>>12380161Social trends are not reliable. There is no such thing as a controlled setting in sociology.
Things never play out the same way in the social world
Treating the socium as a subject of the material science is so 19th century
Tech changes, popular opinions are never the same.
The history repeats itself, until it doesnt. And it never actually repeats itself completely. You may say, the fall of Rome has repeated itaelf many times over. But actually didnt. Rome was the longest living empire, its final beath lasted centuries, ita fall had a totally different set of consequence than, say, the fall of the HRE
And now you say, that since there is a pattern in many developed countries, every other country will follow it. There may be some similarities, true. But you cant say that eventually all countries will have an exact same set of circumstances to produce the same response (reproductive decline) and consequences.
There may not be govts anymore in 2100. The population may decline to 1bln due to ww3. We may start colonizing space. Overpopulated countries may invade the underpopulated driven by climate change.
The current state of the world can be observed, but still contains too many unknowns to make reliable prediction. The past cannot be observed, and it has even more unknowns. So extrapolating trends from the past is doubly unreliable.
In contrast, population biology has been studied for at least a century in controlled sertings. And shortly, it shows that all populations aim to spread indefinitely and stretch their environment capacity. That we can be sure of. Those who dont die out fast.
From a biological pov, we can see a universal population decline only if we reach maximum capacity of our planet. In this case we wont see any voluntary, educated population decline. It will be a violent decline with high intraspecies competition for resources. Probably war, starvation, local collapses, revolutions. All the best ways humans people compete on a global scale
