It's not a negative life expectancy. It's simply that the life expectancy goes under the age of 25. And when you bear in mind that there are some African nations, like Zimbabwe, where it actually costs more to PRINT the money than it's actually worth, I can believe the wild fluctuations. Those countries are being ripped apart by civil war and corruption, and it really is a matter of one person living like a king while the rest of the nation lives in open-faced sewers. The AIDS epidemic, malaria, cholera, dysentery, and other infections run unchecked in Africa, often claiming the lives of children under the age of 10. This might also explain the wild dips in life expectancy. When your population has a hard time growing old, the dot is going to do some funky things.
From the tread in the OP's video, you can surmise that production efficiency is outpacing population growth. While the disparity is widening between poor and wealthy nations, the general trend is that even the poor nations are better now than before. The growth of income and lifespan indicates that individuals are better fed. What's this mean? It means that we're ever better at extracting the resources that the "people competing is fighting for". Population does not follow the same growth pattern in a developed nation as a developing one. Once a nation reaches a certain standard of living, and thus education level, it slows down. China's populations will start to drop in 30 years. What does THAT mean. It's not really as bad as most people make it out to be. The biggest problem with modern hunger is mainly a distribution issue where as before, it's from lack of production. Look up Norman Borlaug. Best person ever to live. He's the anti-Hitler.
Shouldn't that have some dependence on culture? I don't know that it's a universal truth that a country's population will decline when the nation becomes developed.
President President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho doesn't understand this message, but gives it a big KICK ASS!
It's hard to tell, but cultures often adapt to changes. At one point, every culture stressed having as many offspring as possible. Education and increased income tends to lower birth rates even among cultures with traditionally large families. I'm guessing, on average, second generation middle class Latino families are smaller less affluent ones. With increased world standard of living, what I'm hoping for is a slowing down of population rate and eventually an "effective" stabilization. Take a brief look at this Wiki page and you'll notice that most experts will predict the population growth to curve down in the future. Even the worse case prediction indicates that the population rate decline. Also, look at the fertile rate chart. You'll notice that even wealthier nations with cultures having traditionally large families still have lower birth rates than similar cultures in poorer nations... notable examples being Muslim nations. We have the resources to handle a stabilization (within the mid tens of billions). If you think about it, the only important non-renewable resources are energy related and that can be substituted with tech. HOWEVER, There should concern should be a concern about environmental impact of a large world population.
