Greta Thunberg

CatmanV2

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,921
OK, try it like this.

I have two parents. I'm 49. My sister, 56. She has three kids
2 consuming for 85 years
1 consuming for 49 years
1 consuming for 56 years
1 consuming for 21 years
1 consuming for 23 years
1 consuming for 19 years

I make that 338 person consumption years if I may. So far
As opposed to 170 if they hadn't had us kids
And, of course, we've got maybe a another 60 person years assuming myself and big sis hang around.
Probably another 120 person years for her kids....

C
 
doodlebug

doodlebug

Member
Messages
918
CatmanV2 said:
OK, try it like this.

I have two parents. I'm 49. My sister, 56. She has three kids
2 consuming for 85 years
1 consuming for 49 years
1 consuming for 56 years
1 consuming for 21 years
1 consuming for 23 years
1 consuming for 19 years

I make that 338 person consumption years if I may. So far
As opposed to 170 if they hadn't had us kids
And, of course, we've got maybe a another 60 person years assuming myself and big sis hang around.
Probably another 120 person years for her kids....

C
Click to expand...
Aren't you forgetting that it is usually a couple that would have two kids, not each person, surely?
 
rockits

rockits

Member
Messages
9,180
I am no mathematician and how down to those of greater mathematical intellect.

I think I have over simplified things possibly. I just felt that if 2 people reproduce max 2 kids then that is increasing the population by 2 but it is directly reducing by 2 as the parents of these pass away. That is keeping the population numbers static of course. Then depending on what age the parents are when their kids are born would and life expectancy would depend on if this is enough to work.

Then factor in some parents having one child and some having none. Then all the other reducing factors and you have a reducing not growing population.

Again I am no mathematician and have no understanding and cannot get my head around what you explained I'm afraid Catman. Way above my mathmatical pay grade
 
CatmanV2

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,921
doodlebug said:
Aren't you forgetting that it is usually a couple that would have two kids, not each person, surely?
Click to expand...

I don't think so but it was early. I'm just counting the number of people in my immediate family.

2 consuming for 85 years: My mother and father
1 consuming for 49 years: Me
1 consuming for 56 years: My sister
1 consuming for 21 years: Nephew
1 consuming for 23 years: Niece
1 consuming for 19 years: Nephew

C
 
CatmanV2

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,921
rockits said:
I am no mathematician and how down to those of greater mathematical intellect.

I think I have over simplified things possibly. I just felt that if 2 people reproduce max 2 kids then that is increasing the population by 2 but it is directly reducing by 2 as the parents of these pass away.
Click to expand...

Nor am I a maths whizz. In my example, granted my sister has three children, and we have none, but you can still see there's a massive difference potentially in consumption than if my parents had just had no children at all?

C
 
doodlebug

doodlebug

Member
Messages
918
CatmanV2 said:
Nor am I a maths whizz. In my example, granted my sister has three children, and we have none, but you can still see there's a massive difference potentially in consumption than if my parents had just had no children at all?

C
Click to expand...
Yes, or course, but surely the point being made was if every couple was limited to two children, the population would not increase. In fact it would decrease due to pestilence, fire, war or a significant natural disaster.

All this assumes of course that long term partner swapping doesn't count as two new couples.

However, human consumption per capita is always increasing, so the population needs to substantially decrease to keep consumption constant.
 
rockits

rockits

Member
Messages
9,180
It seems likely that the population would reduce if we limited parents to only 2 children with all other factors considered. I would suggest population is increasing though mainly down to too many parents (well I say parents...maybe I should phrase as reproducers!) having too many children. When you have some that have 3-10 children it will massively skew any figures we have basing it on 2 per pair of parents.
 
allandwf

allandwf

Member
Messages
11,004
doodlebug said:
Yes, or course, but surely the point being made was if every couple was limited to two children, the population would not increase. I
Click to expand...
This would only be true if the parents died prior to the children reproducing, which, thankfully, is not normally the case.
 
2b1ask1

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,304
I think Allan has a point; I was from a generation who's parents and grand parents didn't divorce so probably a good one to base it upon, my parents had no grandparents alive when they were born (as far as I know), I had only three grand parents alive when I was born and they were gone by the time I was 11, my children were all born with a full set of grand parents and three of them are still alive and my youngest is 19, it is likely they will still be alive another 10-15 years. my first grandchild had eight great grandparents of which five survive!

Much of the population growth is attributed therefore to people living far longer, yes I was one of four and have five children....
 
Vampyrebat

Vampyrebat

Member
Messages
3,132
And I have too much!! I would love to have a receding forehead like Christopher Lee, instead I look more like Eddie Munster!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.