4 ms·

As always, I rely on OWID https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab=chart&time=1950..2015&country=OWID_WRL+IND+USA+Africa https://ourworldin

by avip 7y ago

As always, I rely on OWID https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab=chart&time=1950..2015&country=OWID_WRL+IND+USA+Africa https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN?tab... Go to interactive mode. India and USA are already on sub-replacement. China is way under. Africa is the main reason world’s population is still growing.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Did you even read my post? OWID was one of the links I cited. I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked does not say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR, not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the US. To quote Wikipedia: > From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth. 5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1. Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA. Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the 1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still growing.
- avip 7y ago
  India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    How high is child mortality? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above replacement. Please at least try to look up the statistics and form your opinion based on them, rather than forming your opinion and making up claims about the statistics based on your opinion. Why don't I just make this really simple for you: India's population will grow by 1.10% annually from 2015-2020 according to UN estimates from 2017.[1] If that's not recent enough for you, India is projected to grow 1.08% in 2019.[2] So however you want to argue this, India's population is growing. As I said and cited before, its absolute (not proportional) growth is greater than any other country in the world.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... [2] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-populat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
    - avip 7y ago
      The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above replacement. Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about (I was replying to someone claiming that halving world population won’t help as we are “reproducing exponentially”). I think you are trying to make some point I probably agree with (or correct something I’ve said but it’s unclear what)
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        > The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above replacement. That's true: the UN measuring the TFR being above replacement is what implies that the TFR is above replacement. You just ignored half the post you responded to, so I'll say it again: How high is the child mortality rate? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above replacement. > Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about My original point was that the TFR for developed nations is fairly irrelevant given the overall world population is still growing. But we're well past the point where you can maintain any credibility based on your original post anyway, because you've made a bunch of erroneous claims since then. All the following are wrong statements quoted from you: * Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa. * India and USA are already on sub-replacement. * India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate. Since you are now selectively reading the facts, my posts, and even your own posts, to try to draw attention away from where you're wrong, I don't think you're engaging in good-faith debate any more, so I'm done.

by avip 7y ago

kerkeslager 7y ago

Did you even read my post? OWID was one of the links I cited. I'm not sure how to go to interactive mode, but the chart you linked does not say that India and the USA are on sub-replacement. That's a graph of TFR, not population change, and it shows 2.35 children being born per woman in India as of 2015, so by itself the chart proves that India is increasing the world population. The rates are 1.87 for the US, which is sub-replacement, but the US also has increasing population due to immigration. Obviously that isn't a change to the world's population, but if you're counting immigration out of other countries in population change, you have to count immigration into the US. To quote Wikipedia: > From 2017 to 2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, and Indonesia, listed according to the expected size of their contribution to that projected population growth. 5 out of 9 of those countries are in Africa, but note that India is #1. Note that if you look into where they are getting their data, both OWID and Wikipedia are citing the UN DESA. Also note that a decline in population growth rate is not the same as a decline in population. Growth rates have been in decline worldwide since the 1950s, but are still positive, meaning population in those countries is still growing.

avip 7y ago
India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  How high is child mortality? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above replacement. Please at least try to look up the statistics and form your opinion based on them, rather than forming your opinion and making up claims about the statistics based on your opinion. Why don't I just make this really simple for you: India's population will grow by 1.10% annually from 2015-2020 according to UN estimates from 2017.[1] If that's not recent enough for you, India is projected to grow 1.08% in 2019.[2] So however you want to argue this, India's population is growing. As I said and cited before, its absolute (not proportional) growth is greater than any other country in the world.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... [2] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-populat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
  - avip 7y ago
    The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above replacement. Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about (I was replying to someone claiming that halving world population won’t help as we are “reproducing exponentially”). I think you are trying to make some point I probably agree with (or correct something I’ve said but it’s unclear what)
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > The fact that India’s population is growing does not imply TFR is above replacement. That's true: the UN measuring the TFR being above replacement is what implies that the TFR is above replacement. You just ignored half the post you responded to, so I'll say it again: How high is the child mortality rate? 4.1% as of 2016[1]. Even using your low number (2.2) that you didn't cite, 2.2 * (1 - 0.041) = 2.109, still above replacement. > Now you can go back up to my original post, and see what it was about My original point was that the TFR for developed nations is fairly irrelevant given the overall world population is still growing. But we're well past the point where you can maintain any credibility based on your original post anyway, because you've made a bunch of erroneous claims since then. All the following are wrong statements quoted from you: * Most of the world is already on sub-replacement. The only worth mentioning exception is Africa. * India and USA are already on sub-replacement. * India's TFR is reported 2.2-2.3 for 2018. That is, for a developing country with high child mortality, the replacement rate. Since you are now selectively reading the facts, my posts, and even your own posts, to try to draw attention away from where you're wrong, I don't think you're engaging in good-faith debate any more, so I'm done.