[davidiach]

If we don't maintain the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, the worlds population will eventually shrink exponentially. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

[ionised]

> If we don't maintain the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, the worlds population will eventually shrink exponentially. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

Why should that be scary?

[ForHackernews]

Why is that scary? Human civilization might be much more sustainable with a billion people, rather than currently-predicted peak of 10 billion.

I'm much more worried about climate change leading to war and famine than I am about women voluntarily choosing to have fewer children. As far as I can see, population decline is only a problem because our current economic system assumes endless growth.

[fastball]

If women consistently have < 2 children the population won't stabilize at 1 billion.

[ForHackernews]

Ok, get back to me when world population < 750 million. Then we can worry about depopulation.

In the meantime, our species has much more urgently pressing issues.

[fastball]

Our species really doesn't have more pressing issues.

Fucking the environment is very unlikely to destroy humanity, and that is really the only concern of any species.

As conscientious pieces of a greater whole, however, there are definitely more pressing issues.