• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Yeah, but it’s projected to start shrinking after the static point, because people also die and birth rate continues to drop in the remaining countries above replacement.

    Like, we have billions and could probably get by with millions, so we have a couple centuries at least, but eventually we’re going to have to figure something out.

    • GreyEyedGhost
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is as reasonable as Malthus’s predictions. Continuous exponential growth in a finite space is as reasonable as assuming the population will collapse instead of stabilizing. I’m not saying it will stabilize, I’m just saying that most other populations of other species have.

      If you look at the reasons why people are having fewer kids, it’s easy to see what would change that. And assuming it simply won’t over the span of centuries is absurd.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you look at the reasons why people are having fewer kids

        They don’t want to, and now have contraceptives? It’s a pretty across-the-board phenomenon, there’s no reason to think a different time would change it any more than a different place. Developing countries have dropping birth rates, collapsing countries have dropping birth rates; as do both rich and poor.

        Throw around “absurd” all you want, you’re not an expert demographer either.