@Knixon said:

2.2 children is the average, already taking into account early mortality, etc. At least in the developed world. In some countries it's still considered the norm to have 5 or 6 children, or even more, because several of them might die before reaching adulthood.

If you're thinking the number should be/must be closer to 1, just remember that each woman has to replace not only herself, but a man too. 2.2 child per woman is the average to maintain the SAME population, NOT "unchecked growth." (Although arguments about "finite resources" and "peak oil" etc are largely invalid for other reasons. Malthus was wrong about that in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, and people who make those arguments now are still wrong, mostly for the same reasons.)

As for the rest of it, as with China - where they already have a pretty serious demographic problem because the 1-child policy resulted in an oversupply of men and not enough women - the problem worldwide is really not that there's too many people in total, or that AMERICANS - or Europeans in developed parts of the world, for that matter - are having too many children. Indeed, most of Europe - the parts Americans think of most as European, anyway - is having a COLLAPSE of population. The larger problem is that countries that already can't feed and otherwise support themselves - often/usually because of socialist/communist governments - keep growing.

This interview still contains the best ideas on the subject that I've encountered so far:

https://www.adrive.com/public/DS9Nut/NARN%2012-02-06%20NARN%201%20Hour%202%20Mark%20Steyn.mp3

Knixon , collapse of population doesn't hurt the planet in any way. Humans industriliaze destroy ecosystems and animal species extinction is collateral damage. We introduce nothing but predation and pollution.

China is in crisis because of overpopulation's affect on it's ecosystems, especially marshlands due to pollution via toxic waste. Whether it's too many men or women is irrelevant.

This planet sustained itself for billion of years without humans on it and somehow you think less people is a detriment to the planet.

And your math is ridiculous because population grows exponentially, there's no 1 to 1 ratios involved. Disease, natural disasters , mass murder and various other x factors stop that exponential growth from rising at a constant.

@CalabrianQueen said:

Knixon , collapse of population doesn't hurt the planet in any way. Humans industriliaze destroy ecosystems and animal species extinction is collateral damage. We introduce nothing but predation and pollution.

If you really think the planet is better off without people, what are you doing here? Lead by example.

China is in crisis because of overpopulation's affect on it's ecosystems, especially marshlands due to pollution via toxic waste. Whether it's too many men or women is irrelevant.

Both China's population problems (such as they are) and pollution problems are because of communism. The population density of China is higher than the US, but it's far from the highest in the world, most of which is not horribly polluted if it's not communist.

This planet sustained itself for billion of years without humans on it and somehow you think less people is a detriment to the planet.

If you really think the planet is better off without people, what are you doing here?

And your math is ridiculous because population grows exponentially, there's no 1 to 1 ratios involved. Disease, natural disasters , mass murder and various other x factors stop that exponential growth from rising at a constant.

How many times does it need to be said? 2.2 children per woman, on average, is what is needed to MAINTAIN the CURRENT population. Going from that to "exponential growth" is ridiculous, have you been watching too much CNN or MSNBC or listening to too much NPR? Reading Mother Jones? Or maybe it's because you recently went to college...

And mass murder helps keeps population from skyrocketing? Really? What is that, college again? Mass murders accounted for what, 300 deaths in the US this year? Meanwhile there were almost 4 million births.

Plus that already goes into the 2.2 figure.

Talk about ridiculous...

Two people have two children. Those first two people get old and die, leaving two people, who (combined with others) have two children, and then get old and die... How in the UNIVERSE can you cook up "exponential growth" from that? I assume you got passing grades in simple math, but maybe I shouldn't.

@CalabrianQueen said:

And your math is ridiculous because population grows exponentially, there's no 1 to 1 ratios involved. Disease, natural disasters , mass murder and various other x factors stop that exponential growth from rising at a constant.

As an FYI, I blocked this contrarian doofus, so I can't read his purely argumentative posts unless they are in a quote from someone else.

But I agree, as usual, this idiot is the Mayor of Wrongville. For making it purely a numbers game, he sure has fuzzy math.

From UNICEF: UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. The crude birth rate is 18.9 births per 1,000 population or 255 births globally per minute or 4.3 births EVERY SECOND. Our current world population is approximately 7.2 billion and growing. It passed the 7 billion mark in 2011. It is expected to reach between 8 to 10 billion by 2050.

To use the need for population figures to justify workplace workload imbalance shows what a complete idiot this guy is, that he will counter any point, that he argues merely to argue, and validates the reason I put this clown on IGNORE in the first place.

@Knixon said:

2.2 children is the average, already taking into account early mortality, etc. At least in the developed world. In some countries it's still considered the norm to have 5 or 6 children, or even more, because several of them might die before reaching adulthood.

If you're thinking the number should be/must be closer to 1, just remember that each woman has to replace not only herself, but a man too. 2.2 child per woman is the average to maintain the SAME population, NOT "unchecked growth." (Although arguments about "finite resources" and "peak oil" etc are largely invalid for other reasons. Malthus was wrong about that in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, and people who make those arguments now are still wrong, mostly for the same reasons.)

As for the rest of it, as with China - where they already have a pretty serious demographic problem because the 1-child policy resulted in an oversupply of men and not enough women - the problem worldwide is really not that there's too many people in total, or that AMERICANS - or Europeans in developed parts of the world, for that matter - are having too many children. Indeed, most of Europe - the parts Americans think of most as European, anyway - is having a COLLAPSE of population. The larger problem is that countries that already can't feed and otherwise support themselves - often/usually because of socialist/communist governments - keep growing.

This interview still contains the best ideas on the subject that I've encountered so far:

https://www.adrive.com/public/DS9Nut/NARN%2012-02-06%20NARN%201%20Hour%202%20Mark%20Steyn.mp3

I know you have this idea that all women should be squeezing out babies, but I don't see how it's my responsibility to keep the planet populated. The human race is in no way, shape, or form in any danger of dying out. This place is crowded. Less people, through a natural process of less procreation, of course, is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don't want children, and I don't have to have them - yay freedom! Statistics and opinions aren't going to change my mind.

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't have kids because people in China already have too many, seems like a candidate for the Darwin Awards. And its an issue that Steyn addresses very well in that interview.

On the plus side, it's difficult to be concerned about liberals not-breeding themselves out of existence. Have at it! Or rather, have NOT at it... or something...

But if you want to accomplish something, go to someplace like China and try to convince THEM not to have so many kids. Just be prepared to spend life in prison as a result.

@Knixon said:

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't have kids because people in China already have too many, seems like a candidate for the Darwin Awards. And its an issue that Steyn addresses very well in that interview.

On the plus side, it's difficult to be concerned about liberals not-breeding themselves out of existence. Have at it! Or rather, have NOT at it... or something...

But if you want to accomplish something, go to someplace like China and try to convince THEM not to have so many kids. Just be prepared to spend life in prison as a result.

I don't know what any of this has to do with what I said. I don't give a crap about China or Steyn or liberals or, to be quite honest, what happens on Earth 100 years from now. Still not having kids. I mean, I guess it would suck if something happened and humans disappeared, but we won't be around to see it, so...not going to ruin my life now in deference to a future I won't be a part of.

@Knixon said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

Knixon , collapse of population doesn't hurt the planet in any way. Humans industriliaze destroy ecosystems and animal species extinction is collateral damage. We introduce nothing but predation and pollution.

If you really think the planet is better off without people, what are you doing here? Lead by example.

China is in crisis because of overpopulation's affect on it's ecosystems, especially marshlands due to pollution via toxic waste. Whether it's too many men or women is irrelevant.

Both China's population problems (such as they are) and pollution problems are because of communism. The population density of China is higher than the US, but it's far from the highest in the world, most of which is not horribly polluted if it's not communist.

This planet sustained itself for billion of years without humans on it and somehow you think less people is a detriment to the planet.

If you really think the planet is better off without people, what are you doing here?

And your math is ridiculous because population grows exponentially, there's no 1 to 1 ratios involved. Disease, natural disasters , mass murder and various other x factors stop that exponential growth from rising at a constant.

How many times does it need to be said? 2.2 children per woman, on average, is what is needed to MAINTAIN the CURRENT population. Going from that to "exponential growth" is ridiculous, have you been watching too much CNN or MSNBC or listening to too much NPR? Reading Mother Jones? Or maybe it's because you recently went to college...

And mass murder helps keeps population from skyrocketing? Really? What is that, college again? Mass murders accounted for what, 300 deaths in the US this year? Meanwhile there were almost 4 million births.

Plus that already goes into the 2.2 figure.

Talk about ridiculous...

Two people have two children. Those first two people get old and die, leaving two people, who (combined with others) have two children, and then get old and die... How in the UNIVERSE can you cook up "exponential growth" from that? I assume you got passing grades in simple math, but maybe I shouldn't.

You might be the dumbest person on the internet. Not everyone has two kids.

NOTHING you just wrote made any freakin sense. The fact that the planet sustained itself for billions of years is not a condemnation of our existence, it's just an ecological fact.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

Read :Since the average annual percent change in a population (growth rate) is often relatively constant during a short period of time, it is not uncommon to fit an exponential model to population data. This exponential model can be used to predict population during a period when the population growth rate remains constant

That's from a Google search, something you aren't apparently bright enough to do.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

To use the need for population figures to justify workplace workload imbalance shows what a complete idiot this guy is, that he will counter any point, that he argues merely to argue, and validates the reason I put this clown on IGNORE in the first place.

I'm about to stop reading his posts because I feel my IQ dropping with each word.

He said two people have two kids and then die and the kids replace them .

I guess he's never heard of people who have 3 kids, 12 kids, no kids, etc. Erica, I suggest you stop engaging him because he seems more interesting in attacking you and setting the education system back 55 years than any excersise in the rational.

He also doesn't know what "on average" means. On average doesn't mean that's everyone , it just means on average.

The communism stuff is where the train really left the tracks.

Hey Knixon, riddle me this: if population grows the way you claim how did we amass Billions from two original People?

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't have kids because people in China already have too many, seems like a candidate for the Darwin Awards. And its an issue that Steyn addresses very well in that interview.

On the plus side, it's difficult to be concerned about liberals not-breeding themselves out of existence. Have at it! Or rather, have NOT at it... or something...

But if you want to accomplish something, go to someplace like China and try to convince THEM not to have so many kids. Just be prepared to spend life in prison as a result.

I don't know what any of this has to do with what I said. I don't give a crap about China or Steyn or liberals or, to be quite honest, what happens on Earth 100 years from now. Still not having kids. I mean, I guess it would suck if something happened and humans disappeared, but we won't be around to see it, so...not going to ruin my life now in deference to a future I won't be a part of.

None of it has anything to do with what you said. One thing he does is use our threads to rant about his unrelated personal politics.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

And your math is ridiculous because population grows exponentially, there's no 1 to 1 ratios involved. Disease, natural disasters , mass murder and various other x factors stop that exponential growth from rising at a constant.

As an FYI, I blocked this contrarian doofus, so I can't read his purely argumentative posts unless they are in a quote from someone else.

But I agree, as usual, this idiot is the Mayor of Wrongville. For making it purely a numbers game, he sure has fuzzy math.

From UNICEF: UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. The crude birth rate is 18.9 births per 1,000 population or 255 births globally per minute or 4.3 births EVERY SECOND. Our current world population is approximately 7.2 billion and growing. It passed the 7 billion mark in 2011. It is expected to reach between 8 to 10 billion by 2050.

To use the need for population figures to justify workplace workload imbalance shows what a complete idiot this guy is, that he will counter any point, that he argues merely to argue, and validates the reason I put this clown on IGNORE in the first place.

Hey censorship, the worst part about all this is that Knixon will be replaced by 2.2 more idiots," on average".

You still don't see how wrong you are? Whoever taught you math should be drummed out of the corps, or whatever.

I didn't say an average of 2.2 children per PERSON. I said 2.2 children per WOMAN. Basically, per COUPLE. And because men can't have children, etc. (You were at least aware of THAT, I hope.)

That there has been exponential growth of population in the past, is true, but also irrelevant. The simple fact is that if each woman - each COUPLE - had 2 children in a world where there's no early mortality etc, the population remains THE SAME. Making it 2.2 allows for early mortality by disease etc, before having children, and even "mass murder" which despite the word "mass" really accounts for a relatively small number of deaths.

Still baffled? Try a simple (even for you, I hope) thought experiment. To make the math easier, start with a million newborns, evenly split male/female, and figure that they have children - 2 per WOMAN, i.e. per COUPLE - also evenly divided male/female, at age 30, and die of old age at 90.

After 30 years, a million children are added to the population. You now have 2 million

After 60 years, those children have a million children added to the total population. That would bring you to 3 million total.

After 90 years, those children have a million children added to the total population. That would bring you to 4 million total. BUT the FIRST million "original" people, DIE. So you still have 3 million total.

After 120 years, the latest children have a million children. But the SECOND group of children have reached age 90, and die. So you still have 3 million total.

And so on.

See how that works? No matter how long you continue that, you simply aren't going to get "exponential growth." Even if people lived forever, with 2 children per WOMAN/COUPLE, the population would still only grow LINEARLY, not EXPONENTIALLY.

But since people DON'T live forever, with 2 children per WOMAN/COUPLE, the population remains STABLE. And indeed, if any of those couples don't do their fair share and have LESS than 2 children and some other couples don't pick up their slack by having MORE, then the total population DECLINES. In fact, if each couple only had ONE child, or even if just the overall rate drops below 2, the population eventually dwindles down to zero.

And that means me having more than 2 children is actually YOUR fault for not having ANY. Someone has to pick up the slack.

@Knixon said:

You still don't see how wrong you are? Whoever taught you math should be drummed out of the corps, or whatever.

I didn't say an average of 2.2 children per PERSON. I said 2.2 children per WOMAN. Basically, per COUPLE. And because men can't have children, etc. (You were at least aware of THAT, I hope.)

That there has been exponential growth of population in the past, is true, but also irrelevant. The simple fact is that if each woman - each COUPLE - had 2 children in a world where there's no early mortality etc, the population remains THE SAME. Making it 2.2 allows for early mortality by disease etc, before having children, and even "mass murder" which despite the word "mass" really accounts for a relatively small number of deaths.

Still baffled? Try a simple (even for you, I hope) thought experiment. To make the math easier, start with a million newborns, evenly split male/female, and figure that they have children - 2 per WOMAN, i.e. per COUPLE - also evenly divided male/female, at age 30, and die of old age at 90.

After 30 years, a million children are added to the population. You now have 2 million

After 60 years, those children have a million children added to the total population. That would bring you to 3 million total.

After 90 years, those children have a million children added to the total population. That would bring you to 4 million total. BUT the FIRST million "original" people, DIE. So you still have 3 million total.

After 120 years, the latest children have a million children. But the SECOND group of children have reached age 90, and die. So you still have 3 million total.

And so on.

See how that works? No matter how long you continue that, you simply aren't going to get "exponential growth." Even if people lived forever, with 2 children per WOMAN/COUPLE, the population would still only grow LINEARLY, not EXPONENTIALLY.

But since people DON'T live forever, with 2 children per WOMAN/COUPLE, the population remains STABLE. And indeed, if any of those couples don't do their fair share and have LESS than 2 children and some other couples don't pick up their slack by having MORE, then the total population DECLINES. In fact, if each couple only had ONE child, or even if just the overall rate drops below 2, the population eventually dwindles down to zero.

And that means me having more than 2 children is actually YOUR fault for not having ANY. Someone has to pick up the slack.

Hey moron, your "math"(and you haven't done any) is completely invalidated by the fact that any two members of a species over time can produce millions and eventually billions of people. What you're describing is not in any way shape or form how population growth works, and the very EXISTENCE of 7.4 Billion people on the planet makes your "2 replacing 2" scenerio impossible.

The data from the U.S:

"according to the United States Census Bureau, over the last 100 years (1910 to 2010), the population of the United States of America is exponentially increasing at an average rate of one and a half percent a year (1.5%). This means that the doubling time of the American population (depending on the yearly growth in population) is approximately 50 years."

I think you need to go back to school,preferably on the short bus. 😏

What has happened in the past, once again, is irrelevant. The point is that if each woman/couple has an average of 2(.2) children, that just maintains stable population. And there's no way to twist it so that having 2(.2) children per couple, somehow magically results in "exponential growth." It's. Not. Possible. Other factors are in play, including - but not limited to - immigration.

I'm also not talking about each couple having 2(.2) children this year, and then another 2(.2) children a few years later, etc. It's 2(.2) children total, ever. There is simply no way that each couple simply replacing itself, results in "exponential growth." As illustrated previously: for a while, a couple producing 2 children, means you have 4 people. And so on. But eventually the couple gets old - or whatever - and dies, and they're not part of the population any more. And THEIR children get old and die. And their GRANDCHILDREN get old and die.

People. Don't. Live. Forever.

Two people having just two children etc, somehow becoming BILLIONS, is only theoretically possible if none of them ever get old and die.

If the population continues to grow, other things are happening that you're not accounting for. It is not because each couple having 2(.2) children is somehow a population bomb. Absolutely. Impossible. No. Way.

Each couple having 2(.2) children - only, ever - are just replacing themselves. That's it. That keeps population stable over time, not growing exponentially.

How many more ways could it be said?

Cat overpopulation wouldn't be a problem either, if each female cat only had 2 babies, ever. (Hint: cats don't live forever either!)

Work it out yourself with alphabet blocks or something, if that's what it takes. But your and others' hysteria doesn't prove anything except maybe - to adapt the title of another thread - the sad state of EDUCATION these days.

@CalabrianQueen said:

Hey moron, your "math"(and you haven't done any) is completely invalidated by the fact that any two members of a species over time can produce millions and eventually billions of ancestors.

Maybe you need to read something by Stephen Hawking about Time, or something.

Anyway, they produce descendants, not ancestors.

But there's still an illustration to be made. Let's take another example.

I had two parents. Four grandparents (not counting remarriages.) Eight great-grandparents. And so on.

Sounds scary I suppose, at least to some people.

But. Care to guess how many are alive NOW?

Don't bother, I'll tell you: ONE. And not for too much longer, she's almost 90.

Are you getting a clue yet?

Even if my total ancestry consists of millions or even billions of people, THEY'RE ALL DEAD NOW, AND NOT PART OF THE POPULATION. ULTIMATELY, THE SAME THING HAPPENS WITH DESCENDANTS TOO. ESPECIALLY IF EACH PERSON ONLY REPLACES THEMSELF.

@ArcticFox12 said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

To use the need for population figures to justify workplace workload imbalance shows what a complete idiot this guy is, that he will counter any point, that he argues merely to argue, and validates the reason I put this clown on IGNORE in the first place.

I'm about to stop reading his posts because I feel my IQ dropping with each word.

He said two people have two kids and then die and the kids replace them .

I guess he's never heard of people who have 3 kids, 12 kids, no kids, etc. Erica, I suggest you stop engaging him because he seems more interesting in attacking you and setting the education system back 55 years than any excersise in the rational.

He also doesn't know what "on average" means. On average doesn't mean that's everyone , it just means on average.

The communism stuff is where the train really left the tracks.

Been away for a bit tending to some stuff. But yes, I put this clown on ignore because he very well may not only be the internet's dumbest poster, but the world's dumbest human. It's rare to see someone this stupid. And on a variety of subjects. Mainly because he feels the need to contradict nearly every thread and point that's made, no matter how ignorant his own rebuttals are. As I said before, this guy argues just to argue. His little penis probably moves more towards hardness each time he gets a direct reply. Do what I did, put him on ignore. That way, he can't inflict himself on anyone out here. But alas, unlike Facebook, he can't be totally blocked. A definite flaw this site has, and one it shares with the old IMDB. It's really only a partial ignore. He can still see my posts, reply to them, and I unfortunately can still see his posts when quoted. And unless I'm to give up the entire discussion - he worms his way back in like the troll he's become.

So - I simply ask that you indulge your inner self respect and put this idiot on ignore. For the threads he hasn't been quoted, and where I actually can't see him, they are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better. Remember, stupid people cannot be raised up. They merely drag others down to their own idiotic levels.