I don't think that's too crazy. Seconds are serial, babies are parallel :)

Yet while one woman can generate 1 baby in 9 months, 9 women can't do it in 1 month

Underrated comment. Reply anticipation: this is not reddit. Preemptive response, I know, doesn't change the fact that this comment is underrated :);p xx

Only thing I want to add: not yet, maybe with CRISPR and artificial wombs there could be some way.

IIRC, it's ~5.5 births and 3 deaths per second (worldwide).

Also, see: https://www.worldometers.info/

That sounds about right. Approx 50 million deaths per year in that frame. 50 years....2.5 billion deaths. So 2.5+1.5 births and 1.5 deaths a second. If you round up deaths to whole numbers, 3 deaths per 2 seconds, maybe that's the error, adding the 3 deaths per 2 seconds to 2.5 deaths per 1 second. Or 8 births and 3 deaths every 2 seconds. Or 1 death every 700ms.

Also crazy to think of, is:

If you have a billion (i.e., 1E9) dollars, or any other currency, and you spend $86,400 dollars a day, it will take you more than 31 years and 8 months to spend the entire billion.

According to https://ourworldindata.org/peak-child (2018) the number of children in the world is plateauing ("very close to a long flat peak") meaning that the total number of children may stay constant in the future.

Except in Africa. It is pretty important to everyone to increase the median wealth of people in Africa.

Linear vs quadratic growth.

Good point and great way to think about it. It would be weird if the number of seconds grew quadratically. I guess considering "particle interactions" and "light cone" the number of interactions among particles (and interactions among interactions) grows quadratically over time. I wonder how the universe doesn't end up with a backlog of information it hasn't yet processed. Maybe that's gravity/dark matter. :p ;) xx hehe