[benterix]

I like your style but you could state the same in one sense and without insults. 1968 was the year when the world population growth peaked and although it is in decline, in 2022 the population peak was estimated to peak in 2080 but later corrections point more towards 2060. So at least for the next 30 years the population will still grow worldwide, unless something unpredictable happens.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Sub-replacement fertility is human extinction. When people talk about it at all, they're always yammering about "how will we pay for social security" and other nonsense, like any of that matters.

> in 2022 the population peak was estimated to peak in 2080 but later corrections point more towards 2060.

It will be revised earlier and earlier. This problem is accelerating.

[carlmr]

>Sub-replacement fertility is human extinction.

Um, why would you say that? Only if you stay at sub replacement for hundreds of years will you reach extinction.

If we get back to 1 billion people in 200 years we can go back to having replacement level kids again.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Um, why would you say that? Only if you stay at sub replacement for hundreds of years will you reach extinction.

Why would you think this? Is it because it's a comfortable thought? "Oh gee, but we'll be able to fix it later!" Sub-replacement fertility causes demographic collapse, which causes extreme economic collapse. If you're bitching and moaning that you can't afford kids now, how will that be any different for the few grandchildren you had 50 years from now when they have to each support three or four social security retirees and pay back the $35 trillion credit card bill you ran up? Sub-replacement fertility doesn't just cause a dip in population, it actively causes more sub-replacement fertility. It accelerates. And, I'll have you note that however many centuries you think this takes, the better part of that last century consists of childless people (the last generation) living out lonely, desolate lives as they wait for humanity to become extinct.

> If we get back to 1 billion people in 200 years we can go back to having replacement level kids again.

All people aren't equal when it comes to this problem. Only the (next to) most recent generation can even make kids. Roughly from age 15 to age 35. Do you think those 1 billion people would all consist of people age 15 to age 35? Most of them would be geriatric. That's one of the things people don't ever seem to get... they're counting the wrong fucking thing. You thought "hey, we have 1 billion people, that's more than enough". But what you really had is maybe 10 or 20 million people at that point who are still capable of having children. Virtually all of those people were only-children themselves. Do you think they're going to say "hey, I want 10 children, and I'll be a good parent too even though no one alive knows how to raise that many children in a single family!" ?

Maybe I'm being mean. Maybe this is counter-intuitive. But you're just flat out wrong, refuse to do the thinking necessary to get past your own biases and cognitive malfunctions, and you and other people will live to see at least the first stage of a rapid decline that you don't even have the mental tools to understand.