[idiotsecant]

I wonder if this is still true once population growth reaches zero or negative. It seems like the baked in assumption of housing is that someone else is going to need it more tomorrow than you do today. I think this is an experiment the U.S. will begin running in earnest in the near future.

[betaby]

That if won't happen anytime soon neither for the Earth in general nor USA in particular. Media often loves to move goals from population growth to agin g population to fertility rate, etc. All those while connected do not negate the fact that population is growing, and growing fast. That 'once population growth reaches zero or negative' is very theoretical and UN is constantly underestimating population growth. So no, we will not see that in our lifetimes.

[rybosworld]

The population growth rate has consistently declined for 50+ years. It's around 0.8% from a peak of 2.2% in the 60's.

There's no reason to think this trend will reverse.

[betaby]

Why should we use peak as a benchmark? Even 0.8% is insanely high, at such rate population will double in ~150 years.

[throwawayFinX]

The parent is not wrong:

The total number of children in the world has already peaked (2017?) and is now dropping.

The population growth should still continue for about a human lifespan from here (50-80 years depending on who you ask).

That last growth is just those children growing up and becoming adults. I.e. They are the “last big generation”.

We will see the population drop again, if we dont fuck up the planet before that happens.

I think you would have difficulty finding countries in the world where fertility rates (children born pr woman) are not dropping.

Bangladesh went from 5.5 kids pr woman in 1985 to 2.1 in 2017. This is a global trend.

[rybosworld]

> Why should we use peak as a benchmark?

I'm not sure what you mean by the peak being a benchmark. There's a very clear trend of population growth declining every year since the 60's.

> Even 0.8% is insanely high, at such rate population will double in ~150 years

I think you are missing the part where the rate has been declining every year.

[betaby]

I think you are missing 'in our lifetime', even though you are quoting 'will double in ~150 years'. Also 'declining every year' doesn't mean it won't start growing again.

[rybosworld]

> I think you are missing 'in our lifetime'

I guess it depends when you are born. Peak population is predicted around 2075, and that's within a lot of people's lifetime.

> Also 'declining every year' doesn't mean it won't start growing again

That's a bit obvious and is equivalent to saying "anything could happen".

But unless you have a good reason for a reversal in trend, then there's no reason to think it will.

[mensetmanusman]

China loses 300 million in the next century, we will start witnessing the impact before we die.

[bee_rider]

Most developed countries will probably run the experiment before us, as long as we can keep the country appealing enough to keep attracting immigrants.

[bombcar]

It has happened, and recently, multiple times on local scales.

"House go up" may be generally true in the abstract, but that doesn't mean this particular house goes up.

[monero-xmr]

Buy housing in hyper desirable areas that rarely become more dense. Everyone always loves the beach, whether there are 1% fewer humans next year or not.

[_DeadFred_]

About that...

https://eos.org/articles/ocean-waves-mist-decades-old-pfas-i...

[darth_avocado]

The hyper desirable areas are no longer affordable to even millionaires.