10 Comments

    1. michaelhoney on

      Is it really converging on the replacement rate? It seems to be heading monotonically downward, beyond replacement rate to below 1.5

    2. I don’t think you know what converging means. It’s on a downwards trend and just happens to be at replacement right now.

    3. ChickenTandoori on

      What’s the billionaires plan here? Living is becoming to expensive to make a kids. Without kids there are no new customers to buy their stuf

    4. Make the Charts input data use the table filters so we can see the charts for our countries. Then add Immigration and emigration data. I bet you we will see the difference match more or less the replacement decline in several European countries.

      Edit: ah you probably need to calculate country specific repacements based off of death rates.

    5. I’m guessing replacement rate changes too.

      When infant mortality was high, you may have required 5 children to guarantee 2 children get to adults and reproduce to make four grandchildren

      As infant mortality decreased, and mortality of any kind before reproduction age, goes down, I imagine 2.1 trends to 2.

      At the same time, fertility health, having children later, and different choices would increase this number from 2 upwards

    6. Title is inaccurate – what’s being graphed is fertility rate which can be distinctly different from family size.

    7. Why do I still keep seeing stats about global population set to hit 10B if we’re already at replacement rate and still decreasing?

    8. iwishihadnobones on

      I think ‘converging’ probably not the right word to use in this context. It is heading towards replacement rate. But there is no reason to suggest it will converge. It seems likely it will keep heading down

    9. Wouldn’t it actually be good in order to bring down the world population to a more sustainable level?

    Leave A Reply