5 ms·

One aspect this article does not address at all is the massive sex ratio imbalance in India and China (for different reasons) at around 1,100 men for every 1000

One aspect this article does not address at all is the massive sex ratio imbalance in India and China (for different reasons) at around 1,100 men for every 1000 women. This means there are 100 million girls less today in these countries alone, finding a suitable partner becomes harder and there are lesser number of couples will be there in the first place who can have kids The 2.1 replacement is perhaps not adequate at all. The models are outdated and largely considers IFMR and few other factors, it does not factor really in issues such as the gender imbalance, hikikomori, much later age pregnancies ( higher chances of miscarriages etc?) and slightly more controversially also same sex relationships / marriages . I do not mean to imply same sex relationships are bad or anything like that, What I mean to say is that everyone needs to have more kids as it is harder for same sex couples to have biological children ( while adoption is great and purest expression of parenthood it does not increase the population)

ggggtez 6y ago
Miscarriages are not births. If the birth rate remains at 2.1 you can have as many miscarriages as you want, and the population will still increase. The same with Hikkikomori, and gay people. As long as there is 2.1 children born for every woman, then the population will increase. The only factor which you mention that is correct is that in a society that murders female babies, then yes, you will need more than a 2.1 birthrate. And as the article mentions, India is expected to grow over the next 80 years. So they clearly have a fertility rate that exceeds whatever number they need. I think you are confusing the fertility rate, with how many children a family with children would have. The denominator is different, and that's a completely different issue, but perhaps one that is worth thinking about.
- tomerico 6y ago
  You are failing to account for the gender imbalance. Consider an extreme gender ratio where for the 2.1 born for an average woman, there are 2 males and 0.1 females. This means that every generation will have 10X less women.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    As they said, "in a society that murders female babies, then yes, you will need more than a 2.1 birthrate." Murder or not (I'm not sure what the illegal "sex-selective technologies" actually are), the gender imbalance is not a natural phenomenon thankfully.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      I would presume just abortions once the gender is known. Is that unethical or murder? Gut instinct says it's bad but reconciling it with pro choice views is tricky. Regardless of the individual ethics, its likely terrible for society.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    You can still grow, like India clearly shows, the woman just need to give birth more times.
    - manquer 6y ago
      the effect of will be only felt few generation later , lesser giving birth to lesser girls when all other things are equal means 2.1 will not work . For example If you start with a population of 100 (50 couples )and every next gen there are 9 boys to 1 girl and fertility ratio is 2 then your third gen will have only 20 kids as there will be only 20 women in the second gen . The fourth gen will have only 4 kids and there may not a 5 gen. Either balance has to be fixed or replacement ratio of women has to be 1 not all kids , to sustain a 1:10 ratio of gender means 10 kids per female so there will be 1 girl kid
- novia 6y ago
  >If the birth rate remains at 2.1 you can have as many miscarriages as you want, and the population will still increase. 2.1 children per woman is the REPLACEMENT rate, meaning this is what it would take for the population size to remain roughly the same. One kid to replace her, one kid to replace a random dude (not necessarily the father!), and .1 kids to make up for the kids that die before they reach adulthood. This does not mean that every woman needs to have children. it means that the total number of children divided by the total amount of women needs to be 2.1 for the population to remain stable
- manquer 6y ago
  Yes , you are right that any one having a family will need to have a large one. Just like China one child policy effect will be visible in another 20 years suddenly and drastically, it will be similar for gender. population will not change gently , it will be a cliff .
tuatoru 6y ago
I was going to make this point. What matters is not the total fertility rate, but the reproduction ratio: number of daughters per woman. Now that fetal sex selection is a thing, the previously fixed relationship between TFR and RR is fixed no longer.
kamaal 6y ago
>>This means there are 100 million girls less today in these countries alone Actual numbers are way off the real numbers. In my kids school you can see a very noticeably difference in the count of boys and girls in any standard and section. It's noticeable to a point, if you walk in to a classroom you can see at least visually boys outnumber girls by a good enough difference. I also refuse to believe this due to infanticide or foeticide. The dirty little secret is at least in most urban centers, even tier 2 cities, these practices are dead today. You can't blame these practices for the difference anymore. How then is the difference arising? Again on a pure anecdotal evidence basis, I see people who have boys tend to have more boys. That is male kids are born more to families with more male kids. Also having the first kid as a boy couples tend to go in for more kids. On the other hand these days if some one had a daughter as the first child they don't even bother to have another child. This way boys are born way ore than. This is a huge problem. Reason being this is not wrong by any means. This not illegal or unethical. Yet it creates a larger social problem. These problems will never go away in India as long as there are big fat wedding expenses(Pretty much entirely paid by the girls side) and dowry. And girls not allowed to take care of their parents, both in presence help and financial help. The other part is of course due to Thyroid illness become prevalent in India. Many couples aren't able to have kids. I expect the gender ratio imbalance to not only continue but get way worse in India. Like really to a point, where an upper middle class man wouldn't be able to find a bride after decades of searching.
- saithound 6y ago
  Your proposed (not illegal, not unethical) explanation does not work out mathematically. Even in the extreme scenario where all families stopped would stop having kids after the birth of a daughter, the expected number of male children would equal the expected number of female children. And even if say 52 percent of babies born are boys, you won't ever get a male excess of the discussed magnitude (1100 men for every 1000 women) this way. You can try a Scala simulation here: https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE.
  - kamaal 6y ago
    Mine was just an anecdotal evidence. Also that 52% boy babies count itself is too low. The real scenario for my comparison is 3 boys for every 1 girl born. It's also way more complicated than your simulation. Say the first kid was a boy and the second kid was a girl, people don't stop. They think their risk(Having a boy to provide in old age) is hedged and are likely to try for one more kid. If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. Also note, just a small imbalance is not enough to cover for marriages. In India getting married is a long series of AND conditions you have to pass through. Religion, Caste, Language, Skin Color, Dowry affordability, Age, Social Standing etc etc. You are likely to end up a section of society that just doesn't get any girls. India is a society where a daughter means a huge wedding expense, plus dowry. All this a drain to your retirement savings, plus now not having a provider in old age(which you would have one if you had a boy instead of a girl). That's how screwed up the society is. It's really one of the worst places on earth for a woman to be born in. You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades.

ggggtez 6y ago

Miscarriages are not births. If the birth rate remains at 2.1 you can have as many miscarriages as you want, and the population will still increase. The same with Hikkikomori, and gay people. As long as there is 2.1 children born for every woman, then the population will increase. The only factor which you mention that is correct is that in a society that murders female babies, then yes, you will need more than a 2.1 birthrate. And as the article mentions, India is expected to grow over the next 80 years. So they clearly have a fertility rate that exceeds whatever number they need. I think you are confusing the fertility rate, with how many children a family with children would have. The denominator is different, and that's a completely different issue, but perhaps one that is worth thinking about.

tomerico 6y ago
You are failing to account for the gender imbalance. Consider an extreme gender ratio where for the 2.1 born for an average woman, there are 2 males and 0.1 females. This means that every generation will have 10X less women.
- nikitaga 6y ago
  As they said, "in a society that murders female babies, then yes, you will need more than a 2.1 birthrate." Murder or not (I'm not sure what the illegal "sex-selective technologies" actually are), the gender imbalance is not a natural phenomenon thankfully.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    I would presume just abortions once the gender is known. Is that unethical or murder? Gut instinct says it's bad but reconciling it with pro choice views is tricky. Regardless of the individual ethics, its likely terrible for society.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  You can still grow, like India clearly shows, the woman just need to give birth more times.
  - manquer 6y ago
    the effect of will be only felt few generation later , lesser giving birth to lesser girls when all other things are equal means 2.1 will not work . For example If you start with a population of 100 (50 couples )and every next gen there are 9 boys to 1 girl and fertility ratio is 2 then your third gen will have only 20 kids as there will be only 20 women in the second gen . The fourth gen will have only 4 kids and there may not a 5 gen. Either balance has to be fixed or replacement ratio of women has to be 1 not all kids , to sustain a 1:10 ratio of gender means 10 kids per female so there will be 1 girl kid
novia 6y ago
>If the birth rate remains at 2.1 you can have as many miscarriages as you want, and the population will still increase. 2.1 children per woman is the REPLACEMENT rate, meaning this is what it would take for the population size to remain roughly the same. One kid to replace her, one kid to replace a random dude (not necessarily the father!), and .1 kids to make up for the kids that die before they reach adulthood. This does not mean that every woman needs to have children. it means that the total number of children divided by the total amount of women needs to be 2.1 for the population to remain stable
manquer 6y ago
Yes , you are right that any one having a family will need to have a large one. Just like China one child policy effect will be visible in another 20 years suddenly and drastically, it will be similar for gender. population will not change gently , it will be a cliff .

tuatoru 6y ago

I was going to make this point. What matters is not the total fertility rate, but the reproduction ratio: number of daughters per woman. Now that fetal sex selection is a thing, the previously fixed relationship between TFR and RR is fixed no longer.

kamaal 6y ago

>>This means there are 100 million girls less today in these countries alone Actual numbers are way off the real numbers. In my kids school you can see a very noticeably difference in the count of boys and girls in any standard and section. It's noticeable to a point, if you walk in to a classroom you can see at least visually boys outnumber girls by a good enough difference. I also refuse to believe this due to infanticide or foeticide. The dirty little secret is at least in most urban centers, even tier 2 cities, these practices are dead today. You can't blame these practices for the difference anymore. How then is the difference arising? Again on a pure anecdotal evidence basis, I see people who have boys tend to have more boys. That is male kids are born more to families with more male kids. Also having the first kid as a boy couples tend to go in for more kids. On the other hand these days if some one had a daughter as the first child they don't even bother to have another child. This way boys are born way ore than. This is a huge problem. Reason being this is not wrong by any means. This not illegal or unethical. Yet it creates a larger social problem. These problems will never go away in India as long as there are big fat wedding expenses(Pretty much entirely paid by the girls side) and dowry. And girls not allowed to take care of their parents, both in presence help and financial help. The other part is of course due to Thyroid illness become prevalent in India. Many couples aren't able to have kids. I expect the gender ratio imbalance to not only continue but get way worse in India. Like really to a point, where an upper middle class man wouldn't be able to find a bride after decades of searching.

saithound 6y ago
Your proposed (not illegal, not unethical) explanation does not work out mathematically. Even in the extreme scenario where all families stopped would stop having kids after the birth of a daughter, the expected number of male children would equal the expected number of female children. And even if say 52 percent of babies born are boys, you won't ever get a male excess of the discussed magnitude (1100 men for every 1000 women) this way. You can try a Scala simulation here: https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE https://pastebin.com/4US9a6aE.
- kamaal 6y ago
  Mine was just an anecdotal evidence. Also that 52% boy babies count itself is too low. The real scenario for my comparison is 3 boys for every 1 girl born. It's also way more complicated than your simulation. Say the first kid was a boy and the second kid was a girl, people don't stop. They think their risk(Having a boy to provide in old age) is hedged and are likely to try for one more kid. If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon. Also note, just a small imbalance is not enough to cover for marriages. In India getting married is a long series of AND conditions you have to pass through. Religion, Caste, Language, Skin Color, Dowry affordability, Age, Social Standing etc etc. You are likely to end up a section of society that just doesn't get any girls. India is a society where a daughter means a huge wedding expense, plus dowry. All this a drain to your retirement savings, plus now not having a provider in old age(which you would have one if you had a boy instead of a girl). That's how screwed up the society is. It's really one of the worst places on earth for a woman to be born in. You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades.