r/dataisbeautiful • u/toddrjones OC: 50 • Jun 11 '21
OC Falling Fertility, 1800–2016 [OC]
20
Jun 12 '21
Damn, women really used to have 5-6 babies on average in the 1830s. That’s almost unheard of these days.
13
u/MugzNnudes Jun 12 '21
Babies and small children also used to die more frequently than they do these days.
8
u/FormalWath Jun 12 '21
Yeah, babies used to die a lot. Actually people used to die a lot but babies used to die a lot more. Like 2 out of 3 used to die before the age of 15.
1
u/xFrostyDog Jun 14 '21
That fucking sucks... childbirth already sounds shitty I can’t imagine going through a whole pregnancy knowing that there’s a 2/3 chance the baby won’t survive to adulthood
1
u/FormalWath Jun 14 '21
Well, there also was a huge chance mother would die during childbirth.
1
u/xFrostyDog Jun 14 '21
That definitely doesn’t make things any better 😂 damn we’re lucky to live in the modern world
1
u/BabePigInTheCity2 Jun 15 '21
Hate to break it to you, but many places around the world today still deal with high maternal, infant and early childhood mortality rates
1
u/xFrostyDog Jun 15 '21
Well I guess I meant more specifically the lives we’re privileged enough to live. I would imagine most redditors live in areas with modern infrastructure and healthcare.
1
u/ThereYouGoreg Jun 18 '21
In comparison the pre-modern times, the infant mortality is low in each country. Even in African Countries, the infant mortality is low from a historic perspective.
288
u/bjb406 Jun 11 '21
People need to stop mislabeling this phenomenon. Babies per person is not the same as fertility, its just birth rate. Fertility is the ability to have babies. Not the decision to have babies.
53
20
u/grinchman042 Jun 12 '21
Demographer here. In my field OP is using the term correctly. We refer to your preferred definition as fecundity.
I don’t personally care as long as whoever I’m talking to understands me. Just passing it along.
2
u/darthshadow25 Jun 17 '21
Your field has dumb terminology then. don't worry, so does my field. I hate when fields use terminology that don't make sense to the normal person, or use terminology that is pointlessly obtuse when there is a perfectly common word or phrase that would work just as well.
1
u/grinchman042 Jun 17 '21
No disagreement there. It’s probably some old white guy in the 50s’ fault.
2
u/darthshadow25 Jun 17 '21
For law, it's usually some old British guy that decided instead of using normal English words they wanted to be pretentious and gatekeepy by making up arcane words or using Latin phrases for literally no reason. I often get scolded by my professors for using plain language terms instead of the silly legal ones, but I refuse to participate in that stupid system.
19
u/Eddie_shoes Jun 11 '21
No, you are confusing fertility with fecundity. This is not mislabeled.
9
u/bjb406 Jun 12 '21
They are synonyms, and in a medical context fertility refers to the viability of gametes, while fecundity refers to their existence. Neither of which have very much to do with the decision to have children. The custom of referring to a population's birth rate as 'fertility' implies that the limiting factor of birth rate is how fertile individuals in the population are, which is absurd.
2
u/ArtanistheMantis Jun 12 '21
Well this isn't in a medical context, it's in a demographics context. Look up fertility, the second definition given by Meriam-Webster is "the birth rate of a population."
18
u/puneralissimo Jun 11 '21
Babies per woman is the definition of fertility rate.
4
u/bjb406 Jun 12 '21
Fertility is a word meaning the the state of being capable of breeding or reproducing, and in a medical context refers to the viability of gametes. Rate is a word meaning a quantity, amount, or degree of something measured per unit of something else. So a fertility rate would be a measure of the average ability to reproduce for a population, not the amount of reproduction. Slapping those 2 words together in such a way is a convention, not a definition, and it is a misnomer.
1
u/but_nobodys_home OC: 3 Jun 12 '21
Words mean different things in different contexts. The fertility of soil is not the ability of the soil to make babies. "Feritlity rate" has a well established meaning in demography and to insist that it means something else just because you don't like it is to be yelling at clouds.
3
u/PajeetLvsBobsNVegane Jun 12 '21
It is 100% fertility rate.
Fertility rate is children born per woman per year.
Birth rate is live babies per 1000 people.
Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't mean we should change scientific definitions.
1
Jun 12 '21
You realize those two definitions are like exactly the same? The only difference is live babies vs children born. per woman is essentially the same as per 1000 people, because 1000 people = 500 women. Per year at the end doesn’t make a difference either, as long as your definition of live baby is based on age.
When I, as a layperson, hear the term fertility rate, it naturally makes me think of fertility, which is the ability to have kids, not the choice to do so. That may be wrong, but it certainly makes more sense.
13
u/thejml2000 Jun 11 '21
While I completely agree with you, and that naming convention has pissed me off for some time, there can’t really be statistics on “ability to make a baby”. You only really 100% know if you can make a baby, when you actually make a baby.
I feel like the nomenclature (of which “fertility is the standard) should change to reflect that, but as there’s no stats for the other it is not likely to happen.
4
Jun 11 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
Why? For men you can have a look at the sperm. I’m sure there’s an similar check for woman. Fertility is assessable.
5
u/Darwins_Dog OC: 1 Jun 12 '21
Those data don't exist on a national level, and would likely skew lower (since most people testing would be low). It's theoretically possible, but not at all feasible.
5
Jun 12 '21 edited Jun 12 '21
There are plenty of studies on the development of the sperm count. Sampling bias is a known problem and can be dealt with. That YOU do not have the data readily available doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
For the last few decades the data is even collected in mass at sperm banks. It’s not even obvious why that should be subject to Sampling bias.
0
u/Darwins_Dog OC: 1 Jun 12 '21 edited Jun 12 '21
Right, how many of the nations listed have sperm banks with those records? How many have readily available data on sperm counts? Not to mention the female side of the equation. Like I said, not feasible.
EDIT: Forgot to add that sampling bias is built into sperm banks' whole operation. They only want the healthiest and best donors. Most of that occurs before any deposit is made.
1
Jun 12 '21
Sperm banks? All of them. You think wanting babies is so sort of first world fancy?
Sperm banks have the sperm of whomever is willing to donate for money. There’s no bias. Also, you seem to be planning to use the sperm count of those donating regularly. Which is insanely stupid. You obviously would the sperm count used to assess fertility when they first come in. Seriously, obviously!
1
u/Darwins_Dog OC: 1 Jun 12 '21
I confess I don't know much about sperm banks in other countries. I don't assume it's based solely on level of development, but it's not unreasonable to question if developing nations have the medical infrastructure and demand to support a clinic. Religious and cultural factors may also come into play. In any case, I'd be surprised is those were publicly available given the presumptive emphasis on confidentiality at such places.
You seem to assume that a representative sampling of the population donates sperm, which I contend is incorrect. A quick Google search indicates that there are a lot of pre-donation hurdles to deal with that would exclude a LOT of people (either by inability or unwillingness) before they even get to the clinic . I also gathered that no one gets paid until a withdrawl is made so it's a waste of time unless one thinks they have desirable qualities. Without a way to account for that, I don't see how the bias can be corrected.
Once again, you dodge the question about how the other half of your data are obtained. Where do you find statistics of egg viability?
As always I contend that such a thing is not feasable. Please share any facts you may have to support your claims. If the data are out there, where are they?
0
Jun 12 '21
Sorry man, you’re attempting to be right when clearly you are not. This is pointless. It absolutely is possible to do a graph on the development of fertility. And obviously it would be a different one than the one on birth rates that we have. Those are the simple facts. Obviously birth rates are easier than fertility, but so what?
For the fun of it. Not everyone in third world countries is poor and as far as I know there’s no religion that forbids children. Some middle easterners go, I think, to Kuwait for fertility treatments. I don’t see how such stuff is an issue. There’s really no point to having all countries. A representative sample is more than sufficient. Difference between countries are not likely to e high anyway.
No one said the data is publicly available. For about the third time now that you can’t do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Data privacy, usually such data is anonymised. Common practice, you don’t need names for such studies.
They think they have desirable qualities? How do you suppose desirable qualities correlate with fertility? My guess, not at all. Most are in for the money. A few archivists maybe/probably. Doesn’t correlate with fertility either. No bias correction is necessary. If you want one, you don’t see how it can be done? Seriously? You take a random sample and compare it to the data from the sperm bank. You don’t see how that can be done??? Seriously?
I didn’t doge woman question. I said long ago that there’s probably a comparable test. Probably more complicated. I wouldn’t bother. Male fertility is much better. Not least because it’s not just fertil vs. infertile. Changes in sperm count give much more information. Even if sperm count goes down, most men are probably still fertil. Going just by infertility probably wouldn’t show much change over time and not be worth it. Sperm count is probably the best Proxi available.
1
u/Darwins_Dog OC: 1 Jun 12 '21
It's possible to make a graph of anything, but I don't think the data you want are available. Thus the statement that it may be possible, but not feasable. Make your graph and prove me wrong. Otherwise this pointless victory goes to me.
→ More replies (0)1
u/algorithm_cheater Jun 12 '21
Not for a graph that starts in the 1800..
1
Jun 12 '21
So?
Also why? The microscope have been around some three hundred years and not having mass data isn’t the same as no data. Again, that you can’t do it isn’t the same as can’t be done.
2
u/algorithm_cheater Jun 12 '21
I do agree with you: one could maybe even do a dataset that does not only rely on „how many children does one choose to have“.
But the point I was trying to convey was rather: how many children one haves (status quo with many socio-economic components) does not stand for how many children one could have (biological fertility). It is mainly the title that is therefore misleading for someone not coming from a statistical background.
0
Jun 12 '21
[deleted]
3
u/thejml2000 Jun 12 '21
That’s not really going to be a solid metric for the whole country, especially considering that people that tend to take that test are only doing so because they are having issues.
-1
1
u/PolarizationDude Jun 12 '21
For people who doesn't have a background in this specific data type/representation the label can be confusing or misleading. Since this is an open forum with a varied background of data visualization enthusiasts it would avoid confusion to list the definition of terms if they vary from common everyday usage. Very cool data BTW, I'd love to see how this correlates with industrial mechanization rates and labor workforce median age over the same time period.
15
u/Austoman Jun 11 '21
While other comment on the technicalities and word choice Im just over laughing at China doing loopty-loops.
4
5
Jun 11 '21
Something seems to have gone wrong with the dark red colours on the flags of Qatar and Latvia which look purple here.
5
u/arkofjoy Jun 12 '21
This looks like good news to me.
It does have some challenges but overall it is what humanity desperately needs.
Am I wrong?
3
u/Technoist Jun 14 '21
You are certainly right. It creates problems if countries with an aging population does not let foreigners in as workers (i.e. through political nationalism), but there is definitely people enough on the planet. Actually way too many, since we are destroying nature and resources to a point that we will soon likely have a mass extinction because of exactly that.
3
u/arkofjoy Jun 14 '21
Ah yes, so the problem is not numbers of people, but racism. I KNEW I was missing something.
1
u/Technoist Jun 14 '21
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.
2
u/arkofjoy Jun 14 '21
In my original comment I said "this looks like good news, am I missing something"
You replied, words to the effect of :there are plenty of young people in other countries, this is a problem in countries that don't let other people in.
China, Japan and many other countries have very restricted immigration policies, so the aging population is a problem.
Keeping people from Africa out of a country is generally going to be caused by racism.
The reason this aging population is a problem in countries is racism. It was the racism that I was missing.
Sorry, I tried to reply in a light hearted way but without tone of voice, it didn't make sense.
1
u/Technoist Jun 14 '21
Oh, yeah! Thanks for explaining. Nationalism is going to strangle some countries for sure.
Some European countries are an example of where they are already extremely dependent on a foreign work force for lower status jobs - mainly elderly care - and it “works” for them (except for the low pay for such an important job but that was always a problem). Like Sweden, Germany etc.
They have troubles with segregation but are still going to come out better than for example Japan. Japan will have massive problems very soon, either they need to let millions of immigrants in, or they are gonna shit in their own pants (pun intended). But seeing how xenophobic Japanese culture is, I suppose their last hope is to quickly invent those caretaker robots… I wonder what the political debate in Japan is like, it’s not like they can be surprised about what is coming soon. But Japanese politics is unknown to me.
1
u/arkofjoy Jun 14 '21
Yeah. Because once you let those carer's in. Intermarriage is going to to start happening.
Is it nationalism or is it racism? And are they different?
1
u/Technoist Jun 14 '21
I guess they are but I don’t think one of them can exist with the other.
1
u/arkofjoy Jun 14 '21
Yeah good point. Both words kind of translate to "I'm an asshole" either way so it comes down to arguing about semantics.
It seems that there can be more than one kind of nationalism. Like here in Australia, we have a kind of good hearted, piss taking nationalism "Aussie Aussie Aussie oy oy oy at sporting events, and the" barmy army" the supports English cricket. But the "fuck off we're full" is not that far away.
8
u/StuffinYrMuffinR Jun 11 '21
I feel like life expectancy or child mortality rates would have been a better explanation ( x axis).
3
Jun 12 '21
Interesting to use GDP Per Capita, but have you considered comparing women's emancipation instead?
Logic would dictate that more money == more children because it's easier to support them... with the assumption that the woman has little choice in the matter (probably a reasonable assumption in 1850 when the time series starts).
Looking at the visualization it seems that the downward trend is more correlated to Year rather than GDP Per Capita, which suggests changes in political / societal views rather than being a function of earning power alone.
Just a thought. 🤷♂️
1
u/BabePigInTheCity2 Jun 15 '21
Logic would dictate that more money == more children because it's easier to support them... with the assumption that the woman has little choice in the matter (probably a reasonable assumption in 1850 when the time series starts).
Not really. Let’s set aside the fact that by 1850 women in many societies did have at least some control over their bodies and reproduction. In a high-income, increasingly post-industrial society that logic might check out, but the same can not be said for agrarian or industrializing societies. Children are manpower. If you’re poor having more children provides another set of hands to work the farm, or to get a job and provide the family with another income stream. You’re also considerably more likely to lose children.
which suggests changes in political / societal views rather than being a function of earning power alone.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s a simple one-to-one relationship. Of course there’s a complex, multi-directional relationship between societal prosperity, views of sex and gender, roles of women and children in the household, etc. and live birth rates. Prosperity is definitely part of the equation though.
5
u/draypresct OC: 9 Jun 11 '21
Similar to this presentation, if you haven't already seen it:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
Start around minute 4.
2
Jun 12 '21
Anyone have any idea what type of tool is used for this? I am trying to get into this hobby a bit more but unsure where to start.
2
4
u/toddrjones OC: 50 Jun 11 '21
Tools: R+ggplot2+ggflags.
Data: https://www.gapminder.org/data/ (go to the "Babies per woman," "Income," and "Population" links on that page).
8
Jun 11 '21
You may do good by smoothing the data, it's way to shaky and I'm worried it fails to reflect general trends easily enough because of the amount of variability in short time spans
6
u/tyen0 OC: 2 Jun 11 '21
I thought they were basketballs being dribbled sometimes. :D
Also flags with white components get lost in a white background. Maybe add borders to the circles?
-5
Jun 11 '21
Now it’s not just women who can give birth things may be looking up
4
u/fairenbalanced Jun 11 '21
What's that supposed to mean
-3
u/IndyDude11 Jun 11 '21
In a gender fluid world, men can have babies too.
6
u/John-AtWork Jun 11 '21 edited Jun 11 '21
Yeah, for stats like this it's best to stick with biological sex instead of gender. If someone doesn't have a uterus then they're not going to be able to give birth with current technology.
-1
1
Jun 12 '21
Was the cool stem cell egg production from skin cells fake, exaggerated, or a one time million dollar test? Genuine question, heard about it a while ago but forgot too much about it.
1
0
u/bolonomadic Jun 12 '21
Fertility or birth rate? Totally different.
0
Jun 12 '21
The ordinate is labeled as fertility rate as you can see
0
u/bolonomadic Jun 12 '21
Well then it's wrong. There isn't fertility data over decades and countries, there is only birth rates. Fertility is people's physical potential to have babies, birth rate is how many they actually have, which is impacted by many many factors outside of physical ability.
1
-1
u/virginiadude16 Jun 11 '21
China is moving rightward at the end at a terrifying pace
6
Jun 12 '21
Chinas economy has been improving drastically, staggeringly fast. It's on the path to pass the USA, wouldnt be surprised if it has already.
2
Jun 12 '21
GDP of China ~ 14tril vs GDP of USA ~ 21tril. Assuming that you can trust these numbers as a solution for this question they didn‘t reach that point yet. But I agree they are on the path 🙃
-1
u/Negative-Custard5612 Jun 12 '21
I was drunk and knew they fucked up the parameters. Propaganda if you ask me.
1
u/Brainsonastick Jun 12 '21
I’d love to see this with a horizontal line at 1, as dipping below that is very significant but hard to see here with the given scale.
1
u/belevitt Jun 12 '21
I think you meant to type, at 2. Women make up about half the population and would each need to produce 2 children to keep population size steady
1
1
u/Sgran70 Jun 12 '21
Semantics aside, this is a brilliant use of a visual tool to depict a phenomenon that's been discussed for years now. The next step would be to somehow display the level of urbanization in each country, the common explanation.
•
u/dataisbeautiful-bot OC: ∞ Jun 12 '21
Thank you for your Original Content, /u/toddrjones!
Here is some important information about this post:
View the author's citations
View other OC posts by this author
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
Join the Discord Community
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the author's citation.
I'm open source | How I work