The average number of children a woman gives birth to in 1950 was 4.7. It dropped to 2.4 in 2017 and is expected to decline to 1,7 in 2100. This published in The Lancet mag.
I gave birth to two; no decimal points here. So those are worldwide numbers? I imagine the US numbers are even smaller.
@Beth Gallagher If "Our Stolen Future" has credibility, population increase should have begun with, and coincided somewhat with the introduction of hormone-mimicking chemicals, many decades ago, used as pesticides, rodenticides, herbicides, and growth-inducing formulations fed to animals. Included are the infamous PCBs, electrical-insulating oils contained in hundreds of thousands of electrical distribution transformers world-wide. These were manufactured primarily by Monsanto Co. from the 1930s until 1970s. These chemicals are responsible for reduced birth numbers, the tendency being pased from generation to generation. Frank
That may be part of the decline, Frank. But I am more inclined to believe that modern birth control methods coupled with the fact that women want more than to be broodmares contributes to the smaller birth rate. People are more responsible in having smaller families that they are better equipped to care for, plus they aren't raising a brood to help work the farm anymore.
I wonder about that decimal. Does that mean .7, .4, .7 months as in not yet born? Also, coming out of the closet should be contributed to the decrease in the population.
It's just an average number, Von. Metadata says "The total fertility is expressed as the number of children per woman. Total fertility (TF) is computed as the sum of age-specific fertility rates weighted by the number of years in each age group, divided by 1,000. "
Haha. Like with many long division solutions, x divided by y is often not a whole number, but a decimal or fraction.
@Beth Gallagher But you do not mention that sperm counts taken world-wide over the past 70 years have steadily declined, some places drastically. The "chance" of a pregnancy happening is directly related to sperm count. The sperm count decline is theorized to b e related to the fact that overall, males bodies "recognize" endocrine-like chemicals as female characteristics, which reduces production of sperm. Sorry, but I believe it. Frank
The Replacement Birth Rate (that is, where the population neither increases nor decreases) is 2.1 children per woman, on average. That .1 is to offset early deaths, and factors in the slightly higher number of male births than female. So per the math: For every 1,000 women, the Replacement Level is 210o babies: 1,000 x 2.1 = 2,100 It is not an even number of children per woman...2 would be a slightly declining population, and 3 would be a greatly increasing population. Some women will have no babies, some will have less than 2, and some will have more. For the general discussion: Here is a map that shows births per 1,000 total population (it gets a little confusing because you gotta look at each nation's demographics.) Notice the blue countries have the lowest rate. Although not defined by this "total population ration," they are below their replacement rate. Some of those countries are experiencing declining populations (such as Japan), while others are being maintained (or are growing) due to immigration (such as The United States.) The orange-to-red nations are the cause of an increasing total global population, more than offsetting everyone else's decline. I believe that once economies get modernized and people are taken out of survival/poverty circumstances, they have fewer children because there is hope and a concept of their future. They can focus resources on the future betterment of one or two children. It "just happens" without intervention, unless you consider modern birth control methods they may voluntarily adopt to be "intervention." Then there's cultural changes affecting the number of marriages we're all familiar with. Another force that's rarely discussed is that GDP has gone from being a measure of economic activity to being an end unto itself. For all the hand-wringing there has been regarding over-population, modern economies are not prepared for the contraction that fewer workers and consumer would bring. Japan is somewhat an exception, meaning that they don't worry about ebbs & flows. They will sacrifice the "short term" (meaning a couple of generations) for their long-term good. Kinda sucks if you happen to be one of those sacrificial generations.
The getting pregnant - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling. If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.
Yup. Many nations are below that rate while many are above it. ps: Welcome to the forum, Sunaina!!! There's a good group of people her from all over (I see you're from India.) You might want to go to the Introductions thread and introduce your self. It's located here: http://www.seniorsonly.club/forums/introductions/ See you around!!!
It would be good if the world population declined. We are burning through resources at an incredible rate. We are trying to keep up with how to FEED everyone. I am not trying to be cruel. But as was said before we don't need to make workers for the farm anymore. It is ok now to say that we don't want kids and birth control is safe and available. ( I'd prefer it to abortion)