[kthejoker2]

I hate articles that both attempt to reject a premise and then in the very next paragraph say .."and even if the premise is correct, it's a good thing."

Is the bomb "overblown" or are we on track to have 2 billion less people on this planet in 150 years (assuming "replacement level" rates)? (And PS those 6 billion will almost entirely be senior citizens.)

But by all means make arguments about scenarios that your headline are declaring won't happen. That definitely increases credibility.

[defrost]

> Is the bomb "overblown" or are we on track to have 2 billion less people on this planet in 150 years

Both can be true .. the wild assertions that having 2 billion less people on the planet is harbringer of doom, some kind of 'bomb' is certainly overblown.

The 'short term' near certain bet is that human population will peak at some 10 billion ~ 2100, the less certain but highly probable future after that is that population will decrease and then stabilise at a lower level .. as witnessed in many constrained populations in the wild.

What is extremely unlikely is the notion that human population will plumment to zero and go extinct if humans cease to breed above replacement rates (and will then continue to do so forever until the last human dies).