> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes.

I agree. So where is the problem? Replacement is a problem in many parts of the world on the other hand.

Alternative 1: we achieve 6 billion in 2300 because we cannot sustain 7 billion

Alternative 2: we achieve 5 billion in 2300 because we chose to

The quality of life in alternative 2 is higher because we're not right up against constraints that limit us. People feel more secure because there's less contention over resources, they're more likely to take risks like trying new ways of doing things, etc. There's a greater potential for discovery.

So the problem is that if we let nature force us into Alternative 1, we're in for a worse time than we otherwise would be.

> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century

Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so

Source UN Population to 2300

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...

Now the issue is both OP and you are taking one of the trend lines rather than looking at the projection spread. Ops seems slightly off as the UN numbers are showing 10B max and 7.4B min.

You're looking at the graph that ends in 2050.

Estimates for 2100 (from Fig. 6)

================================

- High: 14.0B

- Med: 9.1B

- Low: 5.5B