After watching this video I am left with this question.

The video ultimately claims that humans will not disappear, but doesn’t do a great job explaining why.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but for the (or a) population to be and remain stable, the total fertility rate needs to be equal to the global replacement rate (which recently was 2.3).

And since the total average fertility rate appears to be currently at this 2.3, any drop in the fertility rate in place A would have to be compensated with a rise in the fertility rate in place B (assuming that, at some point, we would like to stop population decline)?

I guess one way for a population to remain stable, while women are having fewer than 2.3 children, would be to have fewer men? If a population has 100 women and 10 men, each woman would only have to have on average (a bit more than) 1.1 child? (Which would of course also require a collective form of prenatal sex selection.)

I realize that would be bonkers and unethical. Just wondering out loud.

  • notsofunnycomment@mander.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Expressed as “the average number of babies that an individual woman needs to have for a certain population to stay the same size”, the replacement rate should not depend on population size, right?

    If you express it as an absolute number (e.g. number of babies per year) than obviously it will depend on population size.

    From what I understand, the replacement rate (expressed as the average number of babies that an individual woman needs to have for a certain population to stay the same size), depends mostly on what percentage of people die before they (can) have babies.