A couple of things I would be glad if you could explain to me.
1. You (Aries) are saying in the mentioned thread, that the best compromise between young population and welfare index is health index of 120. Can I reach 300 mil of population by natural growth with health index of 120? So, would population reach 300 mil after a gazillion years or will it stop growing at certain point?
2. I could use some clarification on Andy's post (given below), if someone could please help me. The post is contradicting - first he claims that growth can't be negative and than he claims that it can be negative if you have high natural deaths. So - can growth decline or can't? :-) Also I can see in a lot of countries with pop smaller than 300 milion that growth can be negative.
Andy's post:
"Growth declines with the size of the population but it does not become negative.
the only reason for decline at high levels is natural death at all ages. That factor depends on the HI.
The growth procedure does not allow the number in the first month to decline. It may not grow, but it will not decline unless the number of births really goes down.
purchasing and transferring population might through the population out of balance but the procedure is simple:
if the computed number of births, is smaller than the previous one, the number stays as before..
you see slow decline in large countries. This is natural death rate in all age groups.
the numbers are not large and you can test and see as they decline with a higher HI."