mike_mccue
Ok,
Now there is yet another casual generality that inspires further investigation.
The industrial revolution happened from the mid 1700's through to the mid 1800's.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chances of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the Industrial Revolution (although infant mortality rates were reduced markedly).[70][71]
70) ^ a b Mabel C. Buer, Health, Wealth and Population in the Early Days of the Industrial Revolution, London: George Routledge & Sons, 1926, page 30 ISBN 0-415-38218-1 ^ Bar, Michael; Leukhina, Oksana (2007). http://www.unc.edu/~oksana/Paper1.pdf]"Demographic Transition and Industrial Revolution: A Macroeconomic Investigation"[/link] (PDF). Archived from the original on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
71) "The decrease [in mortality] beginning in the second half of the 18th century was due mainly to declining adult mortality. Sustained decline of the mortality rates for the age groups 5-10, 10-15, and 15-25 began in the mid-19th century, while that for the age group 0-5 began three decades later". Although the survival rates for infants and children were static over this period, the birth rate & overall life expectancy increased. Thus the population grew, but the average Briton was about as old in 1850 as in 1750 (see figures 5 & 6, page 28). Population size statistics from mortality.org put the mean age at about 26.
I'm guessing you meant from "then" to "now", rather than from then to then when you used the term Industrial Revolution.
I not in disagreement with your conclusion that more people overall survive to live long lives... I'm just commenting on the proofs you are offering, as they seem familiar and easy to agree with, yet leave me feeling as if they are some sort of convenient substitute for the discussion of nuanced details that will be required before any matters are settled on the subject of voluntary peaceful coexistence.
In any event, the world certainly seems more crowded than ever.
all the best,
mike
The thing is, every single issue has layers of complexity. How deeply you want to get into it really depends upon the format of the discussion and how much time you have. I've been into these long-winded intellectual debates online where successive replies get increasingly verbose and involved, and before you know it each party is writing an essay complete with charts and quotes and links. And you log on to see yet another post that you have to reply to....and you know that reply is going to involve a lot of Google research to find the facts and figures you need. Sooner or later you have to put a stop to it.
So yeah, a simple chart showing average life expectancy kind of glosses over a lot of the nuance, and we could sit here all night thrashing over that nuance until the cows come home. But I guess that's something that nobody here really wants to get into
The overall point I was trying to make is that the Industrial Revolution and the technology and wealth creation that it made possible has improved living conditions almost immeasurably, and as much as we can argue the details of average life expectancy and what it actually meant, a simple observation of the explosion of world population since the IR kinda says it all. Populations thrive when living conditions improve.
And yeah, you could say that the world is getting more and more crowded, but personally that doesn't bother me one little bit. The thing about complaining about population growth is, it takes a certain amount of arrogance. You are in effect saying "these new people being born....they shouldn't be here. I, however, have a perfect right to live, and my existence on this earth isn't part of that overcrowding problem." I guess the only non-hypocritical stance to take against overcrowding would be to sterilize ones self, or taking it further, to commit suicide.
Some people look at the exponential explosion in population growth since the IR and see a scourge. I have heard people talk like this. They are, in essence, anti-human. I see population growth as a direct reflection of improved living conditions, and of fewer babies dying. That makes me happy. I also think that it's worth considering this: the more people in the world, the more brain power we have to contribute to the problems of hunger and poverty. The leaps and strides that the human race have made in terms of knowledge and technology have, let's face it, come from a relatively minuscule pool of people. The more people we have, the larger that pool is going to be.