New Ebola outbreak in DRC is 'truly frightening', says Wellcome Trust director

Question was flagged before I could read it, but based on responses citing the birth rate, the premise of the question might have been along the lines of whether or not it's worth saving lives in areas with high birth rates if we're concerned about overpopulation.

Hans Rosling provides an exhaustive rebuttal to that question in Factfulness: https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Bett...

Here's a speech he gives on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnexjTCBksw

To make it as short as possible: if you're concerned about family sizes, the best path forward is, counterintuitively, improving health and reducing infant mortality, not the opposite. Parents seem to compensate for high infant mortality and high poverty with larger families, but naturally adjust family sizes downward as conditions improve. That trend seems to hold in countries all around the world, dozens of examples so far without counterexamples. (I.e., Malthus was wrong, according to all the data we have.)

But his book is still really worth reading, it bolsters his argument with much more data.

Can you elaborate on how it does not spread in the first world?