Comment by cj
6 months ago
Basically what you’re saying is that the healthiest society is the one whose population is growing the fastest?
I would think life expectancy would be a better measure of a healthy vs unhealthy environment.
6 months ago
Basically what you’re saying is that the healthiest society is the one whose population is growing the fastest?
I would think life expectancy would be a better measure of a healthy vs unhealthy environment.
You're talking about individual health. Regardless of what specifically makes a society healthy, a necessary condition is that it doesn't die out.
A society with a 120 year life expectancy and 0 birth rate isn't healthy.
A society with 20 life expectancy and 6 birth rate is unhealthy but for different reasons.
It’s pretty easy to find high birth rate countries with low life expectancy.
While it’s much more difficult to find countries with high life expectancy with low birth rates (assuming we define “low” as any birth rate lower than necessary for the society to not die out)
I agree with you the 2 need to be balanced, but I assume any society with high life expectancy would also have a sustainable birth rate.
Are Japan and Korea not both high life expectancy but low birth rate. Along with a by other developed countries birth rates dropping while life expectancy is increasing?