>If the number of children is not growing, why is the population still increasing
But, it is, isn't it? The best TLDR I can grok (and forgive me, it's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in) is that there are fewer births per woman but more women in the reproductive age, so more births overall?
Hopefully someone can help correct my misunderstanding.
It really comes down to this:
> But it of course also matters that all of us today live much longer than our ancestors just a few generations ago. Life expectancy is now twice as long in all world regions.
To me the title sounds like we were in "children of men" or "handmaid's tale" but the supply of people is the same. Amount kids is the same because they "die" when they become adults. So simple math tells us there's more adults.
It's easy to imagine as a stream of ants going out of a wall crack. they walk straight and they die. If you take 1st few inches or cm, those are children, they enter and leave this area at a constant pace so the count is the same. Now you count ants on the rest of the path. How there can you make more ants there? They gotta die later.
You can make them die statistically, cut path into sections and see how total or each section count change.