Yeh, the mathematically correct way. There are only about 4-5 generations of humans on the planet at any given point in time. Only the youngest of those can create the next generation. If each generation is getting smaller than the previous because the fertility rate's low, why would you expect population to stabilize?
> Migration is a thing, so unless total fertility is sub-replacement,
Outsourcing your fertility to countries with rapidly declining fertility probably isn't a long term (or short term) fix for the problem.
> "functionally extinct" is a tad bit premature.
In less than 25 years, it will be global. Unless you believe that in a handful of African countries that it will stay above 5 forever, even though it was twice that less than 80 years ago.
> the fact of group size temporarily inducing stress-related infertility until a population is below
So, you believe that all the little girls who exist today, who grow up as only children, who have no aunts or cousins, who see their school teachers childless, all their role models childless... they'll grow up themselves and say "Wow, I want 9 children of my own!"?
I think you're confusing the models here. The moose don't have low fertility, it's as high as ever, but the wolves eat so many offspring, or the food sources so sparse they starve.
In the stress-induced models like Calhoun's mice, population never recovers. The mice become extinct. Even though there's plenty of food, plenty of water, plenty of entertainment. Even after the population crashes, and there's no overcrowding, even then their fertility rates are so low that they just go extinct.
I have no doubt that unless you're in your 60s, you'll one day come to understand that I was correct. This is coming, and nothing other than underwhelming horror at the thought of me being correct explains why you choose to argue about it. HN is filled with people who understand how to predict trends with lines on a chart, and you know or could quickly verify which way fertility numbers are trending. Which direction it is that they can only trend, at this point. "Functionally extinct" is indeed the perfectly correct term for this. It's what you call a species that still has living extant specimens, but for which there is no realistic way for the species to survive in the long term. That's humans.
Yeh, the mathematically correct way. There are only about 4-5 generations of humans on the planet at any given point in time. Only the youngest of those can create the next generation. If each generation is getting smaller than the previous because the fertility rate's low, why would you expect population to stabilize?
> Migration is a thing, so unless total fertility is sub-replacement,
Outsourcing your fertility to countries with rapidly declining fertility probably isn't a long term (or short term) fix for the problem.
> "functionally extinct" is a tad bit premature.
In less than 25 years, it will be global. Unless you believe that in a handful of African countries that it will stay above 5 forever, even though it was twice that less than 80 years ago.
> the fact of group size temporarily inducing stress-related infertility until a population is below
So, you believe that all the little girls who exist today, who grow up as only children, who have no aunts or cousins, who see their school teachers childless, all their role models childless... they'll grow up themselves and say "Wow, I want 9 children of my own!"?
I think you're confusing the models here. The moose don't have low fertility, it's as high as ever, but the wolves eat so many offspring, or the food sources so sparse they starve.
In the stress-induced models like Calhoun's mice, population never recovers. The mice become extinct. Even though there's plenty of food, plenty of water, plenty of entertainment. Even after the population crashes, and there's no overcrowding, even then their fertility rates are so low that they just go extinct.
I have no doubt that unless you're in your 60s, you'll one day come to understand that I was correct. This is coming, and nothing other than underwhelming horror at the thought of me being correct explains why you choose to argue about it. HN is filled with people who understand how to predict trends with lines on a chart, and you know or could quickly verify which way fertility numbers are trending. Which direction it is that they can only trend, at this point. "Functionally extinct" is indeed the perfectly correct term for this. It's what you call a species that still has living extant specimens, but for which there is no realistic way for the species to survive in the long term. That's humans.