After watching this video I am left with this question.

The video ultimately claims that humans will not disappear, but doesn’t do a great job explaining why.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but for the (or a) population to be and remain stable, the total fertility rate needs to be equal to the global replacement rate (which recently was 2.3).

And since the total average fertility rate appears to be currently at this 2.3, any drop in the fertility rate in place A would have to be compensated with a rise in the fertility rate in place B (assuming that, at some point, we would like to stop population decline)?

I guess one way for a population to remain stable, while women are having fewer than 2.3 children, would be to have fewer men? If a population has 100 women and 10 men, each woman would only have to have on average (a bit more than) 1.1 child? (Which would of course also require a collective form of prenatal sex selection.)

I realize that would be bonkers and unethical. Just wondering out loud.

  • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    We are currently overtaxing natural resources, human population cannot grow unbounded without many unpleasant consequences. To me, it’s not a problem if we reach a steady state or even start a slow downward trend.

    But, we must turn away from “line goes up” methods for measuring success, which are pretty deeply ingrained in most of our economies.