Remember that population growth is driven by how many children survive to reproduce.
If you have one child per couple, your population won’t grow even if all the children survive to adulthood; conversely, if you have five children per couple, your population will grow even if half the children die before puberty.
Isn’t it exactly what army says?
Putting all other things aside: “how many” is not the same thing as ’which percentage of” precisely because even if 90% of 100 children per couple dies we still have 10 children per couple and growth of population.
If public health initiatives lowers “percentage of” surviving children and at the same time lowers “birth rate” we still can have ether option—decrease or increase—based on “percentage * rate >< 2”
And “if children are less likely to die, women get fewer of them” isn’t the same thing as “the number of children women get is inversely proportional to the probability that they survive”. My point still stands.
You said:
On the first glance the net effect looks to be zero. Remember that population growth is driven by how many children survive to reproduce.
Do you have any links to attempts to do so?
If you have one child per couple, your population won’t grow even if all the children survive to adulthood; conversely, if you have five children per couple, your population will grow even if half the children die before puberty.
“How many” is not the same thing as “which percentage of”.
Isn’t it exactly what army says? Putting all other things aside: “how many” is not the same thing as ’which percentage of” precisely because even if 90% of 100 children per couple dies we still have 10 children per couple and growth of population.
If public health initiatives lowers “percentage of” surviving children and at the same time lowers “birth rate” we still can have ether option—decrease or increase—based on “percentage * rate >< 2”
What did I missed here?
And “if children are less likely to die, women get fewer of them” isn’t the same thing as “the number of children women get is inversely proportional to the probability that they survive”. My point still stands.