To produce 2.7 children per woman or become extinct

The extinction of life on Earth is the subject of many newspaper articles, but their focus often veers between sensationalism and exaggeration. This Monday, a cover module of The reason stated the following: "The current number of births does not guarantee survival." It's a sudden outcry, considering the shared perception that the planet is bursting at the seams with little people (and that 90% of them are in Barcelona, ​​but that's another topic). If we've gone from 5.3 billion humans in 1990 to more than 8 billion today, it doesn't seem like the lack of individuals is a problem on the horizon. In fact, the news refers to a mathematical study conducted by a Japanese university according to which the 2.1 children per woman, which was considered the minimum to guarantee the survival of the species, is insufficient. The authors argue that, once various imponderables are taken into account, the threshold is actually 2.7 offspring. And it must be emphasized that this is a theoretical mathematical model. It's not hard to guess that on a less overpopulated planet, birth rates would be higher as a reaction. And even more so if it turns out there is a threat to survival. In the end, the solution to this hypothetical cause of extinction is easier than searching for habitable planets in other star systems.

I suppose the pressure to click doesn't just affect journalists, but also scientists, who know that echo chamber is their ally in securing future investment in their research. In any case, and as for the media, it's ironic that some play Nostradamus with a theoretical model while much more pressing and palpable threats, such as climate change, are systematically viewed with skepticism or, downright, contempt. Let the meteorite fall already.