3 ms·
That doesn't even make sense. Any sort of replacement rate is recoverable over the short term. The replacement rate could be zero for several years and the popu
by debacle 12y ago
That doesn't even make sense. Any sort of replacement rate is recoverable over the short term. The replacement rate could be zero for several years and the population could still recover with vigor.
If you assume an established nation (which Japan is for the most part if you ignore WWII), the realistic maxima for replacement is about 8%. So you could sustain population loss for quite a while (which brings down that maxima) and still recover.
- ctdonath 12y agoCould in theory, but how practical? Fertility is limited to a theoretical maximum of roughly once every 2 years for 30 years (a friend has lived it, having 15 kids), but the cultural changes to go from sub-1.4 to "recover with vigor" are drastic; couples living in high-density micro-apartments and thriving on high technology are a long way from living on a farm (as my friend had to resort to). Obviously this isn't a binary issue, so what constitutes "unrecoverable" is subject to debate - one has to consider what constitutes "cultural collapse" and, in a highly mobile world population, what other distinct groups will move to fill the relative void.