3 ms·
It's not manageable, it's below replacement which is a risk of disaster if it's not increased. It seems we need poverty to make new humans and we're running out
by lopmotr 6y ago
It's not manageable, it's below replacement which is a risk of disaster if it's not increased. It seems we need poverty to make new humans and we're running out of poverty.
- gspr 6y agoWhat? The Earth has plenty of humans. We're decades away from a falling population globally, and even then we probably have centuries to bring birth rates back up before disaster strikes (well, disaster with underpopulation as its cause). Also, bringing the rates back up should be easy enough when needed.
- jl6 6y ago2 is only just below replacement rate, which means a manageable gradual reduction rather than the demographic cliff-edge of 0 or 1 or the unsustainable boundless growth of 3+. At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.