At 09:48 on 09-13-96, ANDREW HOGE wrote to JOHN HARTLEY:
AH>Some say this country (the one that uses over half the world's
AH>resources) is human population balanced.  I believe we are still at
AH>2.3 to 2.5 offspring per mated pair.  Sounds like an increase to me.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Depends on the "mating rate", though; not everyone 
has children.  
The best indicator I've heard of is replacement rate, 
which IIRC is the average no. of female children born 
to each woman during her lifetime, who themselves survive 
to reproductive age.  
(If I've got the details about survival wrong, I'm sure 
I'll be corrected!)  8-)
If this rate is greater than one, then the population 
will increase over the long-term, etc etc.  
A big problem with any sort of manipulation of population 
is the social context.  The greater the "safety net" 
provisions in society (esp. for the aged), and the higher 
the survival rate of children, the less *need* to have 
lots of children.  At the other end of the "persuasion 
scale", the greater the cost of education, the greater 
the actual *incentive* to have fewer children.  
The effects of both the "carrot" and the "stick" analogies 
apply most obviously when comparing countries, but can 
also apply *within* a country, changing the relative 
positions of various groups within the larger society.  
This starts to spread the issue from the ecological arena 
to the political.  Ecological arguments will persuade 
some, but the social/political stuff will also have a 
major role (though perhaps not in here).  8-)
later, 
Geoff
X CMPQwk 1.42 123 X
Optimist: One lacking sufficient experience.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------