>Are fertility rates expected to dip so low that humans will simply die out?
In most of the western world, they dipped that high decades ago. Anything below 2.1 is sub-replacement. The US is below this (ignoring immigration, it is already shrinking). East Asia is way, way below it. China deliberately forced theirs to 1.0, but can't force it back the other direction. The Japanese population is already shrinking year-over-year. Europe's no better. Only central Africa is above replacement fertility, and they're trending downward sharply.
>Is it that stable/declining populations will cause
Declining populations cause something far worse than war. They cause fertility to drop further. It's a vicious downward spiral.
>It seems to me some of our worst problems would ease up if populations declined a bit.
They decline in a very specific way, where there are far more older people than younger. So the young have to pay more into taxes to support a bunch of old geezers who can't work. Retirement age recedes into the distance faster than you can chase it. The economy falters, infrastructure can't be maintained (let alone built new).
I agree that there will be some challenges due to the population aging, but if our numbers are shrinking we won't need to build as much new housing and other infrastructure. Also, for all its faults, industrialized agriculture makes it possible to grow enough food for everyone with remarkably few workers.
It seems like we currently have a glut of people looking for work, and having fewer working age people would make it much easier for people to negotiate better wages and working conditions.
Not sure about that. Current un-employment is at 4-5%, and a lot of people not finding jobs seems to be skills miss-match.
Big picture, immigration is what is keeping the US going. US Citizens, don't like to pick strawberries, so when immigration is gone, no more fruits/vegetables.
The negative population replacement has been covered up by immigration filling the gaps.
In most of the western world, they dipped that high decades ago. Anything below 2.1 is sub-replacement. The US is below this (ignoring immigration, it is already shrinking). East Asia is way, way below it. China deliberately forced theirs to 1.0, but can't force it back the other direction. The Japanese population is already shrinking year-over-year. Europe's no better. Only central Africa is above replacement fertility, and they're trending downward sharply.
>Is it that stable/declining populations will cause
Declining populations cause something far worse than war. They cause fertility to drop further. It's a vicious downward spiral.
>It seems to me some of our worst problems would ease up if populations declined a bit.
They decline in a very specific way, where there are far more older people than younger. So the young have to pay more into taxes to support a bunch of old geezers who can't work. Retirement age recedes into the distance faster than you can chase it. The economy falters, infrastructure can't be maintained (let alone built new).