Overall, children living in famine regions show a higher prevalence of negative health outcomes, including poor SRH [self‐rated health], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and auditory and visual problems. However, there are no differences in socioeconomic standing.
Those exposed in utero show stark differences in self‐rated health, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and auditory problems. Conversely, the differences between famine areas and nonfamine areas for those born postfamine show the reverse tendency, with the areas previously [a]ffected by famine demonstrating better health [than those exposed in utero] across nearly every outcome. Sixty‐two percent of those living in the famine region reported positive SRH, compared to 72 percent among those living in nonfamine provinces.
Similarly, those who were in utero in the famine region also had lower SRH than those in nonfamine regions, though the gap was smaller. Conversely, for the postfamine control group those residing in the region previously affected by famine show better SRH than in the nonfamine region. Similar patterns between famine and nonfamine regions in distinct age groups can be found across multiple outcomes.
For instance, cardiovascular disease prevalence is 11.4 percent for those who lived in a famine region during childhood, whereas their unexposed counterparts had a 7.8 percent prevalence.
[…]
Table 5 presents estimated famine effects on socioeconomic outcomes. As seen in the first set of columns, with the exception of females exposed in the first trimester of gestation or at ages 10–14 exposure to famine decreases the odds of attaining a higher educational degree for all individuals. The severity of the impact is larger for males than for females. Importantly, as predicted the postnatal famine exposure is more consequential for educational attainment than in utero.
(Emphasis added.)
Click here for events that happened today (March 7).
1904: Tragically, Reinhard Heydrich arrived on this dust ball.
1933: Imperialists of the 16th Brigade of the Japanese 8th Division attacked Gubeikou Pass of the Great Wall north of Beiping, China, but the Chinese 67th Corps repulsed the assault.
1936: Upon the success of the Rhineland reoccupation in western Germany, the Chancellor dissolved the Reichstag and called for re‐elections, which saw overwhelming approval for the action.
1937: Falangists began their advance aiming for Guadalajara to the northeast of Madrid on the main Madrid‐Saragossa highway, which was allotted as their main approach axis.
1938: American surgeon Robert O. Wilson of the American‐administered University Hospital in the Safety Zone in Nanjing, China wrote to his family, noting that ‘a conservative estimate of people slaughtered in cold blood is somewhere about 100,000, including of course thousands of soldiers that had thrown down their arms.’
1940: Berlin allocated 8 divisions for the invasion of Norway and Denmark.
1941: Günther Prien and the crew of Axis submarine U‐47 (one of the most successful U‐boats of World War II) disappeared without leaving a trace.
I think this kind of stuff is chalked down to epigenetics but I could be wrong.
It could also just be general body weakness and damage to organs while they were still developing.
Famine victims would more likely have less developed or damaged organs and reproductive systems, which in turn would impact the development of a fetus in the womb. It could also be assumed that the egg and sperm produced would be of “lesser quality” due to the organs producing them being compromised.
This damage would of course be substantially more pronounced if the famine victims were younger then 24-26 when the famine occurred, since their bodies and reproductive organs would not be fully developed yet, with the younger the person being the more long term damage sustained.
Conversely, the differences between famine areas and nonfamine areas for those born postfamine show the reverse tendency, with the areas previously [a]ffected by famine demonstrating better health across nearly every outcome. Sixty‐two percent of those living in the famine region reported positive SRH, compared to 72 percent among those living in nonfamine provinces.
uhhh don’t they contradict themselves here? 62% positive for famine, 72% positive for nonfamine?
Famines are bad and have no upsides, whatsoever. That’s the takeaway here
Pay attention:
Those exposed in utero
those born postfamine
ETA: I edited the excerpt to be less ambiguous.
