Some would argue that 1 child is the right number until the global population is reduced to sustainable levels but 2 per couple means that they only replace themselves rather than adding extra humans.
Printable View
Some would argue that 1 child is the right number until the global population is reduced to sustainable levels but 2 per couple means that they only replace themselves rather than adding extra humans.
That sounds like a reasonable theory but is it documented or been studied to prove it? I think it would make interesting reading and I'm sure making the census public (forgive me if it is..I am just assuming its not) would shed some light on those local governments who could help provide this sustainable living!
here's the census data FYI http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/cen...from-banner=LN
Thanks for the link but on my phone I don't think I can see what I am looking for :( will have a read next time I am on the computer!
Leesha, is this the info you are after? This is what I posted previously...
Replacement level fertility is the number of babies a female would need to have over her reproductive life to replace both herself and her partner. Given the current mortality rates for women aged up to 49 years in Australia, replacement fertility is estimated to be 2.1 babies per woman. Since 1976, the total fertility rate for Australia has been below this replacement level. Even if female mortality declined to zero for women until the end of their reproductive lives, the replacement level would still be 2.05 (1.05 male and 1.0 female babies) – higher than the total fertility rate of 1.89 babies per woman for 2010.
I read this a while ago. Thought it was interesting to this topic:
And:
“Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas,” reports Vitality magazine. According to the article, the current United Nations estimate of the world’s population is about six billion people, and Texas has a land area of some 262,000 square miles [680,000 sq km]. The amount of living space per person would therefore be more than 1,217 square feet [113 sq m]. “A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet [565 sq m] of living space. Even in Texas, that’s a mansion,” says Vitality. “Meanwhile, the rest of the world would be completely empty, available for all of mankind’s agricultural, manufacturing, educational, and recreational activities!”
:
In a 2004 report entitled “Can the Planet Feed Us?” Alex Kirby, an environment correspondent, stated: “The world does produce enough to feed everyone. But the food is often in the wrong place, or unaffordable, or can’t be stored long enough. So making sure everyone has enough to eat is more about politics than science.”
if correct distribution was applied, sustainable practices started and natural energy used I think we would be ok.
but its not and many aren't ok and that blows.
I agree. The thing is that the major greed and abuse by some seems to be the main issue.:
