And also, humans probably overshot on reproduction in the 20th century. It was 5-10x growth. Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea.
Trying to proselytize or raise a crisis about fertility is pointless.
And also, humans probably overshot on reproduction in the 20th century. It was 5-10x growth. Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea.
Trying to proselytize or raise a crisis about fertility is pointless.
Or historical equivalence when David Ricardo, in response to Malthusian population doom disaster predictions pointed out that increasing rents causes smaller families.
I feel this time it's different isn't reason itself.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/consequences for investment and retirement.
Will the overall stock market grow faster than inflation when there aren't more customers to buy stuff? Can you actually save for retirement when your investments don't grow?
I have no idea how things will change, but it's not obvious that quality of life will improve.
2. The way this problem has been self correcting in history was through the destruction of the society through calamity or conquest and someone new moving in either with actual new people or with a new ruling regime. Neither of those sound like any fun to me, I'd rather people change the prevailing custom through discourse, as this article is attempting to do.
"A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
"A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
"Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
Read the citations and go from there.
The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
If it was, it would have been corrected already.