Slashdot Mirror

Africa has about a billion people and shows no signs of slowing down, and no, they're not urbanising, they're not becoming educated, and their birthrates aren't dropping significantly.

This is plain wrong, if you have the slightest interest in statistics (they come in pretty colors here) you must watch this 10 minute video from Hans Rosling which is exactly about the horribly fatalistic (I dare say un-american!) "just let'em starve" mindset.

Most of Africa is getting better, the distorted image you get from news reported from the war torn regions of Congo and Somalia doesn't change that. Please, allow your mind to be changed by this dataset.

No, what you're both insinuating is wrong.

Yes, there is poverty - but guess what? It's a lot less than what it once was.

In fact, India and China liberalizing their economies and the flood of FDI and FII that came in has lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty.

Go explore some data before playing the poverty card every time a developing country is brought up.

Ignoring growth and citing poverty without seeing the progress is disingenuous at best.

The "way to a better future for the world" is birth control and education. Don't want to sound cold, but the places with the most human suffering are also the areas with the worst overpopulation vs. the least natural resources.

Dr. Hans Rosling debunked that theory a while ago. I'd highly recommend watching this (10 minutes) video. He uses his gapminder.org tool and backs the points he makes with real data.

The tl;dr version of the video:

"My students, they tell me population growth destroys the environment, so poor children may as well die ... Now, the problem with that thinking, with this thought, is not that it's not moral, it's that it's wrong. And I will show you why..."

If you have more free time on your hand after watching this, I'd highly recommend looking up his TED talks, specially the one titled "Let my dataset change your mindset".

The "way to a better future for the world" is birth control and education. Don't want to sound cold, but the places with the most human suffering are also the areas with the worst overpopulation vs. the least natural resources.

Dr. Hans Rosling debunked that theory a while ago. I'd highly recommend watching this (10 minutes) video. He uses his gapminder.org tool and backs the points he makes with real data.

The tl;dr version of the video:

"My students, they tell me population growth destroys the environment, so poor children may as well die ... Now, the problem with that thinking, with this thought, is not that it's not moral, it's that it's wrong. And I will show you why..."

If you have more free time on your hand after watching this, I'd highly recommend looking up his TED talks, specially the one titled "Let my dataset change your mindset".

You mean you want an expensive insurance with a limit to what they cover instead of unlimited cover with some participation?

This is not a lifestyle choice, this is an arithmetic error. There is nothing moral about being incapable of counting.

Living in Canada provides me with cheap insurance with a coverage I find not so good -- but I get covered.

Living in Switzerland, I get very good coverage, but pay perhaps four times as much (way, way less than in the US).

In the UK, I would pay nothing, but would wait longer in the hospital (this would not be life threatening, unlike what some people say, just not very comfortable)

In France, I would pay almost nothing, and get brilliant health care. But my taxes would be significantly higher.

All these are possible options, in all cases, there is universal coverage. In all cases, I can elect to pay more to get better service. But this would be about comfort, not odds of remission, which, in any case, are better than in the US!

In the US? well, were I an individual paying out of my pocket, I would get no health care (unable to afford it), unless I were very poor, or old enough. I would in practise get insurance only when employed, and only if my employer were so inclined. In any case, much more money would flow in the health system than anywhere else in the world. And yet, for large periods of my life I would not be covered. If I have an accident at the wrong moment, well, vae victis...

The US system, and debate surrounding its reform is outlandish to the rest of the World. You pay more (massively so) and yet have child mortality rates and life expectancy which would classify you as a developing nation (seriously! the most develop parts of China do better http://www.gapminder.org./ Yet so many, like you have decided on principle that the US certainly has the best health care system in the world. This is a particular brand of madness. But seeing your comment, it probably stems from something in your education which prevents you from counting whenever "morals"are at stake, couple with a frightening tendency to see morals in the weirdest places.

Bolivia aims to achieve wealth redistribution in a socialist state. I don't think that Saudi Arabia is the best example.

May I recommend Bolivia to look over Norway instead ?

Both are monarchies, but the implementation is very different !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

For example, let's see the increase of GDP compared to the oil production of the country.

http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEcm0fIa0IVtKw;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEdNIa3ckVXaCQ;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=pyj6tScZqmEfJfS1WYrLeBA;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.6589;dataMax=20802$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.7506;dataMax=11484$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=%23$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEdNIa3ckVXaCQ;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=pyj6tScZqmEfJfS1WYrLeBA;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.7506;dataMax=11484$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=240;dataMax=119849$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=i168_t001980,,,,;i196_t001980,,,,

Click play on the left bottom corner.

PS: I've lived both in Norway and in Bolivia.

Actually, you do have a lower standard of living because you consume less oil -- unless you live in Norway. You see, european countries (besides norway) produce less GDP per person than the USA. That's probably because they use less oil ;)

In 2006 the USA has an expectancy of 78. The highest in the world is 81. There are many developed countries in between. A 3 year difference is almost statistically insignificant and it's reasonable to say that all of these countries can be grouped as 'high life expectancy'. The difference is within an error margin which can be attributed to things like culture and diet.

Infant Mortality Rate

The USA is behind other developed nations here at 0.006% infant mortality. Most developed nations are 0.004% and Iceland leads with 0.002%. Note that Germany is taxed lower than the USA and still beats the USA by 0.002%. Also note that New Zealand's tax revenue is very high (34% compared to 12% of USA) and only beats USA by 0.001%. Again it could be judged that these differences are small enough to be attributed to factors other than taxation.

Income per person

There are some poverty indicators on the graph that you can play with as well, but income per person is a fairly reasonable way to assess how well the citizens are doing financially in developed nations. Feel free to counter with poverty statistics you may find.

Here USA leads the pack. In 2004, 2 oil producers (Qatar & Kuwait) and Norway and Luxemburg beat it. Macao gets ahead in 2006. Note that all of these countries are extremely small in comparison to the USA.

Note that the USA is near the bottom of tax revenue of the developed countries. Yet the differences when comparing higher taxed countries with hard statistics of the criteria you mentioned are next to nothing. The other 2 criteria (happiness & leisure) are often minefields when talking about "reliability" and often depend on who is taking the survey. Broadband availability (while may greatly raise the happiness of you or I) is not usually a factor when considering 'standard of living'.



On a related note, I highly suggest this video by a Swedish s

In 2006 the USA has an expectancy of 78. The highest in the world is 81. There are many developed countries in between. A 3 year difference is almost statistically insignificant and it's reasonable to say that all of these countries can be grouped as 'high life expectancy'. The difference is within an error margin which can be attributed to things like culture and diet.

Infant Mortality Rate

The USA is behind other developed nations here at 0.006% infant mortality. Most developed nations are 0.004% and Iceland leads with 0.002%. Note that Germany is taxed lower than the USA and still beats the USA by 0.002%. Also note that New Zealand's tax revenue is very high (34% compared to 12% of USA) and only beats USA by 0.001%. Again it could be judged that these differences are small enough to be attributed to factors other than taxation.

Income per person

There are some poverty indicators on the graph that you can play with as well, but income per person is a fairly reasonable way to assess how well the citizens are doing financially in developed nations. Feel free to counter with poverty statistics you may find.

Here USA leads the pack. In 2004, 2 oil producers (Qatar & Kuwait) and Norway and Luxemburg beat it. Macao gets ahead in 2006. Note that all of these countries are extremely small in comparison to the USA.

Note that the USA is near the bottom of tax revenue of the developed countries. Yet the differences when comparing higher taxed countries with hard statistics of the criteria you mentioned are next to nothing. The other 2 criteria (happiness & leisure) are often minefields when talking about "reliability" and often depend on who is taking the survey. Broadband availability (while may greatly raise the happiness of you or I) is not usually a factor when considering 'standard of living'.



On a related note, I highly suggest this video by a Swedish s

In 2006 the USA has an expectancy of 78. The highest in the world is 81. There are many developed countries in between. A 3 year difference is almost statistically insignificant and it's reasonable to say that all of these countries can be grouped as 'high life expectancy'. The difference is within an error margin which can be attributed to things like culture and diet.

Infant Mortality Rate

The USA is behind other developed nations here at 0.006% infant mortality. Most developed nations are 0.004% and Iceland leads with 0.002%. Note that Germany is taxed lower than the USA and still beats the USA by 0.002%. Also note that New Zealand's tax revenue is very high (34% compared to 12% of USA) and only beats USA by 0.001%. Again it could be judged that these differences are small enough to be attributed to factors other than taxation.

Income per person

There are some poverty indicators on the graph that you can play with as well, but income per person is a fairly reasonable way to assess how well the citizens are doing financially in developed nations. Feel free to counter with poverty statistics you may find.

Here USA leads the pack. In 2004, 2 oil producers (Qatar & Kuwait) and Norway and Luxemburg beat it. Macao gets ahead in 2006. Note that all of these countries are extremely small in comparison to the USA.

Note that the USA is near the bottom of tax revenue of the developed countries. Yet the differences when comparing higher taxed countries with hard statistics of the criteria you mentioned are next to nothing. The other 2 criteria (happiness & leisure) are often minefields when talking about "reliability" and often depend on who is taking the survey. Broadband availability (while may greatly raise the happiness of you or I) is not usually a factor when considering 'standard of living'.



On a related note, I highly suggest this video by a Swedish s

I think that Gapminder/Google it is really happy with this decision? I wonder how much they lobbied for this?

i'm wondering how long it'll be until we see this data integrated with gapminder. either that, or a gapminder-esq interface on the UNdata site.

Like this?

Gapminder is the tool. I hope they incorporate these fresh stats soon!

Like this?

Gapminder is the tool. I hope they incorporate these fresh stats soon!

Well the purty stuff has to convey something.
Check out http://tools.google.com/gapminder/
Rosling has some pretty interesting videos at Trendalyzers page http://www.gapminder.org/

India has a much narrower income distribution than the US. (Note that you need to plot the logarithm of the income in order to calculate percentage changes in income between the rich and the poor) http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/applications/in come-distribution-2003.html

Counterexample: http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ built by http://gapminder.org/ folks
I was shocked myself that flash was used for something actually useful. :)
Here is a really interesting presentation using it, too: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4237353244 338529080

Not to say that your view is unfounded, but you are ignoring at least 2 other important aspects.

>>"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Yes. They are torn by wars. Beside fertility rate, there are such things as child mortality rate and life expectancy.

Check out http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ for data views. Basically we get around 200/1000 child die in Niger, versus around 7/1000 in the US and Estonia. Niger also has about half the life expectancy compared to any of them. If those people didn't breed at that rate, they'd be extinct by now.

It has always been that nations with low life expectancy and high mortality rates have high child birth rates. Else they wouldn't be around.

As regards the more peaceful parts of Africa and Asia (and the world in general) check out http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92 , as well as http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/presentations/h as-the-world-become-a-better-place-2005.html

Apparently Zonk didn't look into the article much.
Check out This video as can be found on one of Zonk's links.
The idea is NOT to collect all the data of the world centrally, it is to link to the pre-existing data and display it in a useful way. The software looks incredibly innovative, I doubt there is anything similar for two reasons (1) Google wouldn't' have bought it (2) TV stations here in Australia would be showing trends with the software just as they now show various parts of the earth with Google Earth.

From the Gapminder site:

We believe that Google's acquisition of Trendalyzer will speed up the achievement of this noble goal. Trendalyzer's developers have left Gapminder to join Google in Mountain View, where Google intends to improve and scale up Trendalyzer, and make it freely available to those who seek access to statistics.

To me, this seems to imply that the professor and his son were the original developers, not the maintainers. Or perhaps just his son is going to Google?

US$100 may not be much here, but it is more than the majority of people make in a month.

To have a full understanding of the repartition of the world wealth an its population, please see this site (all in flash animated sequences): http://www.gapminder.org/ Google have made its own version based on gapminder.org: http://tools.google.com/gapminder

Gapminder is a group of people working on interesting ways to visualise data from the UN, as well as databases from national, and non-governmental organisations. The results are pretty interesting to see, and actually quite hopeful in terms of the world outlook. There seem to be a lot of incorrect preconceptions most people have about global socioeconomics which come from the way things were 30 to 40 years ago.

Here are a couple of rather interesting talks about what they've been working on. There's quite a bit of overlap between the two, but the Google Techtalk is longer and more complete. In Hans' talk at TED, in order to back up the claim that there are incorrect preconceptions, he shows how some of the brightest Swedish students scored a statistically significant margin worse than random when asked to choose the country with the highest child mortality rate from pairs selected such that one of each pair had double the child mortality rate of the other.

• A talk given by Ola Rosling at Google
• A talk given by Hans Rosling at the TED conference

Also take a look at Gapminder for really awesome displays of data.