If the article had posited that a great plague was the greatest threat facing mankind he might have had a better argument.
Thinking humanity will go extinct because people stop reproducing is idiotic.
Massive birth rates with a huge cadre of young people is the model of third world hell holes.
Replacement birth rates is the model of a healthy Republic.
Declining population birth rates are the model of a moribund Socialist nanny state.
Which demographic model do you think best reflects the USA, which Europe, and which Africa?
Now which demographic model do you want us to emulate again?
You obviously didn't read the article in the original post.
The original post -- and subsequent articles posted between #46 and #55 -- deals with the drastic economic, social and military implications (discussed in the books linked in the article) that are already occurring and will occur as a result of declining fertility rates.
Again, you stated
"A declining population rate is hardly a grave threat to humanity, never has been in the history of humanity"
Again, I ask you:
When has there EVER been a willing global declining population rate in the history of humanity?
It is happening right now, but it has never happened in recorded history, so how can you possibly say its not a grave threat?!?
The only thing that is comparable in human history is periodic regional declines due to natural disasters, plagues, war etc.
And the inferences from those declines are that these episodes cause drastic economic, social and military implications for those populations.
On the contrary, economic growth is closely coupled with population growth.
Above replacement birth rates are a necessity for economic growth.
Replacement birth rates lead to economic stagnation.
Below replacement birth rates lead to economic contraction.
Read up on demographics and their effects on economics, then get back to me.