
Three facts from “Our World in Data” that everyone should know - muramira
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know?WT.mc_id=20180626180003_MaxRoser_BG-LI
======
andrepd
I think this is the most important thing to retain from reading this article:

>[...] Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the
past and it is still awful.

>To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we
can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point
out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world
as it is today. And when I feel hopeless in the face of this tragedy, I
remember that we reduced annual child deaths from 20 million to 5.6 million in
the last fifty years.

Keeping this in mind at all times is a very important thing.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
I agree with you, and that's succinctly said. It reminded me of this article
from a couple days ago.

>Trump administration claims only 250,000 Americans live in extreme poverty,
despite UN estimates of 18m

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
extreme...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-extreme-
poverty-numbers-un-nikki-haley-trump-a8417001.html)

~~~
skybrian
These seem to be two different measurements of "extreme poverty," each of
which is different from the world-wide definition used by economists in the
original article:

"The UN’s numbers come from the official Census definition which has been kept
for decades by the US government, defining extreme poverty as having an income
lower than half the official poverty rate."

"Citing a recent survey of American households, Heritage found only 0.08 per
cent of American households (or about to 250,000) are in “deep poverty,”
defined by Heritage as living on less than $4 (£3) a day. This statistic does
account for government social spending programmes which help the poor – like
Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance – while the figure cited by the
UN does not."

I guess if you're going to memorize facts, you should also memorize
definitions.

------
bungie4
First off, I stand up and applaud the Gates Foundation, and everybody, who
work to improve the lives of everybody on the planet.

WRT: Extreme Poverty, a few years back, we had a political party who tackled
the problem of poverty by redefining the measuring stick of what constitutes
poverty. _POOF_ much celebration and self-handshaking when they announced that
during their term, their efforts dropped the number of people living in
poverty by a very significant amount.

This has left a bad taste in my mouth ever since to never trust claims from
politicians.

So I wonder, in the case of this article, how many of those people no longer
living at the adjusted poverty line and now only marginally above it and no
longer included. They're still their, but buy grace of a single digit, are now
considered much better off.

~~~
babbadook
If you are curious here is the larger exploration of global poverty from Our
World in Data: [https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-
poverty](https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty)

It has been a while since I read it but I found it quite compelling. If i
remember correctly, the measures are based on consumption of goods per day to
try to avoid complications related to differing economic systems. Also while
it is true that measures can be manipulated to tell the story you want, it
does not appear that that has been done in a significant way here. Even if it
had i doubt that, such an extreme 90% -> 10% drop could be shown even with the
most crooked measuring stick if things had not been genuinely improving a lot.
Incidentally, my brother used to be a full on marxist until he read this data
and completely abandoned that belief system.

------
WA
There is a fantastic video by Hans Rosling about the global population growth
and why global population might actually stall around 10 billion people:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth/up-
next)

This relates to fact 2 in the article.

~~~
lancebeet
His foundation's website also has some really nice data visualizations:
[https://www.gapminder.org/tools/](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/)

~~~
amingilani
Here's a UN chart:
[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/)

------
amingilani
Relevant Kurzgesagt video on overpopulation:
[https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348](https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348)

I learnt about the overpopulation myth during my undergrad, but I'm
continuously surprised by how many people (including Thanos) didn't know this.

Edit: Here's a chart of expected population growths. It's expected to start
slowing down[1]

[1]: Select WORLD from the menu:
[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/)

~~~
ItsMe000001
I don't see why you called it myth. Just because it sort of works short term
does not tell you anything about long term consequences. Earth has changed
drastically with all the humans on it. You need _a lot_ of optimism about
solutions for global warming and pollution. The linked short "feel good" video
asks an extreme question "Will this lead to the end of our civilization?"
(pretend the other side made a ridiculous claim to make them look foolish and
to easily counter what nobody said), takes an incredibly _tiny_ number of data
well selected to support the desired conclusion, and of course lots of
colorful animations - I'm supposed to take that seriously? I find the myth
that the myth is a myth to be too mythical for my taste.

~~~
amingilani
I think you misunderstand, the video isn't a happy colorful animation about an
optimistic conclusion to humanity's problems. It discusses _one specific
problem_ : over-population. And distills a ton of data collected over the
several decades to offer the conclusion.

Historical evidence supports that a decrease in mortality rates is followed by
a decrease in birth rate. Here, check out the data for yourself[1]

The theory of population growth leading to resource depletion is fairly old.
Thomas Malthus published this in 1798[2], but guess what: we're all still
alive, despite growing over 7 billion in size, and the empirical evidence
debunked this theory. There are a fairly large number of theories why this
didn't happen, but that's off topic.

My point is:

\- The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but
we've seen no evidence to it yet.

\- Population growth eventually slows down when the mortality rate decreases.

\- The population growth rate is expected to begin slowing[3]

\- Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't
necessarily mean they're wrong.

[1]: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-
Mi...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-Mitchell)

[2]:[https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-
theory/](https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/)

[3]:[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/)

~~~
ItsMe000001
> _It discusses one specific problem: over-population_

As I said, they make exactly zero effort to say anything of substance about
that issue. Key word is "over". I refer back to my comment. They say something
about "population" \- but the vital "over-" part is not addressed at all. For
good reason, that's a complex topic with mostly unknowns.

> _Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn 't
> necessarily mean they're wrong._

If there is no substance and the topic is complex and big than that alone is
wrong already.

~~~
amingilani
There are unknowns, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't build estimations and
try to reduce the unknowns. That's how econometrics works. And that's how the
UN came up with projected expectations:
[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/](https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/)

------
TangoTrotFox
I'm curious about one thing. Like the article alludes to there is currently an
extremely strong connection between fertility and low education, low income,
and high religiosity. This [1] is a list of nations by _net_ natural
population growth. So births - deaths. From the top (according to UN
predictions for 2015-2020): Uganda, Angola, Mali, Somalia, Tanzania, etc. From
the bottom on nations that are collectively dying: Bulgaria, Latvia, Ukraine,
Hungary, Lithuana, Romania, Portugal, Greece, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.

One of the facts is that 137,000 people/day have been escaping 'extreme
poverty'. But what happens when the part of society that is living in
economically stable and educated households is not even reproducing to the
point of replacing itself, while those living in low education and low income
households are massively reproducing?

The natural response here is that if we can just improve the situation of
places such as Africa then this situation ought resolve itself with birth
rates starting to become comparable thus preventing a condemnation of the next
generation. There are two problems with this view. The first is that this
relies exclusively on a correlation which to date has proved less than
predictive of African fertility levels. More importantly this effect is not
just international but also intranational. Those who earn the most in the US
have the fewest children with households earning less than $10,000 having a
50% greater fertility rate than those earning $200,000+. [2] It seems we're
creating a society where each new birth is more and more likely to come into
this world in some of the least appropriate households.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase)

[2a] - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-
fam...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-
income-in-the-us/)

[2b] -
[https://www.census.gov/topics/health/fertility.html](https://www.census.gov/topics/health/fertility.html)
(the link to statista presents this data in a cleaner format - also adding
this as just a more reliable source)

~~~
BerislavLopac
> But what happens when the part of society that is living in economically
> stable and educated households > is not even reproducing to the point of
> replacing itself, while those living in low education and low > income
> households are massively reproducing?

Migration is what happens. Followed by integration.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Can you explain how you see this as a solution?

We can view this problem on any scale as it seems to be applicable everywhere.
On a world scale the fundamental issue is that people who are of low
education, low income, and high religiosity are increasingly the ones
primarily repopulating our planet. This means that any given child is more and
more likely to be born into this sort of circumstance. And many of these
characteristics tend to pass from parent to child. It matters not what chunk
of land they call home.

~~~
icebraining
_low education, low income, and high religiosity_

This describes much of Europe less than a century ago. None of my grandparents
had more than four years of schooling. The local priest had enough power to
imprison people. People were punished for homossexual acts until quite
recently (e.g. Turing). In Ireland, divorce only became legal in _1995_.

Low income and education is not a genetic characteristic, it can and is
changeable.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Right, but the problem is once people do obtain a healthy income and good
education, they are not reproducing even to the point of sustainability.
Because of this we end up taking 1 step forward, but then 2 steps back. You
bring x units of population to education, out of poverty, and so on. But then
they fail to reproduce to the point of sustainability. At the same time, some
number much larger than x units that remains in poverty is reproducing like
there is no tomorrow.

This is a new factor in an old problem. People reproducing beyond their means
of sustenance is nothing new. What is new is that those of means are now
failing to reproduce.

~~~
frockington
Why not let people in prosperous regions have a smaller population. I would
love a country of smaller cities and increased prosperity

~~~
TangoTrotFox
These are again the tangential issues. I think you as well as the person I was
initially responding to are conflating this issue with the one of decreasing
population. I agree with you - I do not see population decline as a problem in
and of itself.

The problem is population dynamics. Those that are more well to do and most
capable of producing productive offspring are not doing so. By contrast those
least able to care for and produce productive offspring are multiplying.
Imagine we start with a nation that's incredibly prosperous - there are 9
wealthy families and one poor family. But each generation the wealthy families
only have 1.6 children on average - 80% of what's necessary to maintain their
population. By contrast the poor family has an average of 3 children - 150% of
what's necessary to maintain their population.

Generation 1: 9 wealthy, 1 poor

Generation 2: 7.2 wealthy, 1.5 poor

Generation 3: 5.76 wealthy, 2.25 poor

Generation 4: 4.6 wealthy, 3.38 poor

Generation 5: 3.68 wealthy, 5.06 poor

Generation 6: 2.94 wealthy, 7.59 poor

Of course as has been mentioned some of the poor will become wealthy and some
of the wealthy will become poor, but all things being equal even in very
socially balanced nations the parents' income is strongly correlated with the
child's. People of no means reproducing beyond their ability to sustain
themselves is not a new problem, and is something people have pondered for
centuries. But what is new here is that people of means are no longer
producing enough to even sustain their population. When you combine these
effects together, it turns poverty into a sort of virus that spreads and
expands rapidly. Our utopia where 90% of people are wealthy ( _somehow.. that
doesn 't even make sense if you consider the connotation of wealthy, but
that's another topic_) ended up being a nation that was heavily impoverished
in just 6 generations.

I also think a somewhat interesting pattern to observe in those numbers is
that there was a population decline during periods of prosperity, but as the
nation became more impoverished its population began to rapidly grow. The
generation where the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy being the first
generation to have a greater total population than we started with at
generation 1.

The whole point here is that all the work in the world against poverty means
nothing if those that escape poverty do not reproduce, while those that remain
within it do!

------
rubyn00bie
If you want more facts like this I’d highly suggest anything but Steven Pinker
especially:

[https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-
Violence/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-
Violence/dp/0143122010/ref=nodl_)

~~~
alberto_ol
I am always confused buy the expression "anything but". I assume you want to
suggest that people should read the Pinker's book, but I think it could be
interpreted also as read everything except that book.
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8061/what-is-
the...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8061/what-is-the-
difference-between-nothing-but-anything-but-and-everything-bu)

~~~
vosper
I think “anything but” was just a typo for “anything by”

~~~
mnx
For full correctness, it should be "... anything by Steven Pinker,
especially..."

------
twoslide
There's an interesting link between Facts 1 and 2 that the author misses:

> Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6
> million a year.

About half of this reduction (from 20 - 10 million) is because:

> Fact #2: Since 1960, the fertility rate has fallen by half.

Globally, the population of young people has decreased. Child mortality has
decreased, too, but not by a factor of 3.

[1]
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS)
World Bank reports 0-14 years, rather than 0-5 used for infant mortality.

~~~
meritt
You seem to be forgetting that during this time period the world population
grew from 2.5B to 7.5B. That's faster than the fertility rate decreased.

> Globally, the population of young people has decreased.

The proportion of the population which are young people has decreased but the
total population of young people has increased significantly:
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO)

~~~
crazynick4
> You seem to be forgetting that during this time period the world population
> grew from 2.5B to 7.5B.

Older people were also staying alive longer - the death rate no longer offset
the birth rate to the same extent as before.

------
petermcneeley
Looks good right? but all is not so great. Whats happening is a squeezing of
the middle.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1oHJezqBYU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1oHJezqBYU)

Thats why this is also front page HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413622](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413622)

~~~
frockington
What is inherently wrong with squeezing the middle? Seems like you'll get
increased competition and innovation as people scramble to move to the top.
Could be a net positive for mankind

~~~
petermcneeley
By that logic I think you would want to squeeze the top right? I mean if you
remove the middle then people will have to fill the middle before the even
attempting at the top (and the top is saturated under current conditions) ;)

Beyond such myopic reasoning I think there is a great deal of economic theory
around the collective economic benefits of having a strong middle class. You
could try to argue against this but I think its at least a popular mainstream
theory.

~~~
frockington
It is a popular mainstream theory. I'm not optimistic that this can continue.
With technological innovations, I am convinced that we will end up in a can
and cannot society where some people will be able to keep up and some won't.

~~~
petermcneeley
Well if we all go around promoting the destruction of the middle class im
confident will be able to create that future that you are unoptimistic about
;)

How it will turn out is kinda unknown. 100 years ago many people couldnt read
and worked on farms. We past the first transition quite well, how will we fair
in the next transition is indeterminate. I do know that this is the one area
where what people THINK actually could have an effect on the outcome. (unlike
most science)

------
incidentnormal
The book which Bill Gates recently gave a copy of to all 2018 college
graduates - Factfulness, is a very well written and comprehensive treatment of
this and more by Hans Rosling (Gapminder). Highly recommended, it's not long
either - you could read it in a couple of evenings or a weekend easily.

------
wslh
The world population has almost doubled from 1960 to 2018. I think this makes
the #1 fact much stronger.

~~~
nicolas_t
but the fertility rate has fallen by half which compensates for the doubling
of the world population

~~~
jeffreyrogers
There are still more kids born now than back then, so the decline in absolute
child mortality shows progress.

------
crazynick4
I don't think the graph regarding extreme poverty accounts for inflation. I
don't know what an international dollar is, assuming its close, but 1.90 USD
in 1850 is equivalent to about $55 today (according to Google), or 20,000 USD
per year. That's not extreme poverty, I've lived on less than that.

