Talk:Zero population growth
 | Sociology Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What does this movie have to do with Zero Population Growth? It's not a movie about a society with zero population growth, it's a movie about a society in which there is no more children. That's not ZPG.--RLent (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Correct - zero growth is different from zero reproduction (which would result in rapid de-population). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
zero poulation growth
zero poulation is the taking of humans and making them only have 2 kids per couple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.242.254 (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thats not true at all, ZPG has a much worse agenda than that. The fact of the matter is that peoples lifespans have been increasing for quite some time, and will continue to do so. For this reason alone, 2 per couple results in population growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Both of these comments are problematic. The birth rate to insure relacement is actually 2.1 children. Some people need to have more than two to make up for the fact that some couples have one or zero children, and some portion of that next generation will also not be fertile. The current replacement rate is actually currently (in 2009) much lower than the needed replacement rate in some parts of the world ---especially first world countries. This is worsened by the fact that women in first world countries are having their chilren later in life. Simplistic solutions such as limiting the number of children to two are not feasible to maintaining populations. There are concerns that culture will be lost as certain ethnic, religious, or other groups attempt to enforce the 2 children or less rule in their population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by unsigned (talk 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.130.52 (talk)
- Presumably the birth rate to ensure replacement is 2 children on average - where the average is calculated over all "couples" including those who have zero children (including those who are infertile). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Negative population growth will most likely be required for many nations in order to avoid population collapses (starvation) because of exceeding biocapacity. List of countries_by ecological footprint 109.228.168.107 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)