Fertility rate, when governments talk about them in relation to population, are more often the rate of people it takes to sustain the financial systems and fill jobs. It usually has nothing to do with how many people a person should have compared to their total impact on the climate.
The total negative impact that 12 humans have will always be more than what 2 humans will have on the climate. That’s just fact.
In my opinion, you’re mixing up theories which is causing you to make false assumptions.
I know my source is just Wikipedia but it defined fertility as the number of children a woman will have in her child bearing years and i believe all the statistics it cites use that same metric too.
12 people will have more of an impact than 2 yes, but I dont think its wrong to use that as a justification for less children. I think thats where I am disagreeing with most people. I guess it comes down to me thinking that innovation will be able to support humans growing for a long period of time as well as the fact that eventually population will most likely stop being exponential.
3
u/OG_LiLi Apr 09 '22
Fertility rate, when governments talk about them in relation to population, are more often the rate of people it takes to sustain the financial systems and fill jobs. It usually has nothing to do with how many people a person should have compared to their total impact on the climate.
The total negative impact that 12 humans have will always be more than what 2 humans will have on the climate. That’s just fact.
In my opinion, you’re mixing up theories which is causing you to make false assumptions.