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
    6
    ·
    2 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
      ·
      2 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.