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.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    If it stays there forever, yes.

    It won’t though, as there become fewer humans it’s likely it will become easier to have more children again (fewer people for the same amount of finite resources) and the rate will increase.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      5 months ago

      (fewer people for the same amount of finite resources) and the rate will increase.

      Funny way to think…

      Actually it is poor countries (less ressources) that have the higher birth rates.

      I’d say, having children is hard work, but people in rich countries are lazy :-)

      • redisdead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        People from poor countries that move into wealthy countries adopt the birth rate almost immediately.

        It isn’t about laziness, it’s about education and wealth.

        • shrugs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You are contradicting yourself. By moving into a wealthy country you neither gain education nor wealth. Its about culture and environment.

          My guess is: in wealthy countries people are living more isolated. Without help from friends and family you have to invest a huge amount oft time into rising a child, which many can’t afford.

          • redisdead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            By moving to a wealthy country, you do gain education and wealth, wtf are you talking about.

            People don’t move to a country to stay poor and uneducated. They immediately send their kids to school and they immediately benefit from better employment.

            There’s been enough studies about it. Birthrate is absolutely linked to wealth. It’s universal.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re thinking about the resources wrong. I mostly mean land availability.

        Even in first world countries the birth rates are higher outside cities than inside. In undeveloped counties the birthdates are lower in crowded cities.

        • MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Huh, I guess that will mean that humans will perpetually be moving to “the big city” from the countryside. I guess romcoms won’t ever have to change their story line.