Planet of the Humans

[octave]

When it comes to issues of population I believe that we need to not exceed the carrying capacity of the world. The problem seems simple, we just need less people but the solution is not simple. The world has developed rules which on the plus side mean with live longer and better lives and on the downside reward positive growth and punish negative growth. What is needed is for us to change the rules of the game. If a country decided to aim for a population reduction under the economic system we have our standard of living would be reduced. This is just the reality of how things are at the moment. Lower population equals less production equals less income into the country equells less taxes. This means that the health system does not get funded to the level we are used to.

 

To put it bluntly a country that does not grow, and who who reduces its population will under the current economic system have declining standards of living. it may be that it's environment will be improved but individual wealth will be reduced. the ability to pay the aged pension will be reduced.

 

Our Birth rate is lower than the replacement rate. If we were to cut all immigration our population would decline whilst our near neighbours continue to grow.

 

I think having no immigration would be foolish. take every immigrant out of the equation and what do we have? Or more accurately what don't we have. [pauses typing, sips cheeky Wolf Blaas Shiraz - continues typing] Even if we were to rely on our on reproduction there is great benefit in diversity, monocultures are not good either in farming or population.

[pmccarthy]

The are a couple of underlying causes. One is belief in the sanctity of human life. In most cultures, through most periods of history, killing the "other" seems to have been fair game, based on religious belief, skin colour, genetics or language. Second our ability to feed, clothe and provide preventative medicine to large numbers. We need more wars, pestilence, starvation and genocide. Just not anywhere near me or mine.

[nomadpete]

Octave,

My pension is not provided to me via the youth of our world. So I don't believe aged care and pensions are really that connected to constant growth.

 

As far as 'Diversity' goes, the world's diversity has always been there. And it is best experienced in its own natural environment. Education and travel has always made diversity available. We shouldn't be waiting for migrants to bring their diversity to us. That's selfish.

 

Lower taxes due to lower population?

Wouldn't be a problem if our multiple governments started making better use of what is available. They (all levels), are not known for efficient use of money, always asking for more but rarely cleansing their own corridors of corruption wasted bums on seats.

 

The multi billion dollar machine called government really doesn't offer great value for money.

 

"Carrying capacity" of a country or world is a false measure. Because it ignores the collateral damage caused by running maximum carrying capacity of animals in a given environment. If we wait until max carrying capacity of humans is reached, there won't be room for the ecological diversity that we need for long term survival as a species.

[octave]

My pension is not provided to me via the youth of our world. So I don't believe aged care and pensions are really that connected to constant growth.

 

The aged pension is not a contribution type pension as in some other countries The pension as well as health care relies upon a productive workforce doing the work and paying the taxes. With the aging of the population the ratio of workers to non workers increases. A society needs a mix of age groups. With a low reproduction rate and no immigration the average age increases. Someone has to build houses fix roads and do all of the other things that older people can't do. The greying of the population is a recognized and significant problem.

 

If we wait until max carrying capacity of humans is reached, there won't be room for the ecological diversity that we need for long term survival as a species.

 

I am in agreement with you on this, all I am saying is this as an economy contracts so does the investments that I live (and probably you do to). Let me put it thids way everything in life has pros and cons. Are you saying that reducing the population only has pros and no cons?

 

I am for a small population but I understand that whilst this would give us benefits it would also come with costs. You cant have you cake and eat it too.

[skippydiesel]

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.

[nomadpete]

Not trying to assert that controlling world population growth is instantly good in all regards.

But in the long term it will be essential to survival of our species. So, when do you think we should start? And how?

 

With regard to pensions in our society, more and more people are relying on their own savings to provide for their old age. As I do. Along with paying for hospital insurance at my own expense, as our government wants us all to do. To me, it seems that the government is providing less and less toward caring for the 'aged'.

 

Compulsory superannuation will eventually remove the age pension from being a 'burden' on the taxation cashflow.

 

PS, where is this cake you speak of? I'd like some.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Guest

[octave]

I think your understanding of FERTILITY is muddied

 

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

[nomadpete]

My standard of living mostly depends upon how I spend my savings. It has little to do with the taxation cash flow of the government. I get no pension because I saved enough to last (through superannuation), at least for a while. The government deems that some of my property (over 2ha), is of value, although it can never be productive, and can never be sold to pay for more food. So I'll never get a government pension nor a covid bonus.

The population of Australia doesn't affect me. Because we provide most of our needs ourselves.

 

But it is clear that population of our planet is heading for a crash. I think we have already exceeded the maximum human carrying capacity of the planet.

[octave]

Not trying to assert that controlling world population growth is instantly good in all regards.

But in the long term it will be essential to survival of our species. So, when do you think we should start? And how?

 

With regard to pensions in our society, more and more people are relying on their own savings to provide for their old age. As I do. Along with paying for hospital insurance at my own expense, as our government wants us all to do. To me, it seems that the government is providing less and less toward caring for the 'aged'.

 

Compulsory superannuation will eventually remove the age pension from being a 'burden' on the taxation cashflow.

 

PS, where is this cake you speak of? I'd like some.

 

 

Yes I am in the self funded boat and working part time but given increased life expectancy it will be difficult for many people to be completely self funded into their late 90s. Older people use much more of the medical systems resources. Don't get me wrong I have absolutely no problem with this. Even with the best health insurance the tax payer does carry some of the burden. Again I am not disagreeing with the idea of controlling population growth but I think it is all to easy to think that the solution is simple.

 

So, when do I think we should start? And how? I think the best way is to gradually change the system. It is undeniable that our system rewards growth as you have pointed out you are self funded and so am I but this money we have put away relies upon a growing economy and when the economy contracts as it is at the moment our money drains away. Perhaps we could start by valuing things not just on how much money they make.

[nomadpete]

Shifting our investment portfolios to "ethical businesses" isn't going to have a lot of effect upon world population growth.

 

It might need something more than that.

 

Not that I've got the answer. I don't.

[spacesailor]

OCTAVE

" So, when do I think we should start? And how? I think the best way is to gradually change the system "

NAHH, Do what the National party did in NZ.

PM Mulldoon told all employers to stop superannuation payments, ( which was illegal ).

then they used all those $millions in the funds to have a happy time.

Not happy workers.

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

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

[skippydiesel]

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!

[octave]

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!

 

 

 

The TFR in Australia is this: From The Australian Bureau of Statistics,

 

Fertility rates

 

 

The total fertility rate (TFR) required for replacement is currently considered to be around 2.1 babies per woman to replace herself and her partner.

 

• In 2018, Australia's total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.74 babies per woman, decreasing from 2.02 babies per woman since 2008.
  
• Australia's TFR has been below replacement since 1976.
  

FECUNDITY AND FERTILITY

Literally, "fecundity" means the ability to produce live offspring, and "fertility" means the actual production of live offspring. So fecundity refers to the potential production, and fertility to actual production, of live offspring. Fecundity cannot be measured, but it can be assessed clinically. Fertility and its impairments and aberrations are recorded for individuals in their medical charts and are measured in the population by routinely collected vital statistics about reproductive outcomes such as births, stillbirths, miscarriages, and so on. Fecundity and fertility are often confused. The confusion is further confounded by the fact that in French the meanings of the two similar-sounding words are reversed: fécondité means "fertility," and fertilité means "fecundity." Communication among demographers and others about these demographic details therefore requires care and awareness of this fact.

John M. Last

(see also: Pregnancy; Reproduction )

Encyclopedia of Public Health

 

More From encyclopedia.com

McCormick & Company, Inc.Greenwich Mean TimeMeaningPhilosophy Of LanguageDispersion measures (Statistics)Etymology

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Fecundity and Fertility

Updated Mar 28 2020About encyclopedia.com contentPrint ArticleShare Article

 

 

 

• 
  

Edited May 9, 2020 by Guest

[skippydiesel]

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??

[octave]

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??

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.

[pmccarthy]

I'm tired of this fecund debate.

[skippydiesel]

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.

[octave]

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

 

You cant' just say that then end it. The technical term used for predictions of population growth (other than immigration is the "Total fertility rate"

 

The term Total fertility rate is a term used by statisticians and demographers. It is difficult to find the information expressed in any other way but I will happily look at any link you have.

 

You seem to be suggesting that I have misunderstood the term however your beef is not with me but with Accademia , The BAS and even the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not only that but it is a total distraction from what were talking about.

The TFR is a predictive number, based on past births it predicts future births and population growth. I totally accept that the word has a broader meaning than this but this IS the term used.

 

 

 

Anyone who doubts this need only do a search for "Total fertility rate - definition.

 

 

Total fertility rate — MEASURE Evaluation

Total fertility rate

 

Definition:

The number of children who would be born per woman (or per 1,000 women) if she/they were to pass through the childbearing years bearing children according to a current schedule of age-specific fertility rates.

The TFR is calculated as:

TFR = ∑ ASFR a(for single year age groups)

or

TFR = 5 ∑ ASFR a(for 5-year age groups)

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

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.

[octave]

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.

 

Fair enough.

[skippydiesel]

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.

[octave]

Sorry Octave, but i

 

 

Not sure why you say this. The definition of this word is not mine. Often words have a broader meaning than we think or have other meanings within science or other specialities.

The use of the word that bothers you is not some new trendy phenomena but has been used in science for many many years. My assertion is that the term "fertility rate" is the correct terminology within many science disciplines.

 

gross fertility rate

OVERVIEW

gross fertility rate

QUICK REFERENCE

Also called “general fertility rate,” this is the number of live births to women aged 15 to 44 years or 15 to 49 years per 1,000 women in a year.

From: gross fertility rate in A Dictionary of Public Health »

Subjects: Medicine and health — Public Health and Epidemiology

[skippydiesel]

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

[Jerry_Atrick]

Fellas.. I don't think it really matters as within context, we understand what is being said. Our ability to abstract allows us to do this. I draw your attention to the video I posted in this thread: Words have power. In it the speaker references how the populace don't take too much notice of scientists on climate change as because when they speak, they don't do so in a way that the average person can relate to. Of course, it is supposition and anecdotal, but I think there is a good element of truth to it. It's far more important the right message gets through rather than the semantically correct wording..

 

Note, in Aus, the public opinon may have been swayed by the stark reality of bushfires... But ask the average person about the SAM or the IOD.. they have no idea.

 

although.. carry on...

 

[edit] p.s. I am not intending for this to morph into a debate on climate change.. Whether you believe it or not, I am using it to illustrate the real importance of communication and our ability to cut through semantic errors [/edit]

Edited May 22, 2020 by Guest