|
|
|
|
|
|
by lelandfe
1721 days ago
|
|
|
> You can't assume the amount of people on the planet as some sort of a proxy for well being, by that logic life was 2x worse in the 1960s I know this isn't quite what you were getting at, but child mortality rate is commonly a proxy for well being, is a major factor in the global population increase, and was >4.5x higher in 1960: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-child-mortality-ti... So, in some sense of it, population size is a proxy for well being (at least for now). |
|
|
It is only a proxy for as long as you ignore the last stages of demographic transition or haven't reached them - because in most countries with good health care and safe living conditions, the populations eventually stall or even decline, even though the quality of life doesn't necessarily have to (in lieu of bad political decisions being made).
That said, i do believe that child mortality is probably a more accurate indicator in that regard, since that would be directly correlated to how good the healthcare is and would remain low in the later stages.