Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind
Yes on rethinking I realized the numbers in the rate reduction are not "wrong" per se. (as per the definition of specious) they are simply skewed and do not represent to overall reality. Expanding population is very definitely a big issue.
While it is true that people living longer is certainly contributory to population numbers. That does not change the fact the regardless of stats quoted in the PBS article, the populations is still going up, so yes the notion that a negative replacement rate mitigates the population expansion, or more specifically the resource consumption rate, is specious.
|
Some interesting reading here:
https://www.census.gov/library/stori...s-to-slow.html
A quote,
emphasis mine
"Population change at the national level stems from natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) and international migration (the movement of people into and out of the United States).
So far this decade, natural increase has been the largest source of population growth for the nation.
In 2019, natural increase dropped to 957,000, marking the first time in at least four decades that it slipped below a million,
continuing the trend toward fewer births and more deaths."