I think there are two ways to understand that. One is that the total number of stars probably won't ever be much higher (which is iffy, given that I'm not clea

I think there are two ways to understand that. One is that the total number of stars probably won't ever be much higher (which is iffy, given that I'm not clear if average stellar mass is going to stay the same) and one is that there is very little formation of new stars, so the ones we have right now are all that they're going to be. I think they were going for the former interpretation and I'm not clear that this interpretation is actually supported by the paper. Thanks for pointing this out.