4 ms·

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 w

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 .

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 .