|
| ▲ | swiftcoder a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > people having children well below replacement levels You do realise that the global population is still increasing? While birthrates are falling, we aren't even predicted to hit the peak for another half-century. Even pessimistic estimates put it in the 2200s before we fall back to current population levels. Which is ~100 years longer than current estimates give us before the effects of climate change starts taking a bite out of the world population |
| |
| ▲ | intended a day ago | parent [-] | | I too am curious as to why that is the feature they are concerned about. As I recall there was a UN survey that found financial security was the most common reason for adults across the globe to choose not having children. Income levels are highly dependent on the degree of stability and monthly expenses that households can expect. | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder a day ago | parent [-] | | It's probably also worth mentioning that nobody predicts birthrates to fall indefinitely - the human race isn't just going to die out because multi-child families are less common. Instead we expect that as affluence becomes more evenly distributed, the whole thing will stabilise at a lower population (and ideally one that leads to less competition for natural resources) Outside of "great replacement" types who are worried about the continued supply of purebred aryans, I'm not really sure why anyone would be concerned by this | | |
| ▲ | intended a day ago | parent [-] | | > Outside of "great replacement" types. That is what stood out to me as well, but I could be doing them a disservice. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Both are temporary. Hopefully the reduction in population leads to a more sustainable humanity that changes the climate less. BTW both of these have been predicted since the 80s. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
