Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nl 2119 days ago
>> 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M

> 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.

1 comments

> Increased life expectancy for women so far hasn't been matched by an increase in fertility beyond 40 years old.

You've said this with some certainty, were are you getting this from? This doesn't fit with all current data about general health and longevity, so I'd like to see who's saying this and what their case is.

The ovarian reserve doesn't somehow increase with increased longevity. The chart from Wikipedia is as good as anything on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_reserve#/media/File:Wa...

The ovarian reserve only decreases from birth, so it becomes less and less likely for a woman to conceive as they get older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility also notes: A review in 2012 came to the result that therapeutic interventions to halt or reverse the process of reproductive ageing in women is limited, despite recent reports of the potential existence of stem cells which may be used to restore the ovarian reserve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age has some further good reading on this.