6/22    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060622/od_nm/life_sex_dc
        Well, there's your problem!
        \_ This line is great: "Demographers say a rate of 2.1 [children born
           per woman lifetime] is needed to keep a population from declining."
           Reuters apparently needs to invoke the authority of "demographers"
           to confirm simple arithmetic.
           \_ Simple arithmetic would suggest you need 2.0BPW.  The variable
              rates of infant mortality and gender ratio at birth are why you
              ask a demographer.
              \_ Point taken. I think I found it so silly because the
                 fertility rate in Japan is listed in the article as bein
                 1.25, which is obviously a declining population.
                 \_ Theoretically you could have a stable population if the
                    gender ratio at birth was M:F 20:80
                    \_ Or probably even 1:99.
                       \_ Well I meant "given 1.25 BPW".  Let's not go
                          overboard on male fantasies, OK ;-)  -pp
           \_ I keep wondering though, isn't it about the time when we
              should instead start worrying about stabilizing the
              population and adjusting our economies to the new
              demographics? Growing population numbers, even
              without considering the on-going economic growth
              and quality of life improvements, place even
              greater demands upon the natural resources and the
              environment. Do we even know for how long will this
              planet sustain the current living standards for 6B
              people? What about the projected 10B people at the
              end of this century?
              \_ Well, duh.  That's why we're teaching the world about
                 abstinence!
              \_ Who is this "we" that is going to stabilize the population?
                 Who decides who is allowed to breed or not and how many times?
                 And a quick look at demographics of any wealthy vs. any poor
                 nation (excluding the few being wiped out by AIDS) will show
                 that rich nations have declining birth rates while poor ones
                 have very high rates.  So, the best way to reduce population
                 is to improve the standard of living in poor countries.  As
                 \_ Correlation is not causation.
                    And the rest of this post is beyond silly.
                    \_ If you've got nothing to say, say nothing.  If it is
                       silly then shoot it down in a sentence or two, but I'm
                       sure you haven't done any research or reading on this
                       so not only will you not, you can't.
                 \_ Wow.  Midday margaritas make for bad motd'ing.  I totally
                    conflated your comments with the above poster in replying.
                    Sorry.  Nuked my pointless drivel.  However, the silver
                    bullet is not simply wealth (ergo the correlation/causation)
                    but education (which comes along with higher SoL).
                    \_ That's fine.  I'll agree education = higher SOL but
                       that will not come without the wealth to support it
                       which requires a real economy, not one based on charity.
                 soon as we stop flooding them with money, they'll have a
                 chance to form real economies with real products and real
                 workers and engage in trade with other countries.  Right now
                 the West has destroyed the ability of poor nations to grow
                 healthy economies instead of "Charity Based Economies" where
                 there is a disincentive for the local population to do
                 anything productive.
              \_ Blasphemy! Every new child is a gift. "Be fruitful..."
                 Eventually people will fight each other or starve and
                 it will be a happy equilibrium. The world can physically
                 support many more. We must keep going until it's literally
                 impossible to support more. After all, whose life would you
                 deny, just to make your life better? Even bringing up
                 population control shows that you are sick.