Quote: David Chapman @ December 15 2008, 3:53 PM GMT
Oh no! Little Aarons! F**k!!!
Thats why I have this
The procreation thread Page 4
Quote: Dr Mato @ December 14 2008, 10:09 AM GMTLet us hope not lots. There are enough people and a few less would be a better plan.
Yeah - let's kill some!
Quote: sootyj @ December 14 2008, 2:30 PM GMTAye Carumba signor DaButt!
One sister no plans for kids.
Thank f**k for that!
Quote: David Chapman @ December 15 2008, 3:57 PM GMTIsn't that a bit of a stupid question?
Not if you're an only child. Every couple needs to produce at least 2.1 children to ensure the survival of the species.
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 4:15 PM GMTNot if you're an only child. Every couple needs to produce at least 2.1 children to ensure the survival of the species.
Where are you getting this data?
Quote: David Chapman @ December 15 2008, 3:57 PM GMTIsn't that a bit of a stupid question?
Well spotted!
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 4:15 PM GMTNot if you're an only child. Every couple needs to produce at least 2.1 children to ensure the survival of the species.
I doubt that at the moment, there does seem to be rather a lot of us.
Quote: Mike Greybloke @ December 15 2008, 4:21 PM GMTWhere are you getting this data?
That figure is an average for the entire planet, of course. But it's common sense that to avoid ever-declining populations each couple must produce at least 2 children to offset their own eventual deaths. But when you add in childhood mortality and the fact that there are more female births than males, the established figure is 2.1 births per couple. It'd be more in areas where child mortality is greater, of course. And then there things like infertility, etc. to be considered.
I thought it was 2.4. Hence the sitcom.
Quote: zooo @ December 15 2008, 6:06 PM GMTI thought it was 2.4. Hence the sitcom.
Not 100% positive, but I think 2.4 children is/was the average number of children in a typical household.
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 6:05 PM GMTThat figure is an average for the entire planet, of course. But it's common sense that to avoid ever-declining populations each couple must produce at least 2 children to offset their own eventual deaths. But when you add in childhood mortality and the fact that there are more female births than males, the established figure is 2.1 births per couple. It'd be more in areas where child mortality is greater, of course. And then there things like infertility, etc. to be considered.
Would a decline in the human population be ever so much a bad thing?
Quote: Mike Greybloke @ December 15 2008, 6:16 PM GMTWould a decline in the human population be ever so much a bad thing?
If it goes on for too long, yes.
The birth rates for most developed countries are already at or below the replacement rate, hence the populations are shrinking or are only maintained by immigration, but the birth rates for many underdeveloped countries are sky high. Take a look at this list and you'll see that birth rates are inversely proportional to the ability of the nation to support its population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
The world's population is still growing, but the people who can least afford to have babies are having most of the babies.
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 6:24 PM GMTThe world's population is still growing, but the people who can least afford to have babies are having most of the babies.
But they're also the people who can least afford not to have babies; because many may die before their 5th birthday and they need their labour and to provide for them in their old age.
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 6:14 PM GMTNot 100% positive, but I think 2.4 children is/was the average number of children in a typical household.
Yes.
Quote: Aaron @ December 15 2008, 6:38 PM GMTYes.
I think, in the UK at least, this is no longer true. I think the number is lower now.
Quote: DaButt @ December 15 2008, 6:14 PM GMTNot 100% positive, but I think 2.4 children is/was the average number of children in a typical household.
Ohhhhhhhhh, yeah, of course.
I'm getting my statistics mixed up!