Did you know....

@hippyjoe1955 even by your dismal standards, that's abysmally wrong

@firefall Do a little research before you sound off. Google will give you a good start. Look at national birth rates and note then huge number of nations below replacement level.

@hippyjoe1955 it not going down quick. It's going up just as much

@hippyjoe1955 Thats absolute bullshit statistics. Look at the reported population of countries, year on year, as they actually measure and count them? Your position is EVERY one of them is lying? because they all report larger populations on a very regular basis.

Some individual countries might have birth rates below replacement level at this point, generally the richest countries, but that is insignificant as a proportion of world population.

or is your position that only rich countries count as real people?

@firefall Nope the only BS statistics come from the UN/WHO. The US, Canada, Europe, Asia, Most of Africa are well below replacement levels.

@hippyjoe1955 More people having fewer children is still more children. And, the global birthrate has not dropped sufficiently to offset the effect of more people.

We haven't even started to level-off yet.

@WoodyAq What is replacement level genius?

@hippyjoe1955 What are levels versus rates?

@WoodyAq You figure it out. If you have two people who together produce one child the population will decrease.

@hippyjoe1955 And if you have another two people who together produce 5 children, then it will increase.

And if that single child lives longer, and has a greater chance of conceiving a child of their own ... well, you figure it out.

@hippyjoe1955 people having one kid these days are not likely there having them younger these days

@WoodyAq Statistically the fact is that we need 2.1 children per woman/life to have a stable population (stays the same) Russia for example is around 1.5 which means the Russian population is dropping. China used to have one child per woman life and their population dropped. Do a quick search on birth rates by nation. put them on a graph and see which nations fall below the magic 2.1 number.

@hippyjoe1955 were not talking about each individual nation were talking globally

@hippyjoe1955 Then look at Africa and India. And then look at changes in life expectancy across the globe.

When you factor it all in, the impact of the current birthrate on the current population is... ?

@MiraRoss Each nation is part of the globe. If most of the nations are well below replacement level the world is also below replacement level.

@WoodyAq They are both below replacement levels Nice try though. Do some research.

@hippyjoe1955 The life expectancy is below replacement levels? That makes no sense.

@WoodyAq Do you even read what you write? I am talking about birth rates not life expectancy. The problem is that unless we reproduce enough people regardless of life expectancy the population will drop since we like all of the other living organisms on earth we die. Lets do a little math. We have a population of 100. Life expectancy 100. At age 20 each woman has 1 child. At 20 years the population would be 150 at 40 years the population would be 175 at 60 years the population would be 187 at 80 years the population would be 192 at 100 years the population would be 95. at 120 years the population would be 46. At 140 years the population would be 21. At 160 years the population would be 9. See the arc?

@hippyjoe1955 Yeah, I see the arc. I also see that the shape of the arc depends on a number of factors.

For example, if at age 20 each woman reduces her fertility from 2 children to one daughter, but her life expectancy and that of her child simultaneously doubles from 40 to 90 years, then in 20 years, when her daughter has a child, there will still be 3 people, instead of 2.

Run it forward another 20 years, when the granddaughter has a child, there will be 4, etc. That is, even though the birthrate dropped 60 years ago.

Bottom line though, your fabulous research skills failed to turn up that the global fertility rate is 2.5, and life expectancy continues to increase.

There are still above replacement level being born, and people living for longer mean a larger, not shrinking, population at any point in time.

So any thing below 2.1 reduces the population. Now go do some research.

@hippyjoe1955 I did. You apparently didn't. The global fertility rate is 2.5.

Wrong nice try though.

@hippyjoe1955 it's not wrong

@WoodyAq and your right people are living longer meaning the population is larger, it's not decreasing too much

@hippyjoe1955 It conflicts with the one you made up in your head?


One of many sources:

This entry focuses on the number of births per woman in a population. The most commonly used metric is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) – or often simply 'fertility rate' – which measures the average number of children per woman. The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today.Dec 2, 2017
Fertility Rate - Our World in Data