|
|
|
|
|
|
by aaron695
2119 days ago
|
|
|
> The funders had no role in study design, The Funders know how it'll come out. Studies don't take into account the leaps that will happen because we don't know what they are. Things don't just continue as the previous 80 years. These jumps happened even when we didn't have the internet to super charge stuff. > 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M That's 2050 in the document. 2020 is 210 - 305 million estimate. (pdf p29) > decreased birthrates is very strong. But not fertility. You won't be living to 120 without being a healthy and fertile 60 year old. It's fun to have work as number one for 20 years, but if it's easy to have kids in your 40's without IVF things will change. |
|
|
> That's 2050 in the document.
Yes, you are right, my apologies.
2025 predictions are between 221M and 318M (table, page 16) which makes their "projection B" scenario almost exactly correct.
>2020 is 210 - 305 million estimate. (pdf p29)
Page 29 is a table called "Relative comparison of dependant and productive groups in the United States". There are no population numbers.
Page 25 has a graph which you maybe referring to. That doesn't have numbers, but they seem to be plotting the numbers from page 16.
> But not fertility. You won't be living to 120 without being a healthy and fertile 60 year old.
What evidence do you have of that? Increased life expectancy for women so far hasn't been matched by an increase in fertility beyond 40 years old.