3 ms·
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 fem
by 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 agoAs 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 agoI 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 agoYou can still grow, like India clearly shows, the woman just need to give birth more times.
- manquer 6y agothe 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