Anonymous amethyst_popping_bottles 21w

2.7 is just the replacement rate when you account for infant mortality. this doesn’t give any sort of timeline for extinction. at less than 2.7 the population declines.

55

Anonymous #4 21w

I figured they were misinterpreting data because a population decline doesn’t necessarily mean extinction, you can have one simply because the resources available cannot support the population size.

38

Anonymous amethyst_popping_bottles 21w

The replacement rate only means so much, and it’s a number that’s tossed around by people with no understanding of what it means. The world population is actually increasing at a decreasing rate, and it’s expected to stabilize before it decreases.

25

Anonymous #2 21w

That’s what I’ve been thinking! I remember when I was a kid/teen the issue was overpopulation. Now it’s under? The math ain’t mathing

43

Anonymous #6 21w

yeah they aren’t concerned with total global population, they’re only concerned with a certain group declining…

15

Anonymous #7 21w

I think maybe Covid made those numbers shift a little bit. Since a ton of people died in a short amount of time it may have thrown the numbers out of wack.

8

Anonymous #8 21w

I understand the logic, however while COVID did kill a lot of people the number would have had to been much higher for the global populous to be that affected.

21

Anonymous #7 21w

To put it into perspective the black plague that affected Europe killed an estimated 75-200 million people. For covid the world health org is estimated 21 million people died of covid. Compared to that covid was an extremely mild epidemic

12

Anonymous #7 21w

That’s fair, I’m not sure then. I do find it odd that we were told as kids the world was overpopulated and then out of no where they want us to have more children.

20

Anonymous #6 21w

I mean yes, but it’s mainly Africa driving it. Every other continent has mostly below replacement rates minus a few countries in Central Asia

5

Anonymous #4 21w

2.1 is the replacement birth rate not 2.7

1

Anonymous amethyst_popping_bottles 21w

I genuinely believe it’s because the amount of babies being born rn are not enough to cover the entire working world that’s been built. Like eventually companies will beg people to apply.

5

Anonymous #3 21w

agree 100%. i want to be a mom and raise children, but i don’t want to bring a baby into the world unless i can guarantee it has clean water as an adult, and i genuinely don’t know if that is possible at this point

11

Anonymous #11 21w

Good, maybe then they’ll pay their employees a livable wage

9

Anonymous #16 21w

0.7 = skill issue in our case damn

1

Anonymous #7 21w

I mean more like this, people are just being born to work

1

Anonymous #11 21w

I understood you perfectly. We all know that’s why people want more children born. But if they’re desperate because less people are being born then the employers have to give people a reason to want to be a worker for them

1

Anonymous #7 20w

Yes, absolutely. Benefits and pay workers should already have

1