In this TED talk, Rosling makes what appears to be a counter-intuitive claim: to stabilize world population, we must increase child survival rates. Hmmm...sounds mathematically unstable, right? If more children survive, wouldn't that add to the population size?
- Do you agree that we're still in an antiquated mindset? "The Western World and the developing countries"? In a different TED talk, Rosling quotes "my neighbor knows 200 kinds of wine, I know two: red and white. But my neighbor only knows two kinds of countries, western and developing, I know 200". Why is it important to stop thinking in terms of developed and developing?
- Education of women is key; countries where women have the highest literacy rate are also the countries with the lowest family sizes. Smaller family size equals lower infant mortality rates. Should there be a more intense focus on the education of women in our poorest countries? Why or why?
- Anything insightful, new or intriguing catch your attention in this talk?
- Have you experienced Gapminder? How have you/could you use these visualizations for your courses, research or other purposes?
- If you have some extra time, watch these additional talks by Hans Rosling for further insight:
- The Magic Washing Machine: in this short talk, Rosling "shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading."
- Let My Dataset Change Your Mind: taking the Gapminder visualizations on global poverty to test.
I thought this talk was very interesting and very counter-intuitive. However, the demonstration and the graphics were cool. I am not sure there is any take-away from this talk for me. However, what it did do is serve to remind me that there is so much about the world that I have no idea about. I think it is really easy to get isolated from the world and this, once again, demonstrated that we are all just a link away from each other no matter where we call home.
ReplyDeleteI would have like an explaination of ideas to educate the poorer, less educated people.How will this be funded? What can be done? Who will do this?
ReplyDeleteI think the high literacy rate equaling lower number of children isn't so much a matter of education, but of time. When women don't have to walk two miles for water, or grind their own flour, they have time to get an education. Incidentally this is also a product of income. Women who come from wealthy families can afford to have water in their home and to buy ground flour. Income also means they have the money to pay for medical care that would increase the chances of their children surviving to adulthood. So, giving women in underdeveloped counties an education with-out addressing their living situations probably won’t change much.
ReplyDeleteI know my mindset is antiquated and underdeveloped and I believe that is due to my privilege as a white male in a Western/wealthy country. I'm about as far away from connecting to those people in developing/emerging countries as possible. I struggle with that mostly because it would require me to give up a small amount of my comfort/resources in order to allow things to be more equal. I want to help but there are many forces and fears in the United States that play against that. In addition, I think the terms developed and developing are outdated because any country that isn't developing is stagnant and that will lead to decline.
ReplyDeleteI do think there should be a greater focus on the education of women but I think that change will come slow due to longstanding cultural traditions. However, with the help of technology, I think the ability to educate women in a more decentralized way is more possible and efficient. I think many courses and subjects that have already been developed digitally could be altered to fit the needs of these women. I feel that everyone, including women, should have the option to educate themselves if they wish to. It's currently a privilege and I think it should be a right to get an education.
I don't give much thought to this topic but am aware of some of the smaller issues like lack of food, clothing, and education. It's good to see a possible solution and how improving just a few small areas can lead to greater success.
I'm interested in using GapMinder now to track many of our housing figures. We have lots of info but don't have a great way to show it.
I loved his use of very simple items to illustrate his ideas and I'm assuming, facts in his talk. His moving chart was compelling as was his argument that the west continues to ignore these "developing" countries and that will need the change in 2050. When I hear this type of data I feel overwhelmed and cannot imagine that anything I would do will make a difference.
ReplyDeleteRosling's approach is great. His upbeat, clear message, combined with a logical, non-partisan argument seems like it could convince most people to fight for global justice! The way he explains it, global justice isn't for bleeding heart liberals, it's really the most logical way to live. I love this!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara that educating women and improving their day-to-day lives is probably the most efficient way to go about starting that downward shift in the # of children per family. I agree with Tom, too, that cultural traditions will be shaken by moves to make this happen. Still, it's interesting to think that if we "westerners" support efforts to make lives better for another country's moms and babies, we'll be helping the entire world.
I do think there are things we can do that will make a difference. There are plenty of organizations that work with people in developing countries to improve lives. We can give our financial support to them (we westerners have lots of money in comparison with the rest of the world). We can also urge congresspeople to support international aid for programs like this.
I've seen those GapMinder charts with the moving dots before--they are very cool. They appeal to us tech-lovin' westerners!
I don't understand, but would like to understand, why he takes the increase in infant survival rate as *causing* the decrease in birth rate. Did I miss something?
ReplyDeleteI had the same question as Jon. I watched the video several times, and he doesn't make this connection. I think his assumption is that with low child-survival rates, people have more children so that they can be assured that some of them will survive. (But I don't see any evidence for this statement in the talk.)
DeleteI'm not sure if he has a cause, but was simply using demographic facts. I'm sure he has his reasons for why this is occurring, but no, he didn't cover them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI was also confused as to whether Rosling was claiming that there was causality or just an observed correlation between infant survival rate and birth rate. If he was making a causality claim, he certainly didn't make that clear.
DeleteI agree with the other comments about cultural differences being "barriers" to educating women in many countries. Although this is not an area I know a lot about. I'm certainly uneducated about "developing" countries, so I am certainly proof about the "western and others" theory, not that I'm proud of it.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by his topic. I understand there are probably other theories out there, but I thought it made a lot of sense. And there is a lot I can do to educate myself on the different worlds out there!
I enjoyed the presentation but I fear the simplicity of the presentation leaves us with the misplaced notion that the solution is simple. I am reminded of H.L. Mencken’s quote “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong”.
ReplyDeleteI started to tell of the team that spent a year with trying to improve the education for women in Afghanistan. After rereading it, it was way too depressing to post... Lots of money and dedicated people are having little to no effect. It is way bigger than some want to admit.
The presentation was fun though.
Recently I watched a documentary on Link TV entitled "To Educate a Girl"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.linktv.org/programs/viewchange-to-educate-a-girl?hm
It was about girls in Nepal and Uganda and what is being done to convince their families to educate them. The general opinion seemed to be that boys will marry but continue to take care of their parents while girls will marry and be lost to their parents.
Education can certainly provide new ways of problem-solving for those who have not had such opportunities before. This would include the ability to see that having more children, a number of whom will die from lack of food and health care, is not the only option.
Also, I think the illustration that the developing nations will serve as the foundation for changes that will occur by 2050 could be helpful to those that believe the developed nations must always be on top and are willing to subjugate others for fear of losing status.
An abridged version of a truly brilliant comment that was eaten by the ether...
ReplyDelete(a) the points about population are pretty well-known, at least in politics; and
(b) it was interesting to me that he called on NGOs like the Gates Foundation to help, but didn't mention governments. The US has in the past contributed to the United Nations Family Planning Agency... I don't think it does now, because of conservative (mainly Roman Catholic) opposition to birth control and abortion.
I think many of us will have a hard time getting used to being the foundation and not the leaders in the world. I understand part of what he says about the stopping of population growth by increasing child survival. But somehow it doesn't make sense.
ReplyDelete