Article  2.1 kids per woman might not be enough for population survival

#1
C C Offline
Parody Alcove: Basically, don't be as reproductively stubborn as the Duttons of "Yellowstone", and repeatedly -- with each generation across the decades -- risk your whole family line being wiped-out by renewed threats. (Especially when you're wealthy enough to afford lots of offspring.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.1 kids per woman might not be enough for population survival
https://plos.io/4lu0M6h

PRESS RELEASE: Human populations need at least 2.7 children per woman – a much higher fertility rate than previously believed – to reliably avoid long-term extinction, according to a new study published April 30, 2025 in the open-access journal PLOS One by Takuya Okabe of Shizuoka University, Japan, and colleagues.

While a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is often considered the replacement level needed to sustain a population, this figure doesn’t account for random differences in how many children people have – as well as mortality rates, sex ratios, and the probability that some adults never have children. In small populations, these chance variations can wipe out entire family lineages.

In the new study, researchers used mathematical models to examine how this demographic variability affects the survival of populations over many generations. The study found that, due to random fluctuations in birth numbers, a fertility rate of at least 2.7 children per woman is needed to reliably avoid eventual extinction – especially in small populations.

However, a female-biased birth ratio, with more females than males born, reduces the extinction risk, helping more lineages survive over time. This insight may help explain a long-observed evolutionary phenomenon: under severe conditions – such as war, famine, or environmental disruption – more females tend to be born than males. It also suggests that, while extinction isn’t imminent in large developed populations, most family lineages will eventually fade out.

The authors conclude that true population sustainability – as well as the sustainability of languages, cultural traditions, and diverse family lineages – requires rethinking conventional fertility targets. The findings also have implications for conservation efforts of endangered species in which target fertility rates are set, they point out.

Diane Carmeliza N. Cuaresma adds, "Considering stochasticity in fertility and mortality rates, and sex ratios, a fertility rate higher than the standard replacement level is necessary to ensure sustainability of our population."
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research California, Michigan lead nation in people who don’t want kids C C 0 277 Aug 14, 2026 05:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  Most countries have already passed peak carbon dioxide per person (statistics) C C 1 219 Aug 12, 2026 07:39 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Why only rich kids and family connected ones can make it in today's music industry C C 0 480 May 11, 2026 08:21 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Dads are dying after their kids are born, and no one is tracking it (data) C C 0 511 May 4, 2026 05:43 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Concerns about ageing society ignore huge opportunities, says population expert C C 0 327 Dec 26, 2025 06:57 PM
Last Post: C C
  Should $140K per year be America's poverty line? C C 1 451 Nov 26, 2025 07:30 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Article The case for gradual population decline C C 0 518 Oct 5, 2025 07:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why the "social equity" meme of kids standing on boxes is hated (equality of outcome) C C 0 1,016 Apr 18, 2025 06:22 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Visiting white parts of town make some Black kids feel less safe C C 0 667 Apr 10, 2024 11:15 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Global population collapse isn't sci-fi anymore (demographic statistics) C C 0 753 Mar 11, 2024 05:36 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)