I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like 150 years from the start.
Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have that and that's what make you a modern person.
I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million plus population hub. That's what we should have.
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any kind of growth is constant -- people respond to incentives and if the price of having a child goes up, people naturally respond by having fewer children. And yes, the price of child is the highest it has even been.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, how many people were in your society to begin with? At what age did they reproduce? Was the reproduction constant or did it change between couples?
Of course society can heal, 'm just saying it's possible to get a badly incentivized society to crash itself and it won't be easy to fix the setup given the negative momentum.
10000. They reproduced between 25 and 35. You could tune the birth rate but it was constant for the simulation. People lived for 80 years. This kind of setup gave you a temporary boost and then a surprisingly hard landing.
Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have that and that's what make you a modern person.
I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million plus population hub. That's what we should have.