4 ms·

> Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down that far is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. Why?

• thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Because anything reproducing at below replacement rate goes extinct. If you e.g. look around at any given point, and take a sample -- by any method -- of living things that come to your attention, none of those things will have gone extinct. It's the same reason there are no societies which abstain entirely from giving birth. There have been a few, over the course of history, but they disappear for the incredibly obvious reason. At a steady state, such societies don't exist because they can't exist.
  • Angostura 9y ago
    It sounds to me as if you are simply taking the Malthusian fallacy and reversing it to make another fallacy. Certainly, a population that continues indefinitely below replacement rate will go extinct. That's not terribly likely though.
    • thaumasiotes 9y ago
      What did I write that you're responding to? It looks like you're agreeing with everything I've said.