It's hard to get good data on current birth rates in Gaza, but the recently published preprint of a demographic study of the death toll in Gaza (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.25329797v...) provides some evidence that the death toll in Gaza is approximately balanced by births. Specifically, the project directed in-person interviews of Gazan citizens representing ~2k households and ~9k people in them, and recorded ~390 violent deaths and ~360 births in that cohort, both from 10/7 and until January 2025.
Thank you for providing a source! That data certainly contradicts @richardfeynman's claim, in that it suggests a shrinking population. Additionally, since total deaths will be greatly in excess of violent deaths, I would say it suggests a rapidly shrinking population. I would not call the birth and death rates "approximately balanced" in this case, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
No, this data in fact suggests growing population, for the following three reasons:
- the survey recorded a surprisingly small excess of nonviolent deaths (in excess of what's demographically expected), this is discussed in the preprint. The much larger number of violent deaths is almost matched by births, so the total balance is somewhat towards shrinking, in that cohort
- however, it is well known that the violent deaths occurred overwhelmingly early in the war (so far) - according to the official Hamas statistics, something like 50% of all casualties are in the first 4 months of the war, out of 22 so far. Whether these statistics are over- or under-counted is not likely to make a dent in this huge imbalance. So as the war is ongoing - and it's already been another 8 months since the 14 covered by the survey - the death rate is still "collapsing" compared to average rate so far.
- at the same time, the birth rate has evidently not seen such a huge collapse since the first 4 months of the war; this can't be gleaned from the survey, but enough plausible reports (e.g. what @richardfeynman quoted) exist that point in that direction.
So if we consider the survey relatively representative of the entire population, the imbalance towards shrinking population after 14 months is already almost certainly repaired towards growing after another 8 months, because so few civilians are violently killed (again, compared to the first 4 months of the war) in 2025.
Once again: do you have sources for any of this? Yes, there were more violent deaths at the start of the war, but how much more? @richardfeynman did provide quotes for his birth rate claims, but as I already mentioned, those quotes appear to be estimates of birth rates for a single month. Extrapolating that data across all 22 months is nonsense.
Additionally, your argument hinges on a single preprint paper that has yet to be peer-reviewed.
And finally, we don't even need to play these games counting up death tolls in different, increasingly creative ways. There are already reports from the UN and others directly confirming that Gaza's population has decreased: <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/dec/06/instagram-...>
The time-wise imbalance of deaths is a very basic fact about the ongoing war, I didn't realize you were ignorant of it and needed a verification. The Hamas-provided statistics are timestamped, you can look e.g. at https://data.techforpalestine.org/docs/casualties-daily/, download the CSV file, look in the cumulative deaths column, see that it's just over 60k for the entire period, and note that 30k occurs around 2024-03-01. So I was slightly off and it's a little less than 5 months (oct 07 to mar 01) out of a little less than 23 months (oct 07 to 2025-08-31) that account for 50% of the deaths.
There isn't any report that actually counts Gaza's population, the UN provided an "estimate" with no methodology, births are not mentioned, and it's built on figures including number of people who exited Gaza (irrelevant to the claimed decrease due to violent deaths). That's not serious.
There's no coherent notion of genocide that fails to reduce the population significantly. Yes, you can argue (and people have) that the legal definition, by using the "part of" wording, can conceivably apply to virtually any number of deaths, but again, that's not serious.
Thanks, but we still need better data on births for this argument to hold any water. Additionally, if you want to include the segment of the population that has fled, you will also need data on the birth/death rates for that segment.
I would also like to note that you found a study looking at birth/death rates, but after realizing it suggested a shrinking population, decided to combine information from that study with information from a separate dataset so that the population could be argued to be growing.
And none of this actually takes nonviolent deaths into account, however small you believe that number may be.
"On 18 January 2024, Natalia Kanem, the executive director of the UN Population Fund, spoke at the World Economic Forum at Davos, stating the situation was the "worst nightmare" the UNPF representative had ever witnessed, as there were 180 women giving birth daily, sometimes on the streets of Gaza, as the territory's health system collapsed"
The 60k death count is likely an overcount, not an undercount, but this one I won't google for you. However you cut the numbers, and even if you believe in nameless ghosts under the rubble, there's been no population collapse.
Thanks for providing sources! They estimate 180 giving birth every day, but over what time frame? Without a time frame, it's not really possible to estimate the total born.
As for the 60k count, every single source I have found suggests that 60k is a massive underestimate. You'll need to provide some very strong evidence to back up your claim to the contrary.
Regardless of the balance of birth and death rates, multiple sources have reported a significant decline in Gaza's population this year. So far, all evidence you have provided contradicts your own initial claim.
Excuse me, but my initial claim is that there is no genocide in gaza because there is no massive population collapse. During the holocaust, 66% of european jewry was murdered in a systematic effort -- all civilians, with no Jews attacking European cities. The figures during the rwandan and armenian genocide were similar: massive population collapses.
Whether you believe there have been 100 births a day or 140 or 150 or 180, I have demonstrated that there were tens of thousands of births during the war in gaza, using credible sources like the UNOCHA and WHO. But even if you assume ZERO births, the gazan population will have only collapsed by roughly 60k people. I may be wrong about this, but I think this is an OVERESTIMATE, not an underestimate. While you don't have to believe me, I at least can make this claim without appealing to nameless ghosts under the rubble and can provide credible sources.
- The hamas figures are not an independent registry. The numbers are produced by a Hamas-run Ministry of Health—i.e., a belligerent party—without external audit. The UN, etc. do not independently verify these numbers; they simply repeat them. Even sympathetic explainers acknowledge the ministry is governed by Hamas and its routine updates aren’t independently verified.
- The system accepts public self-reports (initially via Google Forms, later an MoH web portal). That alone invites duplicates, misclassification, and bad data. Washington Institute documents the Google Form; it also cites the current MoH “report a death/missing” portal.
- The public reporting portal explicitly allows “natural death” submissions. When the same pipeline feeds the headline tally, non-combat, non-IDF deaths can (and did) get swept in. The live MoH form literally offers “martyr,” “missing,” or “natural death.” Mainstream reporting later noted removals where entries turned out to be natural deaths.
- the gaza ministry of health uses opaque and unreliable methods to count deaths (“media reports” + family notifications) with weak validation. Beyond hospital records, the MoH has relied on poorly specified “media reports” and family submissions; AP also notes names often come via the Hamas government media office—not hospital documentation. That’s not a chain of custody you can audit. It included the known false figures from the al ahli hospital incident.
- Totals and demographics are unstable and there have big retroactive corrections. The UN/OCHA famously halved its women/children figures in May 2024, and months later the MoH removed thousands of previously listed “victims,” with officials conceding some were natural deaths or living detainees. That volatility is incompatible with “hard” totals.
- The overall figure doesn’t separate civilians from combatants or assign cause of death. By design it bundles Hamas fighters, civilians, misfire casualties, indirect war deaths, and (as above) even natural deaths—so it cannot answer the key question “how many Gazans were killed by Israel.”
Thank you for providing sources. I do find it interesting that the Washington Institute report concludes by saying that the Gaza Health Ministry's list of deaths is generally considered accurate, and that list currently includes more than 60,000 names.
But maybe you're right! Maybe the very sources you're relying on are wrong, and only 50,000 or so Gazans have died. That still doesn't mean this isn't a genocide.
The argument is that Gaza is currently undergoing a genocide, not that the genocide is already complete. If we were to have this argument about the Holocaust in 1942 or so, you could similarly say that only a small percentage of European Jews have died so far, therefore it can't be a genocide. In the case of Palestine, give Israel another decade of unchecked brutality and I'm sure they can attain your high standards for human extermination.
The sources I provided show that there are severe problems with the Gaza Health Ministry list. You may find particular sentences that show the top-line number is correct, and indeed that may be true. I provided those sources not to show that 60k is the wrong number of dead--a figure I myself used in my initial comment--but rather to show that the list itself has issues and that arguments can be made that it's an overestimate rather than an underestimate. I agree the actual figure is difficult to pin down. There's no need for snarkiness ("Maybe you're right and your sources are wrong.") in a discussion like this, where the goal is to discover truth on a complex, emotional issue.
The bottom line is that whether you believe 60k people died or 100k people died, and whether you believe 60k people were born or 100k people were born, there has been nothing close to a population collapse in Gaza. Indeed, the population appears to have risen. Therefore, if you're going to make the argument that there is an ongoing genocide, you're going to have to also admit (as it appears you now do) that Gaza's population has either risen during this alleged genocide, or decreased by a small amount.
There are additional hurdles for those claming a genocide: (1) why has Israel dropped millions of leaflets to warn of impending attacks?; (2) why has israel sent millions of text messages warning of impending attacks?; (3) why has israel ordered evacuations of combat zones prior to attacking; (4) why has israel set up refugee camps/ safe zones; (5) why has Israel supplied so much aid to a civilian population you claim it's trying to kill; (6) why has its genocide been so incompetent and long-lasting if it could accomplish its alleged genocidal goal in a week; (7) what % of those killed are terrorists?; (8) why is the civilian:combatant death ratio so low; and I can go on forever. You may have respones to some of these questions, and we can debate these, but perhaps it's not necessary. The argument for genocide is one of those "emperor has no clothes" issues. People say it with such confidence, as though it's common knowledge (and indeed it is widely believed), but that doesn't mean it's true, or that the emperor has clothing.
Finally, by the end of 1942, the Nazis had killed 30% of european jewry, 3 million innocent civilians. There was already a clear genocide, which the world ignored. The inverse is true today: there is no clear genocide, but most of the world maintains it is.
> (1) why has Israel dropped millions of leaflets to warn of impending attacks?; (2) why has israel sent millions of text messages warning of impending attacks?;
"The world map will not change if all the people of Gaza cease to exist. No one will feel for you, and no one will ask about you. You have been left alone to face your inevitable fate. Iran cannot even protect itself, let alone protect you, and you have seen with your own eyes what has happened. Neither America nor Europe care about Gaza in any way. Even your Arab countries, which are now our allies, provide us with money and weapons while sending you only shrouds.
"There is little time left — the game is almost over."
So, to your question, the primary purpose of these leaflets is to terrorize and threaten the population. The secondary purpose is to have hasbarists like yourself pretend that they are evidence of humanitarian magnanimity.
> (3) why has israel ordered evacuations of combat zones prior to attacking; (4) why has israel set up refugee camps/ safe zones;
"[Forensic Architecture] has documented a pattern in which civilians have been directed to move to certain areas by official evacuation orders, only for the Israeli military to attack those same areas shortly afterwards, either on the same day as the evacuation order, or the day after.
> (5) why has Israel supplied so much aid to a civilian population you claim it's trying to kill;
Even rhetorically this question makes no sense, considering that it is very well-documented that Israel has been and is actively preventing real humanitarian aid. The Israeli-sanctioned "aid" via the GHF is a "killing field" of desperate Palestinians: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-ma...
> (6) why has its genocide been so incompetent and long-lasting if it could accomplish its alleged genocidal goal in a week;
Because then there would be even fewer of those alongside you willing to defend the indefensible.
> (7) what % of those killed are terrorists?; (8) why is the civilian:combatant death ratio so low;
The postulate required for this pair of questions to not be self-defeating is to expand the meaning of "terrorist" to encompass, at the least, every male in Gaza. In other words, "Gaza deserves death. The 2.6 million terrorists in Gaza deserve death! … Men, women, and children – in every way possible, we must simply carry out a Holocaust on them – yes, read that again – H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T! For me, gas chambers. Train cars. And other cruel forms of death for these Nazis. Without fear, without hesitation – simply crush, eradicate, slaughter, flatten, dismantle, smash, shatter …. Gaza deserves death. Let there be a Holocaust in Gaza." - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/27/israel...
>The leaflets read: “For your safety, you need to evacuate your places of residence immediately and head to known shelters … Anyone near terrorists or their facilities puts their life at risk, and every house used by terrorists will be targeted.”
There's lots of true things in that post, and it's undeniable that there's been huge broadening of criteria and it's responsible for a lot of the growth in stats. The question is, is it responsible for all of it? To understand that we have to hold severity constant and compare across time.
A recent study tries to define "profound autism" as "nonverbal, minimally verbal, or IQ<50". They found a significant increase in US children aged 8 from 2000-2016 with profound autism. Non-profound autism increased much more, which makes sense given the broadening of criteria. The study is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10576490/
Anecdotally, any speech therapist with a long career will likely remark on a local increase of severe autism cases over the last 20-30 yrs. It's not as "skyrocketing" as ASD stats, but prevalence has likely increased substantially.
I wonder if perhaps the age when people become parents has an affect on this. Anecdotally, many of the people I know of my generation are having kids later than their parents and grandparents did. There's known correlations to different long-term health issues that we do know of that are related to the age of parents, so if there's a rise in average age of parenthood, it could be related?
Advancing paternal age was not associated with an increase in risk for either Down syndrome or chromosomal disorders other than Down syndrome.
Multiple neonatal and pediatric disorders have been linked to older paternal ages.
The risk of paternal age has been difficult to estimate and interpret because children often have parents whose ages are similar and likely to be confounded.
Don't want to deny that your question, is it responsible for all of it, is sill undecided, however this issue is _likely_ due to similar changes in societal factors.
The Mental Health Parity Act passed in '96, and another passed in '08[0]. Together this leads to a significant increase in to those with mental health issues being treated. So while broadening of criteria might not be to blame for what you're discussing, the broadening of mental health care coverage might be.
my pet theory is that assortative mating concentrates autism. two people who are each slightly on the spectrum meet, they click (because their minds are compatible), get married and have children. the genetic factors involve get concentrated. after a few generations the effect gets really noticeable. it's easier for autistic people to meet, especially with easier travel, large cities and niches.
That study is at risk of the same effects of diagnostic rules, case-finding, service incentives, record linkage and diagnostic substitution as any other. So it can explain the increase shown here as well. That said, you're right, we don't know if there is within that an increase or not being masked. But it's very possible there isn't, or if there is, it's pretty small. Which wouldn't really mandate as much worrying as is happening now.
For me, the question might be, can we get the data in check? Don't want to go another 20 years and still not be able to know the real data because we kept changing the definitions, the rules around diagnosis, who is eligible to be diagnosed, the cost of diagnosis, etc.
I think the definition of "profound" they chose (nonverbal, minimally verbal or IQ < 50) has much less wiggle room than the broad ASD/autism diagnosis, and also fewer incentives towards inflation. Diagnosis replacement vis-a-vis intellectual disability is still a worry, and I wish there was a way to contrast with an ID stat for the same population.
Overall am in strong agreement with you, the main thing is to nail down data and very little seems to be done towards that. I've followed these studies and articles since 2011 or so with increasing dismay. The headline-grabbing stats of "1 in X" growing every year are next to meaningless, and yet I believe much points towards prevalence of actual condition really increasing. But with scandalously amorphous definitions and abysmal longitudinal bookkeeping we don't know and can't know how much it's increasing and in what subpopulations.
The post does cover the stats on severe cases as a substitution effect:
> Evidence: Special-education records reveal a decline in “mental retardation” and other diagnosis counts with each uptick in autism during the 1990s. This is observed in many areas, at many points in time.
I'm not a biologist or a doctor, but I suspect that the reason for more people with profound autism is the fact that all developed countries have massively improved rates of saving fetuses in the premature birth events. If my hypothesis is true, it would mean that so called pro-life conservatives are practically causing increased rates of profound autism, by forcing people to save damaged embryos/fetuses.
PS: in my limited circle of acquaintances, 2 out of 2 cases of such kids were caused by doctors saving the fetus with direct medical intervention. And according to one of the fathers of such kid, the more advanced countries are moving away from doing that universally to every mother.
i have no opinion on whether population growth is a factor, but to make an observation of the growth of cases it wouldn't matter because the therapists probably know each other, so having more therapists in a locality would be included in the observation. there are more cases not because more people come to me, but because i know more therapists having cases.
Building a prototype of a site/app to help teach my youngest child speak and understand language. He's five and doesn't speak beyond just a few syllables and 3-4 simplest words. He has something called childhood apraxia of speech, which is basically a condition where the brain doesn't know how to control muscles of the tongue/the mouth/the lips to create complex movements necessary for speech. These movements can be learned, but it can be a very very slow process. Sometimes it's just a few sounds that need to be learned or fixed, but with my son, it's very severe. Adam says "mama" and "papa" and can pronounce several vowels together with 2-3 consonants after 1.5 years of intensive speech-production-directed therapy. This month's achievement is he learned to purse his lips, which he never could before, and which you need for sounds like 'oo' (he still can't say the sound while pursing his lips). He understands much more (hundreds of words), but mostly in isolation, following rapid speech is hard.
There are apps that help kids on the autistic spectrum to communicate, and flashcard systems, and we're experimenting with these, but they're more geared towards encouraging the child to communicate. In our case, he communicates fine with gestures, nudges, pointing at things he wants, bringing flash cards of foods he wants, eye contact etc. And he seems to have good cognitive skills in terms of puzzles, basic arithmetics and counting, memory, etc. It is learning language as an auditory system that seems to be really difficult.
Adam can 'read' in the sense of knowing and recognizing all the letters (he takes delight in that) and pronounce the few syllables he's able to when he sees them written out (mostly consonants m,n,h with vowels a,o,e). His phonematic understanding for other syllables exists but is poor (e.g. he has trouble choosing between a BAH card and a PAH card when I say one of them out loud, whereas the letters B/P in isolation are easy). My idea is to build an app/site which teaches him and reinforces three-way connections [picture]<-->[written form]<-->[sounds] by letting him "type", initially by pecking at large squares with letters on screen, rather than an entire keyboard. So for example, there's a picture of him at the top, a row of 4 big blank squares underneath the leftmost of which is blinking, and 7-8 letters strewn around at the bottom, from which he can type in sequence A-D-A-M and get a sound effect of victory. For words he doesn't know or remember, there's a mode where he just needs to repeat e.g. C-A-T which is already written in identical squares in a separate row just above, then after a few successes the hint row goes away. For an MVP in which I can quickly backfill 100-200 simple words like that, and track progress, this would already, I think, be valuable; then maybe I can add a mode where the words sounds (with or without the picture) and he needs to type it.
If all this works for simple words, and he takes pleasure in typing, the stretch goal is to turn from words into short sentences, and both teach him phrases like I WANT [X], or WHERE IS MOM?, and let him request stuff with such phrases. None of this directly addresses the apraxia problem of actually learning to move his lips/tongue/throat/etc. appropriately, but I hope it can create more scaffolding around our efforts in that area (which we try very hard to work on daily) and together help him build an understanding of language/syntax. I'm very worried that, despite ongoing (very slow) progress in both speaking and understanding, phrases, sentences, syntax seem to elude Adam's grasp, and time is running so very fast.
I've been a backend/systems developer almost all my life, with not a lot of frontend experience (although I do know basic HTML/CSS/JS), and no app development. So I'm thinking for now to prototype this as a web page/pages, maybe using a lightweight framework rather than vanilla HTML (not sure), and let him interact with it on the iPad. I'll try to get the basic visual elements (picture/rows of squares for typed letters/bag of letters to choose from below) right with CSS/JS, and see if I can iterate from that. That's the idea, currently.
An electron is just an excitation of the electron field, a vast probabilistic something that's ever-present everywhere in the universe, with a different complex-number amplitude (not observable directly) at each and every point. Sometimes that vagaries of its ever-changing amplitudes cause it to locally coalesce into something that looks like an individual electron if you squint at it in the right manner, and that vision persists until a strong enough interaction with another vast and nebulous field shatters the illusion, at least in the tiny corner of the probabilistic multiverse your local version of your consciousness brazenly imagines to be the objective reality. What kind of existence is that?
An existence that mistakenly took fundamental reality to consist of point particles instead of fields. But we still found out about fields and quantum mechanics.
We don't know that fields are real. We just know that the mathematical language of fields is the most convenient and concise to describe the experimental results we see.
As a starting pint, the magnetic field can be shown to be real with metal filings. Whether fields are the fundamental building block is another matter.
The vast majority come from PG. When they don't it's another public domain transcription source, like Wikisource, Faded Page, or Project Gutenberg Australia. We usually don't create our own transcriptions.
Our producers can and do contribute back upstream! It's up to the individual producer.
