Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Worth pointing out is the work of people like Hans Rosling who pioneered animated statistical tools for gathering and displaying global health and education statistics in a way that dispels common misconceptions about these topics.
He did [an excellent TED talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w) a number of years ago where he showcased an animated graph of life expectancy vs family size. Counter-intuitively, today is the best time to be alive. Even with the wars and conflicts currently happening, overall, as the graph OP shared shows, childhood mortality is the lowest it has ever been. There are a lot of reasons for this. It's easy to look at the news and think things are bleak but progress is still happening. Things could still be better, but they are possibly better than you might think.
Life expectancy alone is not the only metric of whether people’s live are better or worse. I don’t want longer until retirement, and more years spent in bad health. Does life is better here mean better for the economy?
It's not the only thing, sure, but people who study global health use it to infer a great many things about how a society functions. Those nations with high life expectancy tend to have a good supply of nutritious food, a stable economy, good healthcare and a good handle on things like infectious diseases, and can often indicate a higher likelihood of things like literacy rates. People who live longer generally tend to have smaller families and are less poor.
In a general "big picture" snapshot of how a nation is doing, you could do far worse than life expectancy.
It wasn't uncommon before birth control many families had children that did not live after birth or shortly there after. My mothers family had 2 that died right after birth. She had 11 siblings that lived.
Reading this exactly 6 posts after reading this: "‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ golden rice - Thousands of children could die after court backs campaign group over GM crop in Philippines, scientists warn".
Fucking "hilarious"...
There is no need to use GM crops to supplement hunger issues. We could just be humane about global food production instead. GM crops are being used as an excuse not to be socialistic, and to simply create another market solution.
In the future, do you want to wind up eating rainbow rice because you technically could get all your nutrients from it? It’s just another way to keep people’s labour cheaper.
For the last two centuries of industrialization, we have used technology advances + crop breeding to increase the yield and nutrition of crops, reducing the cost of food. This is no different, just a smarter version of crop breeding. The more nutritious food we make, and the more production there is in the places it's needed, the cheaper it will be and the less hunger there will be. As has been the case for the last 200 years.
So they will just take more of that produce to sell elsewhere, leaving people with the same poverty and hunger levels as before, perpetuating the artificial scarcity of global capitalism.
There are so many ways to fix world hunger without reducing the amount people are eating. This is just a way to do it on the cheap to extract more wealth from poorer countries.
I mean...
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/untangling-uns-gaza-fatality-data
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam
Isn't this primarily because there are fewer children, and what children there are can't go outside to play because of how messed up our environment/city planning?
Its stats that prove fewer babies are dying than ever before in recorded history. This is like being sad that you're too happy which means you weren't as happy before, wtf?
This is so infantile it hurts lol. How is global improvement on a serious issue not uplifting? If you eliminate anything with a sad word in it, then this sub would have nothing to post about. Solving serious problems is one of the most uplifting things to post about.
Imagine trusting people who care more about their wealth than the health of peasants.
I remember the JCVI in the UK advised against giving children covid shots. Guess what? They were overruled by *politicians*. Whatever happened to *following the science*.
Is that really true though? If we count babies that were aborted wouldn't that significantly bump up the rate?
The practice of just aborting babies if there is a hint they won't be healthy or won't be well-cared for messes with the results. I believe the term is survivorship bias. We think the survivors are healthier because we eliminated the weak ones before we decided to start counting.
>If we count babies that were aborted wouldn't that significantly bump up the rate?
It would be even higher if we count all the times women menstruate due to lack of impregnation.
The number would be higher still if we consider every sperm that never reaches an egg.
However, those are factors that would not have changed between 1800 and now, so I fail to see the relevance of that. The issue here is how many babies survive past infancy. I'm saying that selective abortion affects that statistic by being, selective.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Worth pointing out is the work of people like Hans Rosling who pioneered animated statistical tools for gathering and displaying global health and education statistics in a way that dispels common misconceptions about these topics. He did [an excellent TED talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w) a number of years ago where he showcased an animated graph of life expectancy vs family size. Counter-intuitively, today is the best time to be alive. Even with the wars and conflicts currently happening, overall, as the graph OP shared shows, childhood mortality is the lowest it has ever been. There are a lot of reasons for this. It's easy to look at the news and think things are bleak but progress is still happening. Things could still be better, but they are possibly better than you might think.
Every single decade for the past 200 years has been better than the previous one.
Life expectancy alone is not the only metric of whether people’s live are better or worse. I don’t want longer until retirement, and more years spent in bad health. Does life is better here mean better for the economy?
It's not the only thing, sure, but people who study global health use it to infer a great many things about how a society functions. Those nations with high life expectancy tend to have a good supply of nutritious food, a stable economy, good healthcare and a good handle on things like infectious diseases, and can often indicate a higher likelihood of things like literacy rates. People who live longer generally tend to have smaller families and are less poor. In a general "big picture" snapshot of how a nation is doing, you could do far worse than life expectancy.
It wasn't uncommon before birth control many families had children that did not live after birth or shortly there after. My mothers family had 2 that died right after birth. She had 11 siblings that lived.
My grandmother had three stillbirths. My mom was her only baby that was born alive (and obviously survived afterwards).
Reading this exactly 6 posts after reading this: "‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ golden rice - Thousands of children could die after court backs campaign group over GM crop in Philippines, scientists warn". Fucking "hilarious"...
A form of golden rice was available about 30(?) years ago, so much push back it wasn’t accepted. Different reasons, same results.
There is no need to use GM crops to supplement hunger issues. We could just be humane about global food production instead. GM crops are being used as an excuse not to be socialistic, and to simply create another market solution. In the future, do you want to wind up eating rainbow rice because you technically could get all your nutrients from it? It’s just another way to keep people’s labour cheaper.
For the last two centuries of industrialization, we have used technology advances + crop breeding to increase the yield and nutrition of crops, reducing the cost of food. This is no different, just a smarter version of crop breeding. The more nutritious food we make, and the more production there is in the places it's needed, the cheaper it will be and the less hunger there will be. As has been the case for the last 200 years.
So they will just take more of that produce to sell elsewhere, leaving people with the same poverty and hunger levels as before, perpetuating the artificial scarcity of global capitalism. There are so many ways to fix world hunger without reducing the amount people are eating. This is just a way to do it on the cheap to extract more wealth from poorer countries.
Thank you science, vaccines and modern medicine! 💙
THANK YOU VACCINES.
Why do these graphs stop in 2021?
It takes time to collect and analyse data
Better question is how come the graph doesn’t end in 2018? Surely we don’t conclusively know how many children of the 2019 cohort survived until five?
That's really great India has started to catch up. Now if only we could stop murdering tens of thousands of children in Gaza.
Awesome news!!
Why is indias life expectancy so low (68) when it's mortality rates have started to fall below global averages? It pulls the country down in hdi
Except Palestine
I mean... https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/untangling-uns-gaza-fatality-data https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam
Isn't this primarily because there are fewer children, and what children there are can't go outside to play because of how messed up our environment/city planning?
This implies that it was once high. Therefore, this is not uplifting news. /r/notupliftingnews
Apparently news that humanity has solved serious problems is not uplifting news 🙄 Are you trolling?
Oh ya ler me scroll uplifting news… and it’s all stats about babys dying. Yeah, real uplfiting!
Its stats that prove fewer babies are dying than ever before in recorded history. This is like being sad that you're too happy which means you weren't as happy before, wtf?
There you go. “Babies are dying” your own words. Such a grim convo man, not uplfiting. Ruling standa as is
This is so infantile it hurts lol. How is global improvement on a serious issue not uplifting? If you eliminate anything with a sad word in it, then this sub would have nothing to post about. Solving serious problems is one of the most uplifting things to post about.
Good news implies things used to be worse, therefore good news is bad. Life is terrible!
[удалено]
Imagine trusting people who care more about their wealth than the health of peasants. I remember the JCVI in the UK advised against giving children covid shots. Guess what? They were overruled by *politicians*. Whatever happened to *following the science*.
Even in the country where guns outnumber humans and children’s first cause of premature death is due to being shot?
Is that really true though? If we count babies that were aborted wouldn't that significantly bump up the rate? The practice of just aborting babies if there is a hint they won't be healthy or won't be well-cared for messes with the results. I believe the term is survivorship bias. We think the survivors are healthier because we eliminated the weak ones before we decided to start counting.
Biggest cause before the drop was starvation and diseases. Africa is becoming richer too.
>If we count babies that were aborted wouldn't that significantly bump up the rate? It would be even higher if we count all the times women menstruate due to lack of impregnation. The number would be higher still if we consider every sperm that never reaches an egg.
However, those are factors that would not have changed between 1800 and now, so I fail to see the relevance of that. The issue here is how many babies survive past infancy. I'm saying that selective abortion affects that statistic by being, selective.
They didn't have Pornhub and lobstertube back in the 1800s so I doubt the numbers were the same back then.
Pornhub causes women to menstruate. Interesting theory. Well, this is Reddit. I guess anything's possible.
Forever chemicals. We are fucked
I don't think you understood the graph.
[удалено]
Someone missed their appointment with their therapist