Abortion and Population

[Ahriman]

I would've loved to have had that many siblings.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I would've loved to have had that many siblings.

‘Jane, you ignorant slut.’

Boru

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi brewer,

The problem is that I don't (didn't-see below) believe you. You made a 'quote' and state that the UN (and others?) claim that fertility rate = birth rate. I know this is incorrect.

Nowhere did I claim that fertility rate and birth rate were the same. I think you are referring to this exchange.

I think we’re both right here. Yes, abortion reduces the birth rate. It also reduces the fertility rate, which is the number of live births per woman. That’s how the UN, demographers, and others (probably sociologists, too!) who study this define it.

bold mine: Then they are incorrect. But it's my guess and I find it more likely that you are incorrect. Please provide the link for your UN quote.
Unless you are arguing that abortions directly impacts future fertility status. If you are, that would be incorrect also.

The part you bolded refers to the definition of fertility rate, since that’s what I used in the beginning and what you were questioning.

I asked for a link to the document where you obtained your 'quote' and now see that you are apparently unwilling or unable to supply the document.

Then you want me to do the work that you should have done to make the claim. Sorry, that's on you to support your claim.

Dude, all I asked was for you to help me understand what the problem is. Once I understood, I would be happy to post the source. I want to answer the question you are asking, though, and it wasn’t clear. This current exchange makes it obvious that we were reading that in two different ways.

Why does it matter if the claimed 'fertility rate' is lower in 83 countries? Do you not like the 112 countries where fertility increases?

Now you’re just being silly. The fertility rate is what scientists use as a standard. It matters a lot.

The global fertility rate is expected to be 1.9 births per woman by 2100, down from 2.5 today. The rate is projected to fall below the replacement fertility rate (2.1 births per woman) by 2070. The replacement fertility rate is the number of births per woman needed to maintain a population’s size.
-- Pew Research Center

If the fertility rate is less than 2.1, then the group being measured will not maintain the population size.

For our audience at home, here’s a site that seems legit to learn about the difference between the two. Birth Rate vs. Fertility Rate For example, they say

While birth rate provides a snapshot of the number of births occurring in a population, fertility rate gives a more comprehensive understanding of the reproductive behavior of women.

[SimpleCaveman]

Right, and it appears neither of us share that @Ahriman's worries  regarding abortion leading to extinction. It's just the way you worded yourself at first that pretty much gave the wrong impression.

Would that I could hear how other people hear what I say before I say it. It’s always clear to me! :-)

My point is that the population levels are not out of control. The fearmongering was that we would run out of resources and even space (I think of a Star Trek episode).

I strongly disagree with this. Overpopulation is at the root of several problems that individually threaten us -- the most obvious being accelerated global warming, but there are other. We also threaten the biodiversity of the Earth, which indirectly harms us too. Yes, I've read that the Earth could support several billion more humans, but the ecological  cost would be enormous.

I would find it hard to separate the impact on the environment due solely to numbers, et al, from the impact on the environment due to the behavior of those numbers. It seems to me to be both. Yet I would say that we do a lot more damage to our environment by the things we do just because we don’t give a damn. Five people with machinery could destroy a region of forest and 50 people, say, could live in the same area and it still be beautiful and filled with life. I know it’s imaginary, but I think of the Elves at Rivendell compared to the Orcs of Isengard.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would find it hard to separate the impact on the environment due solely to numbers, et al, from the impact on the environment due to the behavior of those numbers. It seems to me to be both. Yet I would say that we do a lot more damage to our environment by the things we do just because we don’t give a damn. Five people with machinery could destroy a region of forest and 50 people, say, could live in the same area and it still be beautiful and filled with life. I know it’s imaginary, but I think of the Elves at Rivendell compared to the Orcs of Isengard.

Why are humans depredating the environment so? It's because we've got a lot of mouths to feed, a lot of people wanting those same First-World luxuries we enjoy without thinking.

It's not because we don't give a damn. It's because politicians must deliver results to their constituents, and those constituents want food, housing, and energy. Who is wrong here? The politicians doing the bidding of those who support them, or the people who either vote for or at very least tolerate them for delivering those desirables?

There's many more factors going into it than this -- market pressures being big -- but there's no elves here to teach us how to live inside a natural system. We have too many people with their own needs and desires and can we blame them? Companies want to make money. Politicians want to get votes, or at least not get a hemp necktie in this case of autocrats.

I think ignoring the raw numbers of human population, in correlation with the various troubles we are experiencing, is not very useful.

[Silver]

I would've loved to have had that many siblings.

‘Jane, you ignorant slut.’

Boru

[Astreja]

I think that 2-3 children are more than enough. (I have one adult daughter and decided in my 30s that I didn't want any more children, although initially the plan was for two.)

Raising children is very hard work, and most of the burden falls on the mother. The more offspring, the less of her own life she gets to live.

[Ahriman]

I think that 2-3 children are more than enough.  (I have one adult daughter and decided in my 30s that I didn't want any more children, although initially the plan was for two.)

Raising children is very hard work, and most of the burden falls on the mother.  The more offspring, the less of her own life she gets to live.

I would say 2 or 3 children is not really enough, but at least you are in support of having children. 
Is the mother's "own" life really that important, as long as she is raising children?

[The Grand Nudger]

Like so much else in life, humans effect on the environment is mostly down to just a few of us, with those few saying that the masses of breeding poor must cut back. It's pretty clear no ones talking about millionaires with the term "overpopulation" - but that's who's fucking us, full stop. Meanwhile, it will be the breeding poor that cobbles together our future world, by brute force of demographics. It's really surprising how few humans we could eat and, in the process, solve a handful of earths most pernicious issues.

(look at ahri up there, making his momma proud, lol)

[Ahriman]

Like so much else in life, humans effect on the environment is mostly down to just a few of us, with those few saying that the masses of breeding poor must cut back.  It's pretty clear no ones talking about millionaires with the term "overpopulation" - but that's who's fucking us, full stop.  Meanwhile, it will be the breeding poor that cobbles together our future world, by brute force of demographics.  It's really surprising how few humans we could eat and, in the process, solve a handful of earths most pernicious issues.

(look at ahri up there, making his momma proud, lol)

Millionaires aren't fucking us. Poor peope aren't doing that, either. Human malevolence, in general, is the culprit. And that doesn't have anything to do with how much money you have or don't have. Millionaires are (obviously) not having as many children as poor people, and there are so many more poor people than millionaires, to begin with. Also, humans should be breeding as much as possible, to compensate for any humans that turn out to be defective. Better to have 10 children and 2 of them are defective, rather than having 2 children who both turn out right.