So on the topic, can someone explain why birth rates are so important if it isn't lower then the death rate? I see this issue so much and I really can't find a good issue other then economic reasons

[–] vind@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the birth rate is too low, the population will progressively become older and older with fewer young people there to support them

[–] Sentinian@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So what is considered a good birth rate? I would assume over 1 should be fine.

[–] Sybilvane@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

2.1 is maintenance level. Each child has 2 parents, and the .1 accounts for infant deaths, etc.

[–] karlthemailman@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Depends how you are presenting the number. Over 1 per person is ok, but this is 1.1 per woman. So closer to .5 per person.

[–] Sentinian@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Put like that, I can see the issue.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

the country will be full of old people and no one to take care of them

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Really your only answers are going to be based in economics.

A society can absolutely thrive with a 1:1 ratio, but not built around a capitalistic mindset. Quite frankly China's probably the best person to have this problem and they ignore the whims of capitalism for their countries residents quite often.

Possible non-economic considerations could be not having enough people to build a military and lack of cultural exportation. Both of which China doesn't really have any problems with.