the problem.

[@icook1723]

This other issues are addressed in Bills and Melinda's annual letter. This video is only a small part of the overall argument for improving the health care and standard of living of the poorest nations as a method of stopping overpopulation. annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_yt_vim0_012018/#section=home

[@a1ex4e]

Ian Cook Thanks. The letter is pretty long, but certainly worth reading.

[@leobav2425]

That depends. If they are from Mexico, then not...

[@calebfortenberry4056]

The actual premise of his arguments has nothing to do with saving children and everything to do with getting people out of poverty and having access to contraceptives. He literally states it after confusing you with a smoke screen of saving poor children. How dumb does he think we are?

[@Szarko32c]

It's sad that we used to could have 5 children and now we can't afford to have two.

[@ThePancakesGuy]

Don't read the comments.

[@ThePancakesGuy]

Wo!262 Because Google+

[@MikaelMurstam]

Also, when you are less poor you can afford condoms.

[@FunAndSeriousYT]

Piipel

[@bryanlizano5873]

Poverty = Children. Big argument. But. Is that the case?

[@despacito4668]

Did you fucking listen?

[@petert.2727]

I find Mr Rosling's logic (or lack thereof) quite disturbing: he basically states in his 3,5 minute speech (at 2:00) that childbirth in poor countries where child mortality is high is caused by a "compensation" for child mortalities. There is no proof whatsoever for this statement during his reasoning and is taken for granted as a "self explanatory" argument. He concludes with his second faulty argument that by improving child survival rates in these poor countries will automatically lead to their decrease of child births, in his visual presentation conveniently adding these countries therefore to the rest of the world. Doing this, he totally ignores the fact that changes in child birth do not DECREASE poverty to any extent in and by itself, magically! He basically mish-mashes the original intent (lowering child mortality rates) and the economic factor together from 2:18, when he states that "by saving the lives of poor children AND HELPING THE LAST TWO BILLION OUT OF POVERTY", chilld birth rates will decrease. This last part totally ruins his argumentation: he states himself that saving poor children by itself will NOT lower world population! It is HELPING THE POOR OUT OF POVERTY that will! Within 3,5 minutes, he basically held a speech contradicting his own initial statement, proving that all the efforts regarding lowering child mortality will have no effect by themselves. Poor show.

[@Panamenya]

One of the most effective ways to help people out of poverty is encouraging them to delay reproduction and focus on education instead. He totally side-steps this and talks as though poverty is inevitable, and our only role is to "save poor kids" so that they magically have fewer kids later. Doesn't work that way.

[@naturazpolski9213]

Once I was wondering why the poorest are making more kids if they can't afford them and just make more patology. Then I watched somewhere that sex is often the only fun parents could have there, so try to tell them to not do it, because they could become poorer. They would have hoped they hadn't got another pregnant. Also I guess if we improve health care, it will took 20 years or something for poor people to stop making more and more children in hope some will liv3

[@Panamenya]

I understand, but in 2022, two adults having sex "for fun" but winding up with a bunch of kids they can't afford to provide for means they are selfish idiots. Even without condoms, the least the man can do is pull out. If he has any love for the woman he's with and the already numerous children they've made, he would at least TRY to prevent subsequent pregnancies.

[@hynekchalus1]

guyz can you just try to look at this from those poorest people perspective before you talk? cuz i see a lot off dezilusional people in comments below. just imagine you have barely enough money to get food if only you work whole day. if you are ill you are dead. if you cant work you are dead. so you logically need kids to help you and those kids ARE helping their parents from very young age. and if you want get them educated you need to get more in order to compensate the loss of help and money. Can you imagine yourself in position where if you have no children you will die alone at every circumstance of bad fortune?

[@horseman1st1]

Fuck that perspective. You have no right to reproduce if you can't take care of yourself. Thinking otherwise is simply selfish.

[@csuporj]

horseman1st1 That's why you force others to pay 50% of their salary for your pension and other subsidies?

[@kevindomenechaliaga8085]

¿Why is he shouting? xD

[@PaintrainX]

It depends on what you mean by "saving". Only when you succeed in building a well-educated civilization in poor areas you can stop the growth eventually. His statement that they have more children to compensate for dying children is also not right. Poorly educated people will have more children in general. That phenomenon is also visible in "rich" parts of the world.

[@9409elle]

Sorry, having trouble taking his accent seriously, but I do agree. Though, how many children does the average first world couple have?

[@cWeeks1992]

2... that was about half of the video

[@Oxodiase]

cWeeks1992 I don't know man.... The first half was kind of vague....

[@9409elle]

cWeeks1992 Yes, according to him. But alot of people have more than 2 kids, so I was thinking he might have rounded off.

[@cWeeks1992]

There probably is some rounding involved, but keep in mind there are a lot of people who have one child or no kids at all!

[@ingebvander]

ja maar.... hoe komt het dan dat zoveel nederlandse gezinnen het nodig vinden om 3 [DRIE] kinderen te krijgen ? Wat is dat voor een hype? ? ?

[@anxietywins8870]

AtheneLIVE

[@bryanclay9285]

On behalf of the internet, I would like to take this time to make fun of his accent

[@XFanmarX]

This seems rather naive. Saving poor children does not immediately equal saving poor families from their poverty. I'm pretty sure there are far more factors involved then just the amount of children versus the amount of spendable money a family in certain environment has. This also assumes that no matter what culture or family you come from you will automatically have less children when you have more money and prosperity. This is not the case when we look at modern christian families that still live in large families as their religion wishes for them to do, and most of the countries with extreme poverty are also the same places where children and religion are the primary source of hope. Not wealth or science. This means your explanation is either insufficient or incorrect. Too many assumptions. Not enough research. This problem cannot be solved by simplifying it, that will only create confusion and, in time, even more problems...

[@Wintran]

He never claimed that this holds for every family without exceptions, only that it is the general rule. And international statistics are clear: The longer people live, the fewer children they have. In other words, there is a strong scientific correlation between life expectancy and lower birth rates. Like you say, there might be some exceptions to this rule because of cultural factors, but those exceptions don't matter when talking about global population growth, because it's the total that counts. Statistics show that once a country reaches a certain level of income and life expectancy, population growth slows down significantly. So I think it's reasonable to assume that the faster a country can reach this level of development, the sooner its population will stop growing. He doesn't say that this change would happen immediately, but the faster the better.

[@JohannesWiberg]

+XFanmarX I think your respons is rather naive. He bases his facts on statistics gathered from around the world. He doesn't look at individual families, and he doesn't assume that every single family or even necessarily every single country follows. This are global trends and changes, all based on very clear statistics. Also, the only way to reach people and make them understand is by simplifying. There is a great danger in doing so but if you don't, people don't listen. It is difficult and there is always something lost, but no one simplifies better than Hans Rosling.

[@XFanmarX]

+Johannes Wiberg You both seem to think in extremes and assume *far* too much. Please realise the logical fallacies in such thoughts. A. Just because you see two numbers seemingly grow or decrease with each other, this doesn't mean that they have anything to do with each other. These past 100 years of prosperity changed the west *a lot* in *many ways* and people seemingly keep forgetting how much of these numerical 'coincidences' exist. In the 70's basically every one in big-business and banking was doing drugs and the economy was doing great! That means bankers these days don't use enough drugs. right?! Have you guys even heard of the correlation-causation problem? B. When a certain results come from in area 1 doesn't mean it will do the exact same thing in area 2 with different cultures etc. Just because something happened *here*, doesn't mean the exact same thing will happen over *there*. That's extremely short-sighted and doesn't rely on data but on presumptions and wishful thinking. C. I've already disproven some of those easy leaps of logic in my earlier comment. You can't solve a gigantic problem with a handful of data that *seems* to imply some things and then say "That's the solution!". Sure it sounds nice and you can get all giddy about it. But it doesn't solve anything. And somehow I'm naive? Please guys get your act together. This isn't simplifying, it's *too simple to be true*.

[@JohannesWiberg]

+XFanmarX Well I'm very glad for you, it's great that you know all the facts about this, that you know exactly everything that Rosling knows and how he's wrong in this. Great for you.

[@jwoya]

+XFanmarX Did you watch the video or just read the title? As he states, the statistics for the 5 billion people in the wealthier countries hold true regardless of culture.

[@bisserka]

the population is you and me. How many children Mr. Rosling do you have? Would you feel guilty of supporting the overpopulation if your wife get twins instead of the second child? Or this happen to your children?

[@csharpvideos1038]

I don't buy this argument. People are just getting their priorities screwed up and deciding that having a large family isn't a good thing.

[@theDudeOfDudes]

It isn't. In of itself it isn't necessarily a bad thing either, but when overcrowding is getting so painfully obvious around the world it is something that should be avoided for the overall economy of the world. -economy meaning more in a sense of logistics, not a monetary sense

[@kemita]

Well then... you go save them. I watch.

[@despacito4668]

Oh believe me he did that his whole life

[@DaDunge]

Denne gigant bland giganter.

[@ruruasile9600]

Ppl are poor becuz some shadow forces want them to be poor for further manipulation purposes

[@AnnkkoR]

Looks a bit too simple for me, sounds logical but there will be always poor children, somebody that we consider rich or average today, will maybe be considered as poor in 50 years.

[@csuporj]

Annko R There are people with 6 children in the first world too. The ones with 1 child do compensate. And probably 2 of the 6 will continue the tradition of 6 children, and 4 will have 2 children. Slowly the first world population gets replaced with the offspring of the poorest people of their country, without any population growth of the coutries total.

[@l-y-d-s]

"Ending population growth starts by saving the poorest children."

[@DudeMcFlude1]

so he's saying pay to keep kids alive and eventually after a long time they will have fewer kids themselves...okay, but how long? people have been helping africa for how long now? and still they have the same problems. how much more money do we have to give before something actually starts to change? tbh if he wanted to stop overpopulation educate them and give them contraceptives, not cash in hand, actually help them

[@petersparks7363]

So how long? In 1974, 25% of world pop in poverty, now its nearly half that (as %). in just over 1 generation.

[@DudeMcFlude1]

So it's getting worse even though we're still giving money...maybe we should give them education like family planning so that if families are worried their children might die young and won't be able to support them when they are elderly, that yes we give them food, water and shelter, but help them understand that with aid their children won't die of hunger or dehydration, so they don't need to have as many. If they aren't taught family planning, two parents have 6 kids that are taken care of, then if they all have families it will be 36 kids that you need to feed, whereas by educating them 2 parents will only have 1 or 2 children. This is how they should be tackling overpopulation.

[@maxandshakira]

It gets worse because certain people are like a out of control virus that just keeps multiplying. If some do gooder saved a family of ten poor kids 20 years ago today that family will proberly have a 100 kids them selves and then that 100 kids multiply and so on and so on.

[@martinjimenez9343]

72 AntiNatalists disagree so far...

[@numerrita]

Somebody should tell this guy to hand over the crystal ball.

[@Philtopy]

This man really makes a totally lobical point.

[@SugarRainer]

+Afro Blasterman it does not fucking work like that, Arabs breed 6+ children no matter how poor or Rich they are in Europe atm.. all of them survive but still they make epic big family's while native Europeans have like 1 or 2 kids...

[@Philtopy]

KlausKinski a middle class arab family has 3 kids on average but what makes their familys so big is their bonds. they tempt to live in huge clans, parents kids, brothers and sisters of the parents grandparents, brothers and sisters of the grand parents and so on, contrary to european familys who normally have small group, father mother kids, grand parents. the insance reproduction really comes from the poor familys. please look up real statistics before you come here with your stereotypical racist bs.

[@SugarRainer]

Afro Blasterman www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598783/Immigration-increasing-British-family-size-official-figures Facts are Racist now i guess...

[@Philtopy]

wow

[@Someonesaidthis]

Could saving poor children also mean by adopting them?

[@sbcand7077]

No dude. There is no causation here. That is pure conjecture. Sounds nice though.

[@mireilleblanc9582]

Completely based on sociology, statistics, facts, and history. Not a jot of conjecture in this. You can trust this guy.

[@sbcand7077]

@@mireilleblanc9582 that may be true, but it is not presented here. It's just a claim (in this context)

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

what no mention of food supply ? We are over populated already. This video is a bit of a crock. Me thinks the gapminder foundation just wants more consumers.

[@Morhua1]

Wrong! I ones saw a poor family that had few children which proves that professor Rosling is wrong! Down with serious science! Go anecdotal evidence!

[@bluetictacthatshootspingpo536]

That's just 1 family you saw compared to millions, you idiot.

[@junxianwu1874]

blue tictac that shoots ping pong balls He's being sarcastic

[@potrebitel3]

Disagree with the explanation. I see around me in the USA that many of the rich families have 3+ kids - either as a social status ("we can afford it") or religious believes. Many of the poorer families have 1 or 2.

[@LoroHusk]

So many nonsense comments around O.o

[@Einardav]

Very sincere and emphatic, but very wrong and therefore a dangerous man to our planet. I wish the ones talking about the dangers and the fact of overpopulation were as convincing .....

[@MosesShelby]

why would you say it is wrong ?

[@Einardav]

He's pushing "the poor children" in front of him when the last thing this planet needs are more people. Yes, there are many children that suffer and they should be better cared for, but the main obstacle is just the fact that we are giving birth to so many children. Let us take care of the ones we have before we introduce more of them to hunger and lack of proper care. It seems very clear that the value of each human life decreases with every added person. This is an almost untouched subject and it is not yet trendy to talk about a significant reduction of the World's enormous population. However, there is little doubt that most problems we face today would either diminish or at least would be significantly reduced with a more manageably sized population. The planet's carrying capacity has been surpassed long ago. We are draining the Earth of all resources at an unprecedented rate even with today's population level. Yes, it is always possible to fit and feed, let's say 15 billion people or even 25 on this planet, but would you really want to? It is a question of how we want the World to be. Do we appreciate a diversity of nature with wild animal life and plants? Do we wish to have plenty of recreational areas and enjoy the outdoors without cuing up? It's quality of life we have to strive for. And that can only be achieved if we are willing to apply common sense. We are in control of this planet and it is up to us to make our home as pleasant as possible. We need to talk about these things.

[@MosesShelby]

I think you have not understood the video. He says that the best way to limit population growth is to help developing countries because there is a link between children mortality and population growth. There is also a link between developement and children mortality. The dangerous thing would be to think that high children mortality would slow population growth. Development is the proven solution.

[@petersparks7363]

this, thank you.