You still are not using that cell bro.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,
The key issue in your statement is about dying YOUNG.
If someone dies AFTER they have had all their children, then their death will not have much of an impact on the overpopulation issue.
Maybe you should consider the concept in this way… since everyone dies, the real factor in long-term population GROWTH is how many births there are per person before they die.
If on average every person alive has 1 child (each couple has 2 children), before dying, then the population will remain reasonably static, regardless of age of death.
However, if on average every person alive has 1.2 children, before dying, then the population will grow tremendously over time, regardless of age of death.
It is quite related to the concept of compound interest. Killing off the old people who are not going to have any more children, while indeed a large number, is not as significant as the long term effect of continuing growth.
[/quote]
Your argument is flawed because every person doesn’t and can’t have children.
Think about it this way; GUYS CAN’T HAVE CHILDREN! Dork!
You are implying a one person to one child ratio, which doesn’t exist because ONLY women can have babies. (Maybe your father hasn’t had that talk with you yet?)
So sport, you have two parents and they have 1.2 kids. They both then die. They have made room for 2 people, but only produced 1.2 people. That, my friend is a negative population growth.
This is why, one-cell man, that When they calculate future population growth they calculate it using an assumed lifespan (avg./mean current lifespan), BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER!
So one last time. Here it is as simple as I can make it without using crayons; the extent that generations overlap (being alive at the same time) is the extent that the population will grow or decrease. The less overlap, the lower the population growth. More overlap, the greater the growth.
Can you hear me now!