home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.tek.com!vice!hall
- From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
- Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
- Subject: Re: Multiplying in the Backcountry (kids/population)
- Message-ID: <10776@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
- Date: 17 Nov 92 21:14:52 GMT
- References: <141643@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1992Nov17.140235.29055@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> <JEFFK.92Nov17103207@dosXX.med.utah.edu>
- Distribution: na
- Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <JEFFK.92Nov17103207@dosXX.med.utah.edu> jeffk@dosXX.med.utah.edu (Jeff Knell) writes:
-
- >I do not have the statistics in front of me,
- >buy it is my understanding that the population
- >of the US, while not growing at third world rates,
- >is again growing rapidly.
-
- >I believe that for a short time (70's ?) the
- >growth rate was near zero, but the mating
- >habits of the baby boomers have change that.
-
- >Anyone out there have the numbers?
-
- True, we now have the echo of the baby boom. Children of the
- baby boomers are now having children. This puts more people in
- the child-bearing age and is causing an upswing in the birth rate.
- This is only temporary however.
-
- A more meainingful statistic is fertility, the average number of
- children each woman has. This fertility rate is not influenced
- by temporary things such as the baby boom but represents the long-
- term population growth or decline due to births and deaths. I
- believe somewhere around 2.2 is the replacement rate. Below that
- represents a population decline. To maintain a constant
- population each woman, on the average, must replace herself, her
- mate and a bit more to allow for those who do not reach maturity.
-
- The number we really need is fertility. Anybody have it? I think I
- heard it is still below the replacement rate but can't document
- that.
-