âBelow-replacement fertility is perhaps the simplest and most probable extinction risk aroundâ
For it to present a significant extinction risk, youâd need current demographic trends to persist way past the point where changes in population have completely transformed society to the point where thereâs no reason to think current demographic trends will hold.
I would think the trend would also need to be evenly distributed. If some groups have higher-than-replacement birth rates, they will simply come to dominate over time.
The authors discuss this a bit. They note that even âhigher fertilityâ subcultures are trending down over time, so itâs not sufficiently clear that anyone is going to remain âabove replacementâ in the long run. That said, this does seem the weakest point for thinking it an outright extinction risk. (Though especially if the only sufficiently high-fertility subcultures are relatively illiberal and anti-scientific onesâAmish, etc. - the loss of all other cultures could still count as a significant loss of humanityâs long-term potential! I hope itâs OK to note this; I know the mods are wary that discussion in this vicinity can often get messy.)
The risk is non-zero, but you made a stronger claim that it was âthe most probable extinction risk aroundâ.
EDIT: As for reasons to think they will reverse, they seem to be a product of liberal modernity, but currently we need a population way, way above the minimum viable number to keep long term modernity going. Maybe AI could change that I guess, but itâs very hard to make predictions about the demographic trend if AI does all work.
I wrote âperhaps the simplest and most probable extinction riskâ. Thereâs room for others to judge another more probable. But itâs perfectly reasonable to take as most probable the only one that is currently on track to cause extinction. (Itâs hard to make confident predictions about any extinction risks.) I think it would be silly to dismiss this simply due to uncertainty about future trends.
âBelow-replacement fertility is perhaps the simplest and most probable extinction risk aroundâ
For it to present a significant extinction risk, youâd need current demographic trends to persist way past the point where changes in population have completely transformed society to the point where thereâs no reason to think current demographic trends will hold.
I would think the trend would also need to be evenly distributed. If some groups have higher-than-replacement birth rates, they will simply come to dominate over time.
The authors discuss this a bit. They note that even âhigher fertilityâ subcultures are trending down over time, so itâs not sufficiently clear that anyone is going to remain âabove replacementâ in the long run. That said, this does seem the weakest point for thinking it an outright extinction risk. (Though especially if the only sufficiently high-fertility subcultures are relatively illiberal and anti-scientific onesâAmish, etc. - the loss of all other cultures could still count as a significant loss of humanityâs long-term potential! I hope itâs OK to note this; I know the mods are wary that discussion in this vicinity can often get messy.)
What reason is there to think that demographic trends will suddenly reverse? If it isnât guaranteed to reverse, then it is an extinction risk.
The risk is non-zero, but you made a stronger claim that it was âthe most probable extinction risk aroundâ.
EDIT: As for reasons to think they will reverse, they seem to be a product of liberal modernity, but currently we need a population way, way above the minimum viable number to keep long term modernity going. Maybe AI could change that I guess, but itâs very hard to make predictions about the demographic trend if AI does all work.
I wrote âperhaps the simplest and most probable extinction riskâ. Thereâs room for others to judge another more probable. But itâs perfectly reasonable to take as most probable the only one that is currently on track to cause extinction. (Itâs hard to make confident predictions about any extinction risks.) I think it would be silly to dismiss this simply due to uncertainty about future trends.