When we compare the feracities of countries, communities and families the
rates of the human bioferacity of whole communities have obviously a
greater impact on the future of nature than the rates of single families,
and the rates of the human bioferacity of whole countries a greater
impact than the rates of communities within these countries.
And when we confine ourselves to countries only, the feracity rates of
countries with a large population at present will have a greater impact
again than those of countries with a small population at present.
We can rank countries by the product of their feracity rate and
their population; or, if feracity rates are expressed in the average number
of births per woman, by the product of their female lifetime feracity rate
and the number of women concerned.
Granted that the equilibratory feracity rate is approximately 2.0, the
equilibratory feracity-times-population impact product would be somewhere
around 2.0 times the average population per country in the world.
If the world population was indeed around 7.6 billion in July 2017 ChrE and
the number of countries around 232 (including Tokelau but without Vatican
City), the average population per country would be around 32.5 million, and
the feracity-times-population product about 65.1 million.
Clearly, this figure tells us more than the number of births per woman on
its own; and yet, it too is still an approximation, because to know the
impact on nature we may expect the surface area of a country to play a role
And, then, nowadays a country often does not just maintain, rebuild or
destroy a natural environment on its own terrritory.
Nature may have its natural borders, it does not have the national borders
of civil servants; and with respect to such issues as climate change and
the pollution of international waters the latter ones do not play a role
at all anymore.
All these considerations demonstrate that even the feracity rates per
country, which are readily available worldwide (as 'fertility rates'), do
and will tell us only part of what is on the whole a very complicated
If a dictatorial regime forced citizens to have (many) more than two
children (on average), it would be this regime that is fully responsible
for the consequences of such a measure.
If a democratic government forced citizens to have (many) more than two
children (on average), it would not only be this government but also the
citizens who elected it who are responsible for the consequences of what
the government prescribes.
In reality, there is no government at the moment that forces people to have,
say, more than two or three children.
There is and has only been the opposite example of a country enforcing not
a minimum but a maximum number of children: the People's Republic of China
with its two-child policy which used to be a one-child policy for decades.
No wonder, China now is the country with the largest negative
destructivity rate in the world, regardless of what we may think of a
government punishing human beings (or women only) for not following strict
family planning rules.
As far as the size and (non)growth of its
population is concerned, China contributes in point of fact almost as much
to the maintenance and salvation of nature on Earth as Nigeria
contributes to its destruction.
(The destructivity rates are about -423 and +535 million respectively.)
But in the case of China it is first and foremost its government that is
reponsible for the negative national figure, whereas in the case of Nigeria
and all other countries it is first and foremost the individual citizens
and families together who are responsible for a negative, zero or positive