Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

We certainly discuss our topics widely, don't we! We go from birth control to smoking in pubs.

Besoeker: In a well balanced population, multiply the birth rate by life expectancy rate, and it should be c.1000. For example a generation ago, the United Kingdom the life expectancy was c. 73.5 years. The birth rate was 13.5, therefore 73.5 X 13.5 = 992.25. That was indicative of a reasonably balanced population. In most western countries, at the same time, similar figures would appear. Population varies over the generations. A high UK population birth rate in Victorian times, which was to drop dramatically between the wars. War, emigaration /migration also has to be taken into account. Even so, the formula still has merit as a sound guide.

Take Bangladesh, B.R 200 per 1000, Life Expectancy 38 , therefore, 200 X 38= 7600. Can we see why the formula cannot be used in an unbalanced population with a terrifically high-infant mortality rate and other distortions. I haven't looked at Sweden in recent times, but you may find it interesting: rich, 200 years of peace, etc. etc.

In western Europe, high immmigration, with the immigrants birth rates, for the first couple of generations reflecting the country of origin, and not the host countries, does produce difficulties. Population control, certainly, but the consequences, hopefully to create a balanced population in all its manifestations, will not be done in a matter of a few years. Africa has highly populated countries, Nigeria, Kenya, and a couple of others, but in the main, population isn't their main problem. Latin America, I fear, will be the problem area for all kinds of reasons.

Anyway, I found your comments interesting.