The discussion revolves around the replacement fertility rate being set at 2.1 instead of 2.0, exploring the reasons behind this figure, including demographic factors and mortality rates of children before reproduction.
Participants express differing views on how to account for non-surviving children in the fertility rate calculation, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.
The discussion highlights assumptions regarding definitions of childlessness and survivorship, as well as the implications of demographic variations across different countries.
Ygggdrasil said:It accounts for the children who die before they have the chance to reproduce.
No, by definition the fertility rate is the expected number of children of a woman who lives to the end of her reproductive life.swampwiz said:OK, this makes sense - but shouldn't those non-survivors count as simply folks that go childless, and therefore be included in the denominator?
People who don't reproduce still are people, they can't be reasonably considered as nonexistent.swampwiz said:OK, this makes sense - but shouldn't those non-survivors count as simply folks that go childless, and therefore be included in the denominator?
How can you count someone that hasn't survived? (no longer exists.)swampwiz said:OK, this makes sense - but shouldn't those non-survivors count as simply folks that go childless, and therefore be included in the denominator?