The mass media have been discussing these findings with shock and alarm, because such information is likely to be new and surprising to anyone who has never gone through the all-consuming herculean effort of motherhood. To anyone who has, the idea that most women would choose to have two or fewer children if given the resources, information and freedom to do so is just self-evident common sense.
02 August 2001
There has been enormous concern about the consequences of human population growth for the environment and for social and economic development. But this growth is likely to come to an end in the foreseeable future. Improving on earlier methods of probabilistic forecasting1, here we show that there is around an 85 per cent chance that the world’s population will stop growing before the end of the century. There is a 60 per cent probability that the world’s population will not exceed 10 billion people before 2100, and around a 15 per cent probability that the world’s population at the end of the century will be lower than it is today.
This is projected to lead to a drop in the fertility rate of the world’s population, from an average of 2.37 children per woman — 237 children from every 100 women — to 1.66, or 166 children for every 100 women.
The fertility rate must be 2 for a population to remain stable and 2.1 for it to increase, the researchers said. To keep a community the same size a mother must, on average, not only replace herself but also the baby’s father.
‚I want to maintain a Jewish majority, not just in the State of Israel but in the Negev as well‘
Israeli lawmaker Bezalel Smotrich, known for incendiary anti-Arab comments, said on Thursday that the birth rates of Israeli Bedouins posed an existential threat for the Jewish State, akin to a bomb that must be diffused.
It is the third year in a row that the number of live births has dropped, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
The birth rate has hit a record low, decreasing from 11.6 to 11.1 live births per 1,000 people – the lowest since records began in 1938.
But why should the number of children that parents choose to have be any business of the state’s minions? It was only a generation ago that overpopulation alarmist Paul Ehrlich was arguing that a tax penalty of $600 per child should be imposed on families. (This was in 1968, when the U.S. median income stood at $7,700 per household.)
Having fewer children is also undoubtedly positive from an environmental point of view; recent research has found that having one fewer child reduces a parent’s carbon footprint by 58 tonnes of CO2 a year.