Link pop growth to wealth?

[rmax92]

Should population growth be related to wealth? More needs met -> More Children

Pops who arent having their basic needs fulfilled shouldnt reproduce as fast as the pops with luxury needs met, it doesnt make sense.
And I know that today wealthier people tend to have less kids but thats due to different factors, back then everyone had loads of kids.

Its just the really poor ones didnt have very good survival chances for the first 12 months of their life, so a mother may have given birth 14 times but only 6 will reach puberty say.
But if this family became well off (low taxation, employment etc.), theylld have more foods, better life standard and more kids would survive (or be born)
which would lead to an increase in population growth.

In the simplest way, need fulfillment could be averaged for the nation, then a factor applied to nationwide pop growth.
Or (which would be better but may use more CPU power), every pop has its own pop growth modificator depending on how well its doing.

 

[minificelle]

Not sure it will be that realistic...

Poor people have always made more babies than rich.
When you have no money, you have 1 and only 1 (free) leisure, its making love.
Many will die, but still enough will survive. More children too means an insurance for old days and more co workers to help.
While poor people love their children like everyone else, they also see them as usefull.

Rich people; they have more time for other stuff than making love, less children will die and they tend to concentrate on the ones they have(education etc), they dont really need that much help and there is the inheritage stuff...they dont want their wealth being divided too much when they die.

Thats oversimplfied but well...it pretty much works like that.

Also checked the average pop growth of various countries in the 19th, Victoria is close to what it was.

Still would like a Natality Boom NF especially to counteract the various cholera, influenza and such that seem to be the only events you get as unciv...50 years into the game and you have less populace than at start...

 

[rmax92]

^decreasing population is fixed in the public beta.

Pops who havent got any needs met or only to a small extent shouldnt be growing though

 

[carron]

if we want it to be historical, literacy should lower pop growth.

it's true for most of the world.

 

[freeaxle]

I think the OP has a good point. The 19th century saw an explosion in population growth, mainly because of increased nutrition. More food means you're more willing to have children (contrary to popular thought, there were methods of controlling family size back then) and decreases the mortality rate of birth, disease etc. etc. Vicky 2 doesn't really model nutrition, so linking birth rates to met needs would be a decent way of modelling that.

 

[48th tennessee]

Not sure it will be that realistic...

Poor people have always made more babies than rich.
When you have no money, you have 1 and only 1 (free) leisure, its making love.
Many will die, but still enough will survive. More children too means an insurance for old days and more co workers to help.
While poor people love their children like everyone else, they also see them as usefull.

Rich people; they have more time for other stuff than making love, less children will die and they tend to concentrate on the ones they have(education etc), they dont really need that much help and there is the inheritage stuff...they dont want their wealth being divided too much when they die.

Thats oversimplfied but well...it pretty much works like that.

Also checked the average pop growth of various countries in the 19th, Victoria is close to what it was.

Still would like a Natality Boom NF especially to counteract the various cholera, influenza and such that seem to be the only events you get as unciv...50 years into the game and you have less populace than at start...

No no.
Some times rich families has more kids than medium or poor strata.
Many proofs IRL.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I am no expert in regards of population developement during the industrial age, but my source at hand (BÄHR, J. (1999): Tag der 6 Milliarden Menschen. Zur jüngeren Entwicklung der Weltbevölkerung.– In: Geographische Rundschau, 51, S. 570-573.) indicates that pop growth in German territory during the industrial age was not driven by an increased birth ratio, but rather a decreased mortality ratio (as correctly assumed by the OP), and birth ratio declined from ~1875 onwards.

(Source: BÄHR 1999. Red: birth ratio. Black: death ratio. Yellow: growth ratio.)

I think Vicky 2 assumes that adequate nutrition is the Status Quo in the game. Famines and diseases have seperate events and modifiers and lead to reduced or even negative pop growth.
Medicine prevents or decreases MTTH for these events and activates inventions that decrease mortality ratio, which leads to more pop growth. Imho fulfilled needs (or at least luxury needs) should thus not contribute to an increase, but rather a decrease in pop growth.

^decreasing population is fixed in the public beta.
Pops who havent got any needs met or only to a small extent shouldnt be growing though

I think many people from the FAO would be happy if that was the case. But looking at Africa shows that this is often not the case.

 

[freeaxle]

I think Vicky 2 assumes that adequate nutrition is the Status Quo in the game. Famines and diseases have seperate events and modifiers and lead to reduced or even negative pop growth.
Medicine prevents or decreases MTTH for these events and activates inventions that decrease mortality ratio, which leads to more pop growth. Imho fulfilled needs (or at least luxury needs) should thus not contribute to an increase, but rather a decrease in pop growth.

It shouldn't. Food continually got cheaper (at least in Western Europe) over the course of the Industrial Age, and nutrition improved. Medicine and sanitation were important, yes, but nutrition was too. Poor nutrition increases infant mortality and increases susceptibility to disease. An important reason that mortality from various things decreased over the Industrial Period was that people were getting better fed.

 

[rmax92]

In game terms, the birth rate and (the reciprocal of) mortality rate have the same effect: increasing pop numbers.
Age isnt represented and can therefore be ignored, as it doesnt make a difference if your pop is 20 or 50 years old.

So what brought about a decreased mortality rate? Obviously medicine, but the diet (which depends on income also) is a major factor too.
If you get alot of meat, all your veg and fruit youre gonna live longer than if you have only very little to eat and small variety.

 

[the_Hussar]

Should population growth be related to wealth? More needs met -> More Children

This statement simply isn't true. As an example, during the last century, the US was considered the wealthiest nation on earth ... and there wasn't a rise in the number of children each family had. In fact, it was steady, and decreasing ... and if it wasn't for immigration and illegals, the overall population would get smaller. This was similar to the above poster that showed German rates (nice find there!).

Rich (or people that get their luxury needs) don't automatically have more children.

In fact, the opposite is true. When your life expectancy is in the 40s, you tend to have as many children as possible, in the hopes that one or two may make it past the age of 15 years.

 

[Rangergxi]

But.. But... Poorer people normally have lots of kids..
and the French had a great quality of life but still had a declining population.

 

[Secret Master]

Doesn't the game already damage POPs that are not meeting their Life needs?

To be more precise, middle and upper class POPs demote when they can't get Life needs, and poor POPs start taking "damage."

Thus, POP growth is linked to wealth. Did I miss a change in AHD?

 

[rmax92]

What do you mean by damage?

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

What do you mean by damage?

A lower growth rate?

 

[marnues]

I think the special negative POP growth modifier for France explains it all. There are too many variables to model historical POP growth numbers, including many that are not adequately modeled in-game. Even given POP growth models, France's POP decline in the 19th century cannot be explained, further complicating the issue. It will be a long time before Victoria (any version) receives a better POP growth model.

 

[Secret Master]

I mean what the manual means. The rate is not indicated, so its correlation to percent of life needs not met is unknown to me.

POPs have Needs for Goods which access to Money permits them to buy (and thereby they support the supply & demand economy). A POP must have its Life Needs met (i.e. must have enough Money to buy them, and there must be a supply to buy) or else he may eventually die (the numbers of people in the POP will gradually reduce). His Everyday Needs must be met, or he will be unhappy. Luxuries allow the POP to remain mostly satisfied .