2.1 kids per woman may not be enough for humanity to survive

Fertility rates are falling across the world. This isn’t just a social concern—it’s a mathematical warning. In places where people have fewer than two children on average, the population can no longer replace itself. For decades, scientists thought the solution was simple: an average of 2.1 children per woman would keep the population stable. But new research reveals that this common belief leaves out a critical factor—random chance.

For years, the benchmark fertility rate needed to keep a population from shrinking was set at 2.1. This number accounts for the two parents, slight childhood mortality, and a small imbalance in the number of boys and girls born. It works—on paper—in large populations with stable health systems, where everyone has an equal shot at having kids.

However, the real world rarely works this smoothly. Some people never have children. Others face health issues. Birth rates and death rates can shift unexpectedly. In smaller populations, chance plays an even bigger role. This randomness, known as demographic stochasticity, can tip the scales toward extinction even when fertility rates appear stable.

New research from Takuya Okabe and his colleagues at Shizuoka University, published in PLOS One, shows that the old 2.1 rule is far too low. Based on mathematical models that simulate population changes over generations, the study found that a fertility rate of 2.7 children per woman is the true minimum needed to avoid long-term extinction in a population.

At the heart of the research is a model called a branching process. This model doesn’t assume that every woman will have the same number of children. Instead, it uses probability to reflect real-world variation—some women might have no children, some might have one, others might have three or more. Over time, this kind of variation can erase entire family trees, especially if a population is already small or shrinking.

“If a woman has only one child, and that child never reproduces, her family line ends,” Okabe explains. When enough of those endings happen, the entire population can collapse. And while large countries might seem safe, the data suggest that even they are not immune. “Most family lineages will eventually go extinct,” he warns.

The research also factors in birth sex ratios and mortality differences between men and women. In doing so, it highlights how female-biased birth ratios may serve as a natural buffer. When more girls are born than boys, the odds increase that more women will reach reproductive age and have children. This leads to greater stability over time.

Around the globe, fertility rates have dropped sharply since the 1960s. Back then, the global average was 5.3 children per woman. By 2023, it had fallen to 2.3. That might not sound dramatic, but it marks a massive shift in how societies grow—or shrink.

Today, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in places where fertility has dropped below the old 2.1 threshold. And all of the G7 nations—among the world’s wealthiest—have fertility rates well under that number. Italy, Japan, and Canada all have rates between 1.29 and 1.47. The United States sits at 1.66. France is slightly higher at 1.79, but still well below even the outdated target.

South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate, sitting at just 0.87 in 2023. Japan’s rate of 1.30 is also far below replacement levels. If this trend continues, Japan’s population is expected to fall by 31% every generation.

Despite government policies that promote childbearing through subsidies and parental leave, these nations continue to see birth rates sink. High living costs, long work hours, and changing values around family and work contribute to the steady decline. In the face of these modern pressures, the costs—financial and personal—of having children often outweigh the incentives.

The new research adds urgency to the issue. It suggests that countries must not only increase their fertility rates above 2.1 but aim for at least 2.7 children per woman to ensure long-term stability. That’s a much steeper climb than policymakers have planned for.

This higher bar also reflects the influence of local conditions like child mortality and sex ratios. For instance, in countries where only 60% of children survive to reproductive age—as in Afghanistan, Burundi, or Sierra Leone—an RLF of 3.3 would be needed. These differences underline the need for tailored policies that reflect local realities, not one-size-fits-all targets.

In the context of sexual reproduction, the extinction threshold rises even more under demographic randomness. Okabe’s model assumes that each woman’s number of children follows a Poisson distribution—a way of modeling random events—and that children are born with either sex according to a binomial ratio. When you plug those assumptions into a branching process, the need for a higher fertility rate becomes clear.

This study has broad implications—not only for humans, but for endangered species as well. When conservationists set fertility targets for animals in small, isolated populations, they need to consider demographic randomness too. Just as with humans, survival depends not just on averages, but on luck and timing.

"Considering stochasticity in fertility and mortality rates, and sex ratios, a fertility rate higher than the standard replacement level is necessary to ensure sustainability of our population," notes Diane Carmeliza N. Cuaresma, a co-author of the study.

The work also invites a broader conversation about sustainability. What does it really mean to sustain a population? It’s not just about head counts. It’s about preserving cultural traditions, languages, and family legacies. If most family lines are destined to end, then demographic trends may be erasing more than just numbers—they may be erasing histories.

And that’s the key takeaway. Randomness is not just a statistical footnote—it’s a force that shapes the future. To counter it, societies must act with intention, adjusting not only their policies but their expectations. The replacement rate of 2.1 is no longer good enough. In a world of uncertainty, it takes more than balance—it takes a buffer.

Note: The article above provided above by The Brighter Side of News.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.