My AP human geography teacher is a big fan of the show and said that if I can identify and describe which stage of the demographic transition model each of the major continents is in then I will get 3 points added to a major grade. Please help thanks
"The world enters the last phase of the demographic transition and this means we will not repeat the past. The global population has quadrupled over the course of the 20th century, but it will not double anymore over the course of this century. "
https://preview.redd.it/jx3h1qu8v9i71.png?width=1500&format=png&auto=webp&s=cbfe6080c1fa0524b06250af22e6bc435f71f870
"The world population will reach a size, which compared to humanity’s history, will be extraordinary; if the UN projections are accurate (they have a good track record), the world population will have increased more than 10-fold over the span of 250 years.
We are on the way to a new balance. The big global demographic transition that the world entered more than two centuries ago is then coming to an end: This new equilibrium is different from the one in the past when it was the very high mortality that kept population growth in check. In the new balance it will be low fertility keeps population changes small."
Source : Our World In Data - Two centuries of rapid global population growth will come to an end
According to data in: https://www.basvanleeuwen.net/bestanden/agriclongrun1250to1850.pdf wheat yields per acre doubled between high middle ages and end of 18th century, introduction of the potato brought further 2x-3x increase in calories produced per acre. Former was mostly caused by improvements in crop rotation, latter was a product of transatlantic exploration, neither is directly attributable to industrial revolution. Additionally, it seems the trend of population growth started before industrial revolution really got going. So my question is, did industrial revolution cause demographic transition, or was it the other way around?
Additional question: Improvements in medicine/public health and resulting reduction in child mortality are also often being credited for demographic transition, but highly skewed sex ratios in pre-modern times (https://books.google.cz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xN7gDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA285&dq=%22Irene+Barbiera%22+sex+ratio&ots=WPxFIE9lRq&sig=LmPjkbl41qIO6SSXCZXLdj3hUo4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Irene%20Barbiera%22%20sex%20ratio&f=false) suggest that at least female infanticide was routinely practiced as a form of population control in face of food constraints and that if medieval people wanted, they could have reduced child mortality even without modern medicine. So were improvements in medicine really the primary cause, or are they also downstream from improvements in productivity of agricultural land?
A couple of interesting papers:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2015.0157
> ‘Demographic transition theory’ assumes that fertility decline is irreversible. This commonly held assumption is based on observations of recent and historical reductions in fertility that accompany modernization and declining mortality. The irreversibility assumption, however, is highly suspect from an evolutionary point of view, because demographic traits are at least partially influenced by genetics and are responsive to social and ecological conditions. Nonetheless, an inevitable shift from high mortality and fertility to low mortality and fertility is used as a guiding framework for projecting human population sizes into the future. This paper reviews some theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that the assumption of irreversibility is ill-founded, at least without considerable development in theory that incorporates evolutionary and ecological processes. We offer general propositions for how fertility could increase in the future, including natural selection on high fertility variants, the difficulty of maintaining universal norms and preferences in a large, diverse and economically differentiated population, and the escalating resource demands of modernization.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2013.2561
> Correlations in family size across generations could have a major influence on human population size in the future. Empirical studies have shown that the associations between the fertility of parents and the fertility of children are substantial and growing over time. Despite their potential long-term consequences, intergenerational fertility correlations have largely been ignored by researchers. We present a model of the fertility transition as a cultural process acting on new lifestyles associated with fertility. Differences in parental and social influences on the acquisition of these lifestyles result in intergenerational correlations in fertility. We show different scenarios for future population size based on models that disregard intergenerational correlations in fertility, models with fertility correlations and a single lifestyle, and models with fertility correlations and multiple lifestyles. We show that intergenerational fertility correlations will result in an in
... keep reading on reddit ➡Will Vicky 3 represent the demographic transition that comes with industrialization? How I think they would model it is directly tie pop growth/fertility rate with the availability of certain consumer goods or with the wealth/strata of the pop so that richer pops have less children than poorer pops.
Has anyone wondered what humanity will do when the demographic transition occurs?
(The demographic transition is the process of increasing retirement age citizens and decreasing working age citizens, i.e. increasing the average age of the population.)
In Europe this process is already well underway, which is reflected in higher taxes. But it will not be possible to raise taxes indefinitely to pay pensions. Nor will it help much to take this retirement age into account, since most people 60+ already have health problems and poorer memory, which will not allow them to compete with younger professionals.
In Russia, where I live, there is no such problem, because we don't have normal pensions)
Do you know any ways to solve the problem? If so, please write. The worst thing is that no one has come up with a solution to this catastrophe yet.
I propose that what we're living through now is a Second Demographic Transition. The First Demographic Transition was the transition from a high fertility/high infant death rate - society, to a low fertility/low infant death rate - society. In the West this transition was completed some time in the 60s or 70s.
However, the transition was ever always uneven. There remained well-defined parts of society which kept a stubbornly high fertility. But these were drowned out of the general picture by being a small minority. Over time those pockets of high fertility will grow, and instead of being drowned out by the much larger low fertility mainstream, will come to drown out the naturally declining low fertility groups. This is the second transition. The Second Demographic Transition is the transition from low/unevenly distributed fertility - society to a high/evenly distributed fertility - society.
Whether what distinguish high fertility from low fertility groups is ruled by culture/religion or by genetics (personally I think a little both) is of little matter. Either the genes that lead to low fertility will vanish through normal natural evolution, or the cultural/religious groups which lead to low fertility will vanish through normal replacement.
The Western world lived through the First Demographic Transition at a much slower pace than the rest of the world, which tend to follow the Western world at a later time and over much more compressed time span. This may in part explain why both South European and East Asian countries seem to crash to a much lower fertility level than North/Western Europe + USA - and why France has managed to keep a relatively high fertility rate. France started the first transition as the first country, and North/Western Europe in general started it before South Europe/East Asia. So a larger part of society is already well underway through the second transition, which sets a lower bound to how low the fertility rate can go.
This such a natural process I almost fail to see how it could not be. We're all descendents of people who had children. All living creatures in the future will be descendents of creatures who have children today.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong with the others:
1st stage (high CDR, high CBR): before 1868/70
2nd stage (decreasing CDR, high CBR): 1868/70 - 1920
3rd stage (low CDR, decreasing CBR): 1920 - ????
4th stage (low CDR, low CBR): ???? - 2006
5th stage/'2nd demographic transition' (increasing CDR, low/ further decreasing CBR): after 2006
Hello, community!
I know that mechanics mentioned in the title of the post will be implemented in 3.0 (at least migration will be), but is there any submod that simulates that kind of demographics? I like MEIOU and Taxes very much in current state, but comparing it to hypothetic 3.0 described in devblogs boosts my desire to play M&T with some extra features, especially those regarding population dynamics. So is there any submod or something like that? Thanks in advance for any reply!
A couple of interesting papers:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2015.0157
> ‘Demographic transition theory’ assumes that fertility decline is irreversible. This commonly held assumption is based on observations of recent and historical reductions in fertility that accompany modernization and declining mortality. The irreversibility assumption, however, is highly suspect from an evolutionary point of view, because demographic traits are at least partially influenced by genetics and are responsive to social and ecological conditions. Nonetheless, an inevitable shift from high mortality and fertility to low mortality and fertility is used as a guiding framework for projecting human population sizes into the future. This paper reviews some theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that the assumption of irreversibility is ill-founded, at least without considerable development in theory that incorporates evolutionary and ecological processes. We offer general propositions for how fertility could increase in the future, including natural selection on high fertility variants, the difficulty of maintaining universal norms and preferences in a large, diverse and economically differentiated population, and the escalating resource demands of modernization.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2013.2561
> Correlations in family size across generations could have a major influence on human population size in the future. Empirical studies have shown that the associations between the fertility of parents and the fertility of children are substantial and growing over time. Despite their potential long-term consequences, intergenerational fertility correlations have largely been ignored by researchers. We present a model of the fertility transition as a cultural process acting on new lifestyles associated with fertility. Differences in parental and social influences on the acquisition of these lifestyles result in intergenerational correlations in fertility. We show different scenarios for future population size based on models that disregard intergenerational correlations in fertility, models with fertility correlations and a single lifestyle, and models with fertility correlations and multiple lifestyles. We show that intergenerational fertility correlations will result in an in
... keep reading on reddit ➡Also, please correct me if I'm wrong with the others:
1st stage (high CDR, high CBR): before 1868/70
2nd stage (decreasing CDR, high CBR): 1868/70 - 1920
3rd stage (low CDR, decreasing CBR): 1920 - ????
4th stage (low CDR, low CBR): ???? - 2006
5th stage/'2nd demographic transition' (increasing CDR, low/ further decreasing CBR): after 2006
