skippydiesel

The most reliable way to control a nation/population is to have a large complacent middle class - remind you anywhere in particular?

The Americans have forgotten this fundamental "law" and are in danger of having a critical mass of the poor/downtrodden/disenfranchised with nothing left to loose by rebelling.

A curs on those Mexicans !

When will Old open its boarder to the rest of Au

A fully charged Lead acid accumulator (the original name) should show 14.2 volts (no load). for a nominal 12 volt item. . Nev

I agree that 14.2 is what you should see from a new/good condition battery. I have the odd lawn mower battery that reads less ,something like 13 and still seems to do the job. I would not accept this in my aircraft where I am careful only to use a battery in top condition.

Heres a question. I bought a new battery for the ride on mower last year and I bought one of those small solar panels. The panel was left connected to the battery all summer without the mower being used. I tried to start it today and two cells had boiled nearly dry. I topped them up and charged it and i hope it will be OK. I was assured that the piddly current could not damage my battery but obviously it did. I put another panel on the R65 BMW and it has also been on charge all summer, but the light comes through a Laserlite panel in the shed and not directly like the mower. It seems OK. So has anyone else overcharged a bike battery using one of those panels?

Short answer No ! I have had $20 Bunnings solar charger on my Holden (Suzuki) Drover "paddock basher" for about 4 years now. Sits on the top of the dash board and we always park her facing north. So far so good, starts every time. Battery is a bit bigger than a mower job and the Drover does get a bit of use from time to time but probably not enough to fully charge the battery after a start.

I guess my point, when used as you quote, that it is not a scientific term . Unfortunately in its common usage its meaning is so vague, it has become almost meaning less.

As I have suggested erlier in our conversation, rather than quote ridiculous bureaucratic publications (mouth pieced of the Gov) try looking into genuine scientific publications particularly those interested in reproduction.

The correct word, in your quote above, is "fecundity" or "reproductive" as in "gross fecundity/reproductive rate" (a horrible sounding phrase in both your quote & my adjustment) it just can not be fertility. It does not matter that I instinctively understand & make the adjustment, it is a gross misuse of the word fertility.

Although I generally accept that language is flexible and evolving, sometimes the change is step to far, particularly when its usage "muddies" the meaning unnecessarily.

If you accept that only living things/systems can be fertile, by logical progression, you accept a country (non living) can not be fertile or have a fertility rate. It can certainly have, when referring to its citizens, a reproductive/fecundity rate but not fertility.

Going further - if you agree that fertility is a word that expresses the potential (future) of a living organism/system to reproduce - the same word can not readily be used to express a past reproductive action.

No doubt I will dwell on this further and may come up with more argument but my Granddaughter is demanding my attention, so I will leave the matter there for the moment.

Regards

I can’t quite let it go - it seems to me the word FERTILITY has all sorts of connotations, as such it has been hijacked by the marketer's, spin doctors, politicians & religions.

The word conjures up images of plenty, youth, health, etc etc when in actual fact it just means potential to reproduce.

By misusing this (& many other) words the population is "dumbed down" and played by those in power.

Sorry Octave, but it is just not possible to have a FERTILITY RATE - doesn't make sense. A country cannot be fertile or infertile or anything between.

Only a living thing or system eg soil can be fertile. Living things can be fertile, sub-fertile or infertile. At a stretch may be considered highly fertile. Nothing living or state, has a fertility rate.

As I have said before male & female can be fertile, sub fertile or infertile. If they choose not or do not have the opportunity, to reproduce, this does not affect their fertility in any way.

A country that has a low birth-rate does not have low fertility neither does its citizens, unless by some misfortune (eg mass sustained starvation, exposure to dangerous levels of toxic radiation or similar)

I am sure a real wordsmith would have a fancy phrase for this sort of thing but for me it’s a troubling & unnecessary incorrect usage.

Patagonia & sheep - why does Australia sell off its greatest assets to the highest bidder. High quality breeding stock should never be allowed to leave the country (yeah! its too late ,I know)

Welsh is just one of the Gaelic languages (Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Breton). My Irish father claimed a special affinity with north Welsh - at the end of WW2, as a newly minted civil engineer, he found work in the coal mines of the region. He told stores of the Welsh being very "difficult" with the English overlords (managers) but he, as a Gaelic speaking Irishman, had no such problem.

You might be right Skip, but I grew up with horses and too often ended up on the ground.

Bikes don't have a mind of their own, and rarely set out to do you harm (although my XS-2 came close a couple times).

Have never tolerated badly behaved nags (pass on or get lead poisoning) but like all things there are +/-. Vulnerable bikers have to put up with incompetent /inconsiderate fellow road users - major major, risk factor!! Nothing much more bloody minded than having a car/truck try and occupy the space you are already in.

There's been a lot of people on both sides of politics proven to be corrupt and use their position for material gain.

 

Having said that though, for a position of such responsibility they don't get paid all that much (compared to the private sector). The PM's salary for instance would be a tenth of some CEO positions - yes they have a fantastic pension plan with more perks than they possibly deserve, but in terms of materially benefiting from the position many of them would get far more in the private sector.

Turnbull was a prime example, he actually donated over a million to the LNP which was well over his salary as PM. As another example Bob Brown actually donated a large proportion of his salary to worthy causes (quite unlike donating to the LNP!) and lived very simply.

 

I think idealism/ideology does motivate many of them - some like Brown I can applaud, others like Palmer & Hanson do it for their own much darker reasons, but in both cases I don't think they're motivated by the direct material benefits of the position.

Gain can not be measured by remuneration alone - POWER is the ultimate goal and corrupter.

For most people once you have sufficient money to live in reasonable comfort, it ceases to be a motivator in itself. Other factors like social standing, power to make important decisions take over.

There will always be exceptions to any observation/rule, Turnbull is not one of them - his donations were to "buy" his way in/to the top.

The problem with politics & religion is not the hard working back bencher/local priest, who may just have a vocation for helping his fellow beings (I am still sceptical) but those that rise to or near the top. Almost always people who feel they are "called" and have a right to be there. Inherently corrupt, in that they will do almost anything to get that top job, hold it and materially benefit from it for as long as they can. These are the face of politics & religion,not the little person beavering away in the background.

Horse riding - as a (past) road bike rider that somehow survived, I can tell you that you will never experience the exhilaration/fear/danger at speed like that on a galloping horse AND it will cost you just as much if not more than any motorbike.

Big plus - at more sedate speeds nature can be "taken in" while the nag follows the track and if with mates, conversation can flow.

I highly recommend it to all you rev heads that put your license in jeopardy every time you go for a burn down the public highway.

Octave ! Octave ! I love a good debate. I accept (I think I mentioned this at the beginning of my rant) that the meaning of words can & often do changes over time, new words are invented, etc etc. eg "gay" meaning light of heart, fun, etc etc. If I choose to use it in its older meaning am I wrong ?? does it make you correct to use it in its new form ??. Back to Fertility & Fecundity - rather than google some bureaucratic report (s) try looking up a reproductive expert or two or even the Oxford Dictionary.

I very very reluctantly accept that the common uses of the word Fertility have become the norm(s)however in doing so I must accept the lack of precision that this brings with it - not so happy with this.

I have quoted tha ABS. Perhaps you can provide me with a link to the satistics regarding the rate we are reproducing. By the the termonolgy is not mine I have only quoted other authorities.

So you believe that some obscure, virtually illiterate government bureaucrat, is a dramatically authority ?

If you are agreeable lets call it quits on this debate, Pmccarthy has had enough.

Nope! wrong way around - Female mammals are born fertile. They cannot utilise this asset until sexual maturity. Should they have access to an adult male, that is also fertile, they may choose to reproduce - this is not fertility. The female, once producing an offspring, demonstrates fecundity.

If the female chooses (human option) not to have offspring, or the male is infertile, or in domestic animals, the owner does not mate her, this does not make her infertile ie her fertility remains and is intact - she is not however fecund.

If the male or female is infertile, they cannot (naturally) have offspring. Certainly, fertility can be low due to a wide range of factors but even a low fertility coupling can result in an offspring - the female is fecund. Her rate (over time) of fecundity (total offspring) may be low if her fertility is low or if the male is the problem, similarly reduced.

Fertility is the potential to produce offspring in both males & females.

Fecundity is the act of producing viable offspring - I would argue , in this context, a whole female characteristic.

It may be argued that a female producing non-viable offspring is fertile but her fecundity is low or if no offspring survive, non-existent.

I hope you will forgive my agricultural examples ;

A domestic sow (female pig) can have 12+ piglets per farrowing (birth), 2 + times per year. If she does this, she is both fertile and highly fecund.

A domestic guilt (female pig not mated) is more than likely fertile and capable of reproducing at a similar rate to the above animal. Due to circumstance - the farmer decided she doesnt measure up genetically, she goes to slaughter. Her fertility remains unchanged however she is barren/not fecund.

A domestic cow will usually only produce one calf per year. She is as fertile as the pig but perhaps not so fecund (we dont usually compare fecundity across species for obvious reasons).

If you do not differentiate between fertility & fecundity, how do you explain a pre & post menopausal human female - She was fertile, between 14-45, produced your 2.1 babies, so is clearly fecund. Now at 50 is infertile but demonstrably fecund??

Fertility rate, average number of children born to women during their reproductive years. For the population in a given area to remain stable, an overall total fertility rate of 2.1 is needed, assuming no immigration or emigration occurs. For the population in a given area to remain stable, an overall total fertility rate of 2.1 is needed, assuming no immigration or emigration occurs.

 

Encyclopedia Britannica

A bulls excreta - FECUNDITY is what a female does with her FERTILITY (if she reproduces).

A female can be FERTILE and choose not to have offspring. Her fertility does not change until she becomes infertile (in humans - menopause) . She may have reduced fertility, she may be infertile. She can not have a fertility rate.

A man can be fertile, sub fertile (lowered fertility) or infertile - he can not be fecund (reproduce) at any time.

A female can have low fecundity - one or more offspring - high fecundity many offspring. If she has lots of offspring, over a given time span, she may be judged to have a high rate of fecundity.

An individual, group or country can have a fecundity rate, so many offspring over a given period, but not a fertility rate, as this suggest that those that choose not to have offspring or the opportunity did not arise, are somehow infertile.

A farmed selects a group of heifers for slaughter - they have had no medical/veterinary intervention to their reproductive systems - the majority will be fertile and will remain that way until death. They are not fecund (no offspring). BUT unbeknown to the farmer, one escaped, met a good looking bull and produced a calf - she is fecund because she was fertile & remained alive to express her fecundity.

A female dog (bitch) is fertile (normally). If she conceives/whelps & delivers pups she has demonstrated fecundity. If you then spay the bitch she is rendered infertile - you have removed her potential for further breeding - the dog is no longer fertile. So in the one animal, over time, you have fertility, no fertility, however at one time fecundity - simple!

God I love debates like this!

True language (especially the English one) is dynamic - all sorts of words are lost from common usage, words are invented. meaning chang BUT when a person is trying to be precise in an effort to convey a meaning or concept, it behoves that person to be very careful with the words they use. I think your understanding of FERTILITY is muddied - try using FECUNDITY when you want to discuss birth rate and FERTILITY or the lack of it (infertility) when a female is unable to conceive.

Sorry, one additional point: FERTILITY is gender less (male or female) however FECUNDITY is pretty well female - although one might make a case otherwise

Sorry, one additional point: FERTILITY is gender less (male or female) however FECUNDITY is pretty well female - although one might make a case otherwise.

To be even more pedantic. The term fertility rate has more than one meaning

 

Fertility Rate: Definition & Calculation - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

 

What Is a Fertility Rate?

The word 'fertility' can mean many things depending on the situation. Those trying for a family are interested in their chances of conceiving, and those in sociology may be interested for statistics. When we talk about fertility rate, we mean the number of live births in women over a specific length of time. Fertility rate is generally expressed as the number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in a calendar year. It can be easily be confused with total fertility rate, which calculates how many children a hypothetical woman would have assuming she lives until 44 and has the same fertility rate in the future as women in the population currently have.

To help with the confusion, think of it this way: The two rates use the same data, but report very different numbers. For instance, in the United States, the total fertility rate is approximately 1.9, while the fertility rate is 62.5. Quite a difference! Let's look at how to calculate fertility rate.

Calculating Fertility Rate

Figuring out fertility rates may seem daunting but it really isn't. Let's look at some numbers to help clear things up. In 2010, there were 75,000 live births for a population of 1.25 million women between the ages of 15 and 44. What is the fertility rate for this year? To figure this out, we take 75,000 births divided by 1,250,000 women - which comes out to 0.06 births per woman. Then we multiply 0.06 by 1,000 women, for an answer of…drum roll please…….a fertility rate of 60 births per 1,000 women in 2010. Make sense? Now that you know how to calculate a fertility rate, let's dive right into why.

True language (especially the English one) is dynamic - all sorts of words are lost from common usage, words are invented. meaning chang BUT when a person is trying to be precise in an effort to convey a meaning or concept, it behoves that person to be very careful with the words they use. I think your understanding of FERTILITY is muddied - try using FECUNDITY when you want to discuss birth rate and FERTILITY or the lack of it (infertility) when a female is unable to conceive.

Whether a government gets thrown out After enacting a law. Is irrelevant.

The law Is on the books and will be OBAYED .

spacesailor

You jest!!!!

the fertility rate in Australia is 1.76 births per woman (2107)

 

We know alcohols cost on society (although i quite like it) in terms of health, accidents, crime and violence. The government could issue a licence in order for a person to consume alcohol.

 

I suspect the government would like to enact many laws that may make great sense but in the end it does come down to the level of acceptance from the people. Would a government who had such a policy be re elected.

Just because I can be pedantic (no surprise) FERTILITY is the potential to have young (what a female is born with) - FECUNDITY is the action (what a female does with her potential in this area).

There is absolutist no evidence that Australian women have reduced fertility. So the correct expression would be the fecundity of Australian women is 1.76 - which, as I have pointed out, is well below replacement.

You wnt to reduce/ hold static Australia's population? - slow /stop migration. Want to increase ? - open the boarders.

Legislating for birthrate is not going to do a damn thing.

And, I'm pretty sure that if you ignore our migration, Australia would sit at approximately zero population growth (ZPG). Not in decline at all. Shouldn't be a disaster!

 

Not so - our reproduction was/is below replacement

 

Constant growth is not a rational course for a dry continent (mostly furnished with poor soils) such as ours.

 

I agree whole hardheartedly - unfortunately the World is besotted with the concept of growth as the only economic model

 

Not only are we a dry continent wracked by drought that threatens our food security, but we are a land that allows foreign interests to buy up our sparse water rights of our biggest river system.

Partially agree - in fact almost from day one, of European occupation of this land , large swathes have been owned/held by overseas (usually absent) interest's. So nothing new in that. You do not mention our Governments through time to the present but they have almost all been wedded to minimal investment, choosing the mine and the farm as the easy options.

Skippy, I think we are mostly on the same page.

Except perhaps that I believe that I don't just blame men for the problem.

We consider the 'west' to be well educated. Nevertheless our culture collectively enshrines a women's right to bear as many children as she wants. To the point that many women judge childless women as failures or somehow defective. I think that this culture is illogical in an overpopulated world.

Our government even pays people to breed. Way back when we had our first child, I was shocked to learn that the government was giving us a baby bonus. In fact I felt a bit insulted as it implied that I wasn't capable of being a responsible father. I still think that people should not be assisted to have families. It is this cultural glorification of careless overpopulation that I object to.

I blame those who make the laws, fail to elevate the impoverished & ignorant - if that is men, so be it!

The Chinese tried to force reduced fecundity - didn't work.

As I have pointed out the surest/proven way to reduce the birch rate is ... (see previous comments).

You may not be aware of that Australia is not a self reproducing postulation - without immigration our population would be on a fairly steep decline.

One man can potentially inseminate many women but it is women who must bear , deliver, lactate/feed and raise children - they "invest" far more than any man and it is they that must be given the power /incentive to say when enough is enough!.

Keep women in ignorance, brain wash them with religious mumbo- jumbo, have their children sicken/die in infancy and they will submit to being incubators pumping out child after child.

Educate them, feed them, look after their children and give them the right, knowledge & means to control their own bodies (usually against the prevailing religious doctrine) and they will take their fecundity into their own hands - proven time & time again.

It is mainly male dominated movements who do not wish women to be so emancipated (check out the Taliban - Catholics - Wahhabists - Anglicans - Ultra Orthodox Jews - Radical Islam - cults of all sorts ).

Men must understand that having sex is not a right - it can only be with the permission of women AND having sex need not have conception as an outcome.

A good start,

Sadly, but flawed, as it assumes that all women can control their childbearing.

In many places, women have little control over their reproductive potential. In most societies everyone expects to 'get a job, get married and raise a family'.

 

Unless the culture that glorifies breeding gets resolved, nothing will change our collective trajectory.

 

A good start is mass education from early age, to make all humans aware of the undesirability of rampant breeding. Before puberty hormones take control.

 

Otherwise we are leaving it to mother nature to deal us another 'mummy slap' even bigger than the present (Covid) one.

Your intent is admirable but fails to accept/understand how humans have actually responded to education, reliable food supply and a reasonable health service.

Every nation, even those burdened by religious extremism (check out Italy, Ireland) have been shown to have a declining birthrate, when women are educated, they and their children are well fed and are able to access good medical facilities.

The reality is low levels of education, high infant mortality due to poor nutrition and lack of access to health facilities is the driver for large families, enshrine in a number of religions doctrine.

The western countries have the means to reduce the worlds birthrate by sharing the sorceress that are concentrated in the first world - they just wont do it!