If that were true then first world countries should be growing at an even greater rate since they are the source of medicine and technology. However, countries like the United States and Australia are growing at rates just a little less than 1%
1st world countries tend to have low population growth because of increased birth control measures due to cultural shifts and affluence.Ã‚Â When modern medicine can drastically improve the survivability of offspring it's not necessary to have a large number of children in order to get a few of them to survive.Ã‚Â Additionally, higher education rates of young girls tends to decrease population growth as they are less likely to get married at an extremely young age, more likely to be financially independent, and have fewer children later in life.Ã‚Â We also happen to live in relatively mild climates (US & Europe) that are not subject to the kind of widespread tropical diseases such as Malaria which ravage many third world equatorial nations.
Because they don't fit the idea that modern advancements are the primary factors behind population growth. It seems as though populations grow despite technology in many cases. My example of underdeveloped countries overproducing being one of them. That's significant because it means that the, 'financial and medical aid to the third world,' argument is not a good explanation for the growth that should have taken place over the last million years.
This is quantifiably the most retarded argument I have ever heard, and having lived in third world countries for twelve years I can authoritatively say that your arguments have a degree of wrongness about them comparable to eating yellow snow. Please go to a third world country or just read a wiki article or pretty much ANY reputable publication on population growth in the third world to get a better handle on this.
Modern medicine has provided vaccines which have drastically reduced diseases such as polio throughout much of the world while at the same time severely reducing the mortality rates of diseases such as Malaria which is still the number on killer in Africa, for example. Technological advancements associated with the medical fields such as mosquito nets and those things we call hospitals, tend to improve the life spans of populations for some reason as well. Technological advancements associated with transportation and refrigeration allow for a shift in third world economies from sustanence farming to trading and allow people to have more free time to develop infrastructure and more effective civil governments. They also allow populations to get much needed calories from sources other than what is immediately available, this is especially important when a communities only source of meat is extremely labor-intensive hunting for dwindling wild game.
All these advancements have come at a historically break neck pace; where western culture developed these technologies somewhat slowly and had time to adjust culturally to low infant mortality rates - most third world countries have not. Thus third world cultures typically stress large families to the extreme and under value education for women. Combine this with relatively low infant mortality rates and you get a population explosion.
Seriously, I cannot stress enough how gonadical it is to infer that population growth occurs independent of technological and medical advancements. That's right, "gonadical", I had to make up a new word to express just how awful that point was.
I lurk because I care