Yes[1]; most of the current population estimates show the world population leveling off in the 9-12 billion range. Percentage growth rate actually peaked in the mid 1960s (about 2.2%), and absolute growth peaked in the late 1980s (about 85 million people per year.) This is completely expected from logistic growth models[2].
Different species reach logistic growth in different ways. As the grandparent post noted, "reduced birth rate" is better than alternatives like "mass starvation". Lower birth rates are not a bad thing from a population growth perspective, though the demographic shift they bring about will require changes to our expectations regarding retirement. It's rather unfortunate that we're still using a retirement model designed when life expectancy was lower and birth rates were higher.
[1]"Who's that insightful person who posted about logistic growth and stole my thunder? Oh, hi, honey!"
Different species reach logistic growth in different ways. As the grandparent post noted, "reduced birth rate" is better than alternatives like "mass starvation". Lower birth rates are not a bad thing from a population growth perspective, though the demographic shift they bring about will require changes to our expectations regarding retirement. It's rather unfortunate that we're still using a retirement model designed when life expectancy was lower and birth rates were higher.
[1]"Who's that insightful person who posted about logistic growth and stole my thunder? Oh, hi, honey!"
[2]The image at http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil_files/image... shows actual world population data following a logistic curve, compared to an exponential curve above.