On this chart -
A lot of the decline in "extreme poverty" is merely driven by sharp declines in fertility rates among the destitute
That's not an "achievement"
It reminds one of Jonathan Swift and his "Modest Proposal"
A lot of the decline in "extreme poverty" is merely driven by sharp declines in fertility rates among the destitute
That's not an "achievement"
It reminds one of Jonathan Swift and his "Modest Proposal"
This is the kind of chest thumping among the "development" economics crowd that is very annoying and mildly amusing.
Ofcourse the world will have fewer poor people if the poor people breed less. Maybe that's a good thing. But how is that something to be proud of.
Ofcourse the world will have fewer poor people if the poor people breed less. Maybe that's a good thing. But how is that something to be proud of.
And this begs the philosophical question
Isn't a poor life better than no life at all?
This is at the crux of the "pro life" argument
Life is great in itself. As it presents possibilities. There are no possibilities in societal sterility (even if that boosts per-capita income)
Isn't a poor life better than no life at all?
This is at the crux of the "pro life" argument
Life is great in itself. As it presents possibilities. There are no possibilities in societal sterility (even if that boosts per-capita income)
This inane obsession with "statistics" is the bane of modern civilization.
We are so obsessed with "poverty reduction" as a statistical goal that we nearly overlook that this "great feat" is being achieved by that novel idea of breeding less
We are so obsessed with "poverty reduction" as a statistical goal that we nearly overlook that this "great feat" is being achieved by that novel idea of breeding less
It's a bit like cracking an exam by having a lot of cheat-sheets with you that the examiner doesn't spot, and you get away with it.
Should you then pat yourself on the back for not getting caught and aceing the exam?
Should you then pat yourself on the back for not getting caught and aceing the exam?
While development economists like to talk a lot about "living standards" the foregone loss of future lives caused by lower fertility rates doesn't always feature in their calculus.
Post-script -
For those who think my opening tweet was just idle right-wing ranting, here are some numbers -
Uttar Pradesh - one of the poorest and most populous states in India - has had the sharpest decline in fertility rates between 2004 and 2017
2004 - 4.46
2017 - 2.64
For those who think my opening tweet was just idle right-wing ranting, here are some numbers -
Uttar Pradesh - one of the poorest and most populous states in India - has had the sharpest decline in fertility rates between 2004 and 2017
2004 - 4.46
2017 - 2.64
And this is precisely what you see reflecting in those wonderful "poverty reduction" numbers in the graph.
Not a lot more to it.
Not a lot more to it.
