But that ship has sailed. Population changes are notorious in how extremely predictable they are. If we wanted a slow decline we needed to act 20 years ago.
Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline.
So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population growth.
And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids. I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really influence anything sooner.
If they are predictable then many people have done an extraordinarily bad job at projections. Because there are a lot of real howlers out there then if you look at proven wrong population projections of the past both from Malthusian demagogues and official sources trying to do extrapolations.
Although it is true we can only "add" at 0 for new humans if you want workforce ready new humans immigration from elsewhere is required.
Well Malthusians are frankly crackpots trying to make a political point which the numbers (especially now) don't support. So that they come with numbers that are found lacking ... is not a fair attack against serious people.
Which specific forecast did you think was so bad ?
Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline.
So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population growth.
And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids. I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really influence anything sooner.