but jacob, i’m not a man of faith, i presume nothing, i’m only trying to understand what you wrote and i though i hit a questionable point. please don’t take my question personally—consider it reader feedback or whatever. i’m just not receiving a clear signal here.
i understood you as saying that demographers are not taking into account declining birth rates in rich societies. so maybe i misread or misunderstood, which is why i asked.
again, i refer to this:
you mean this is the assumption that demographers operate on, disregarding everything else (eg changes in resources)? or do you mean that demographers don’t take this transition into account? because i’m not clear which one you meant. originally i understood the latter.jacob wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:12 amDemographic models are generally ignorant (they ignore) external input. IOW, demographers think that things will just evolve as they have been. The keyword here is demographic transition. As people get richer/educated/industrialized they have fewer and later children because children become more of a liability than an asset. Basically quality over quantity. This is the general trend. Europe is ahead of the US in that regard and Japan is ahead of Europe. Basically, you'll get a society of old(er) people. E.g. median age in the US is 38 but IIRC it's 45+ in Italy and 48 in Japan. In contrast, many African nations have median ages under 20! They're basically full of children/teenagers.