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 as well. 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 story.
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 national figure.
[More forthcoming]
