Correct for humanity as a whole, but incorrect for subpopulations. E.g. South Koreans probably want to continue to exist, and this is not equivalent to the landmass of South Korea being populated.
There are 51 million people in South Korea, #29 in a list of 233 countries and there population.
I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
And even if, what exactly goes extinct?
The people living in a country?
Unlikely, others will occupy the space.
The culture?
That already dies through changes in time. The South Koreas now has few in common with the South Koreans from 100, 200, 500 etc years ago.
The South Korean gen?
Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes. There isn’t really a loss or you could say the same about the gene pool of every village or city.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction. Maybe it’s a bad idea to to look at the current birth rate anf extrapolate it in the future like it’s a constant number.
A good point. But one could also look at an ailing elephant, and say it need not worry about dying, because look, it is so much larger than a healthy kitten. Yet in a year, the elephant will be a skeleton, and the kitten will be a healthy cat. It all depends how they will handle the population drop - in a controlled way, gently reducing their numbers, or will it trigger a crisis, they let 52 million Chinese into their country, and slowly disappear as a distinct people.
> The culture? That already dies through changes in time.
By this logic a child dying or growing up is no different - both are "deaths through change". Of course the culture that Korea's culture will evolve into is much different than how Hungarian or Nigerian culture will evolve.
> The South Korean gen? Humans are pretty similar regarding their genes.
Even in a place as small and inter-connected as Europe, people have differentiated genes [1]. Globally, especially with geographic barriers, the diversity is even greater [2]. I find it extremely callous to so casually say Korean genetic distinctions aren't worth preserving, or that Koreans are interchangeable with any other people.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2735096/
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...
The genetic differences are negligible.
Like your first link showed: There is a greater diversity between African countries than any African country to Europe.
You could break down those differences down to the village level but it’s a useless distinction and more likely the base useless racism and nationalism.
By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
And thanks to international travel and migration this differences already get mixed up.
> By that logic every single humans death is a loss of genetic diversity.
This is "how many grains of sand make a pile" territory, isn't it? You're claiming that because a change of X is negligible, it must mean that a change of 1000000*X is also negligible.
As for my first link - I couldn't find where it showed that, and even if it did, it doesn't follow that the differences are negligible (to whom?) [1]. Why does Africa having a lot of genetic human diversity, make those differences negligible?
[1] Especially since Africa has two completely different populations due to the barrier of the Sahara - of course the difference between Europeans and Arabs are smaller than between Arabs and Namibians.
> I wonder how Island, Greenland, Norway etc. live with a population count far lower without the fear of extinction.
Countries aren't species, they are social constructs; they are maintained memetically, not genetically. There is no shortage of humans to assure that survival of countries that pay sufficient effort to their memetic continuity.
With present population trends, in a few centuries it might be time to be concerned about birthrates if they don't adjust thermostatically to changed global population conditions, but there is certainly no imminent threat from low birthrates.