4 ms·

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 w

by 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.
- avip 7y ago
  This is not how replacement rate is calculated. The common formula/approximation is inverse of product of probability of reaching mean fertility age and female ratio. The female ratio in India is 0.482. The other factor I have no idea. If it’s ~94% then 2.2 is the replacement rate. I think that’s fairly high provided we start at 96.8% but who knows.

by avip 7y ago

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.

avip 7y ago
This is not how replacement rate is calculated. The common formula/approximation is inverse of product of probability of reaching mean fertility age and female ratio. The female ratio in India is 0.482. The other factor I have no idea. If it’s ~94% then 2.2 is the replacement rate. I think that’s fairly high provided we start at 96.8% but who knows.