The rate of growth is dropping, but that doesn't mean the population hasn't stopped rising. As an analogy, a car that is slowing down is still moving forward.

I do not think that is true. Many nations have birthrates under the magical 2.1 required for population maintenance. I have not seen stats that say we are something like 2.6->2.5.

US is ~1.8

Korea is 0.78

That's not true for the world population yet, though!

Heh. Silly American thoughts.

This site[0] says Global birthrate is around 17.3. However, it has been dropping ~1% a year. It was 19.3 in 2014 and today it is 17.3. So indeed growing more slowly, but a strong trendline downwards.

Table copied and limited to the decades:

    Year  Birth Rate  Growth Rate
    2024  17.299  -0.940%
    2020  18.077  -1.120%
    2010  19.991  -0.870%
    2000  21.733  -1.090%
    1990  26.094  -2.400%
    1980  28.192  -0.530%
    1970  32.995  -1.520%
    1960  35.346  -0.110%
    1950  37.844  0.000%

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/wor...

You started with fertility rate and switched to birth rate. The world fertility rate is 2.4 so just a bit above the maintenance 2.1 level.

But in pretty much all developed countries the fertility rate is well below replacement rates and no signs of it levelling off.

In developed countries, more and more the norm is to not have children, or fewer of them later and later in live.

Personally I don't think it's a good thing when we start closing schools cause there's not enough children to attend them but that's just me.

Well, I don't think so. We, humans, are growing pretty fast - https://www.worldometers.info

We will add about 3.5b people in the next 26 years and then it will level off

According to some models... Why do you state predictions as though they are fact?

I said “about 3.5b”. In the context of a statement that we have an “ever growing population” does it really make a difference if it’s 2.5b or 4.5b?

Um... Yes!? That's +-1bln (the population of India) you're talking about. If you don't see a difference there, I don't know what to tell you

OP said: growth is declining in response to the copy about an “ever growing population”

I said: we will add about 3.5b then level off, implying that the population, for all intents and purposes, is ever growing

You said: but maybe it’s not 3.5b!

I said: in the context of “ever growing” what’s the difference?

I stand by that comment. Adding 2.5b in the next 26 years or 4.5b can both be considered “ever growing”.

That the population level will dramatically level off at that point is not in dispute.

Absent some extinction level event which will render solar foods ability to produce protein irrelevant I really don’t see why the choice of model has an impact on my point.