3 ms·

Birth rates and income are not as highly correlated as evidenced by your graph and the birthrates of nations. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl

Birth rates and income are not as highly correlated as evidenced by your graph and the birthrates of nations. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... As it stands now the EU has more deaths than births every year for the foreseeable future. When birthrates have been below replacement level for over 30 years it would take a massive baby boom to right the pyramid, but what good would that do? We don't need the population we used to and those babies wouldn't be productive for at least 20 years and as it stands now many of them would be as much of a drain on the state as the retired

danbruc 10y ago
I am not arguing that population growth would be a good thing, the population growth rate has to become essentially zero at some point. A constant plus or minus one percent per year means extinction within less than 2000 years. Overpopulation will resolve itself by starvation or resource wars, underpopulation seems actually more dangerous in the long run. But I am relatively sure that we will manage to avoid extinction due to a bad fertility rate. And the population structure will probably become something like a rectangle then, almost everybody becomes 80 or 90 or whatever and dies within a relative narrow window. Setting aside radical changes like getting hit by an asteroid or discovering the key to eternal life. I really only wanted to point out that it is not absolutely certain that increasing wealth surely leads to a decreasing population. If all work is done by robots and nobody is at risk of a shortage of good and services, what would people compel not to spend some of their years raising three children?