"Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.
Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.
They are two of 23 countries – which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea – expected to see their population more than halve.
"That is jaw-dropping," Prof Christopher Murray told me.
China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.
The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100." BBC
"Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 – and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100." BBC
Is the university department cited to be relied on? Anyone here know?
The decline in population is attributed in the study to improvements in the quality of women's lives. Well, good. The concern is that there won't be enough worker bees to take care of the old folks.
Well, maybe robots will help a lot. Or maybe old folks will be made more productive until later in life? Maybe? pl
Two things. First, that puts paid to worries about climate change if the industrial world population is going to decline. Second, they left off the African continent. From other reports the growth there isn’t declining.
The flip side to the demographic coin is the forecast tremendous growth in the developing world over the remainder of this century, particularly Africa. The most mind boggling statistic I have seen is the projected size of metropolitan areas. One model has three African cities (each) exceeding the UK population by 2100: Lagos, Kinshasa and Dar es Salaam. One must conclude that the quality of women’s lives in these shit holes is not expected to be much improved over the coming decades. What are you waiting for BLM?
Not so. You missed the bar graph on Nigeria. BA says that Kinshasa and Dar al-Salaam will each have larger populations than the UK. We should keep building the wall and think about the Canadian border.
Fecundity Rate determines any potential Fertility Rate.
Fecundity is the means, the health, the ability to bear children.
Fertility Rate is merely counting them.
There is nothing said about Fecundity Rate fecundability, in the essay BBC cites. Nothing, never mentioned; at all.
“We modeled future population in reference and alternative scenarios as a function of fertility, migration, and mortality rates” are the three factors they used; they did not once make any effort to discuss fecundity, not once.
In other words, junk science, smoke and mirrors, and variations on a theme by predictors of NYStock Exchange goblins, as it were.
“A lack of fertility is infertility while a lack of fecundity would be called sterility” Wikipedia says.
[[For instance, in times of hardship for a population, such as a lack of food or high temperatures, juvenile and eventually adult fecundity has been shown to decrease (i.e. due to a lack of resources the juvenile individuals are unable to reproduce, eventually the adults will run out of resources and reproduction will cease). Additionally, social trends and societal norms may influence fecundity, though this influence tends to be temporary. Indeed, it is considered impossible to cease reproduction based on social factors, and fecundity tends to rise after a brief decline.]]
I am not sure if the writers of essay BBC references can think straight, and as the above, just my opinion.
This sentence in report makes no sense: [[Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.]]
That followed this: [[Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth.]] — this or stuff like it: has been said for a century or more.
Of note is the researchers claim they used “Wittenstein Centre” fertility forecasts — and also claim they ‘improved’ on this alleged methodology using “time-series” forecasting models to predict.
Without irony, this is how they describe WC: [[The Wittgenstein Centre fertility forecasts are a blend of expert opinions about future fertility patterns and statistical modelling]]
A blend of “expert opinions?”
OK, ideology and theory is fine, but, they are claiming to quantify something using a “mathematical” aka stat “model” based on opinions.
Lastly, time-series forecasting.
This tool, like much statistical modeling, is scientifically relevant when evaluating phenomena such as earthquakes, –evaluating natural phenomena, in other words.
Nonetheless. . . .time-series etc.. . .It is used all the time to “”‘predict'”” things like the stock market, and even voter habits [in ‘the future’] and elections, etc. etc etc. And it goes without saying that using time-series for this stuff is not in any way shape or form science.
That many claim that it is and swear by this matters not.
This BBC cited essay, more junk science. . . .
Col Lang, (http://www.healthdata.org/about) UW is one of the premier Applied Math institutes in the country because of the 40 years of Microsoft influx in money and talent. So yes, their data is usually accurate within the assumptions that must be made to generate the projections.
The assumption that trends of twenty years duration will continue unabated for another eighty years requires utter stupidity to make. Climate “science” is made on similar assumptions. “It has been happening for twenty years, and therefor it will continue to happen for the next eighty years.” Because no natural events will occur to change it. Idiocy.
Africans appreciate children, elsewhere they are seen as competing with one for consumption – in as much as consumptionis hominibus is held to be the ultimate state of mankind.
In Korea, in Japan, in Singapore, and in Italy specifically, life is made miserable for people who want to have more than one child. It is a social ethos, I am afraid.
It must be one of those days for me. Did the academics mention what Boko Harem plans for Nigeria or discuss Zimbabwe? The latter has the socialist government BLM dreams about.
Did you read the linked Lancet article? IMO any African government will continue to foster large families. Islam always does.
The U of W study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which, among other things, ironically endeavors to deliver birth control to the Third World. According to the BBC summary of the study, the developed world will require immigration from Africa, with its rising birthrates, in order to sustain the disparate ratio between young and old elsewhere.
Is it cynical to wonder if this study has created excuses for globalism and open borders?
It is ironic that rapid population growth in Africa has been made possible by modern science (particularly in medicine and agriculture) which is largely the creation of “evil” white Europeans and their descendants.
AKA: You are not being cynical. The conclusion the study reaches is exactly as you describe. The developed countries of the world have more than enough resources in terms of technology and intellectual capital to sustain a population that is top heavy on the older generation. Importing a low IQ population to preserve an age balance is not going to help. To the contrary. Besides, if Italy is not going to be Italian there is no point in saving it. If Japan is not going to be Japanese there is no point in saving it. Etc. The most disgusting thing I can think of is seeing the entire world turned into a giant Negro slum.
I should’ve said “offset” instead of “sustain” in my previous comment.
Also, the study – in spite of stating that a decrease in global population would be good for the environment – nevertheless still calls for “vigorously pursued” measures in intervening years to mitigate climate change. Why am I not surprised?
I’ve only skimmed through the study (and didn’t catch any references to the effects of automation, e.g., the colonel’s robots), but there are several disclaimers at the end that basically say the results are merely guesstimates.
There was a very interesting study discussing the environmental revival(and consequent economic revival on a local town scale) of the lake chad area under Boko Haram(IS) rule in Nigeria and Niger. Regional corporate fishing outfits were pushed out of the area in 2015 and have been replaced by local fishermen, causing a previously-unimagined rebound of fishing stock in the lake. Fishing and all sorts of economic activity become controlled and taxed by the local IS, funds stay local rather than being siphoned out.
The Lancet has a history of publishing garbage.
Unless they get caught, no one knows.
They got caught recently.
It was they, like craven drug dealers, pushing the Hydroxychloroquine is bad and can kill you, etc. conspiracy theories.
The Lancet published in May 2020 an essay on the “dangers” of Hydroxychloroquine and how worthless it was.
And they got caught lying, and they had no choice but to “retract” that piece of “research”.
Lancet essay deemed the drug worthless and dangerous.
Here is them painting RETRACTED in big red letters.
The illusion of Science.
Just as Mueller Gang was and is illusion of Justice.
$30 million taxpayer dollars trying to prove the Steele Dossier was true.
And, unlike Lancet, the Mueller, Weissmann, fraudsters etc.: they are still at it. Roger Stone case is all about perpetuating the lie, communicated in Steele Dossier —-Stone, an intermediary between Trump and/or Trump benefiting from the big lie that it was Russian intelligence feeding Wikileaks/Julian Assange — who in turn were feeding Trump campaign.
And the purveyors of these lies are not going to stop.
Propaganda posing as Science, Racketeering and villainy posing as Dept. of Justice, buffoonery posing as impartial judges, and social “justice” warriors posing as journalists, professors —- and IDIOTS in municipal governments all over the country allowing a partisan, Democrat front group, BLM, to paint — on public property and on public roadways, BLM aka Democrat posters, far and wide. This dimension is among the most insidious, only as it is not called out for what it is: using public ways to favor one political party over all others.
Indeed, in the West, fertility or lack thereof, is presented as a medical/biological problem.
As Jim rightly pointed out above, fecundity is not discussed.
There is a correlation between disposable income and family formation.
In a debt based monetary system, as purchasing power declines members of a household must (must) engage in gainful activities to make ends meet.
Hence the reason, for example, that till the 60s families could make do on one salary thus having more time for family formation and nurturing.
As purchasing power declines and as debt service increases, all members of a household must get on the hamster wheel progressively earlier in life.
Since the debt dynamic conforms to the law of diminishing marginal utility, these trends accelerate gradually till they overwhelm the system.
A good site to keep track of population trends:
The results of 70 years of purported Western “aid and development” are sketchy at best.
In 70 years, the West has not been able to bring 1 country to transition. Not one.
The only “aid” that has been successful beyond anyone’s wildest imagination has been vaccination. This has resulted in greatly reduced infant mortality rates thereby contributing to explosive population growth in some of the poorest regions of the world.
Hence the reason that Live Aid in 1985 was aimed at “aiding” a population of a few dozens millions never solved the problem and, today, that same population numbers close to two hundred million with similar problems lingering.
Boko Harem is an extreme terrorist jihadi group. Did that study mention the campaign of terror or just tout the great fishing and money staying local?
@ John in Michigan | 15 July 2020 at 06:03 PM
Agree completely, especially your last sentence.
What is your sense of how Trump will do in Michigan?
I initially read the BBC article and skimmed the other. After reading the Lancet I conclude it’s authors’ are very euro-centric and firm believers in climate change, the necessity for population reduction efforts, and, at the same time, pro-abortion and pro-immigration – but only into Western high income countries. There are quite a few simplistic economic assumptions in this thing too, and not much depth to their cultural understanding “desired family size” (pg 19) being a case in point.
“A decline in total world population ….would mean less carbon emission, less stress on global food systems, and less likelihood of transgressing planetary boundaries. However, despite lower population, environmental and climate change might still have major and serious consequences in the intervening years unless preventive action and mitigation is vigorously pursued. “(pg 17)
“many risk factors as drivers of mortality rates in the future and educational attainment and contraceptive met need as drivers of fertility. This approach is in sharp contrast to UNPD models, which are non-causal time-series models that do not include any covariates. Modellers disagree on whether the use of covariates beyond time is a strength or a limitation.” (pg 19)
God help us if we are making global policy off something like this.
I would happily go back to the less than sixty million population we had in Britain a mere thirty years ago. Almost all the growth since I was young has been unwanted immigration, and the drop in standard of living has been noticeable.
I would personally follow the UN population estimates, but it is not an unlikely scenario. Big shifts in fertility can happen in short time. Just look at Iran.
The effect will be great when it comes to economic & military strength. Who can be hit by sanctions and will and organization like the UN survive? Russia, France and Britain will have no permanent place in the UN security Council based on power. Russia today is a marginal great power.
Also old culturally connections can change. Fx. if the US keeps allowing immigrants in at the present numbers. A majority of US citizens will have their roots in Africa and Asia which will affect their views on Europe. Hence President Macron’s worry of a future military threat from the US. Yes there is a lot of uncertainty but being dependent on US weapons may not be a good idea for European states.
The Washington University study is not about biological fertility. It claims that population will fall because women who are more educated and have access to good jobs and birth control will not have as many children.
I think a similar sentiment is prevelant in the US too. That’s why the “immigration is our strenghth” agitprop has been pushed so hard these last few years.
This will be used by dual-citizen types to argue that the survival of Western institutions depends upon the mass importation of peoples incapable of inventing the wheel.
But the immediate cultural ancestors of the men comprising the manpower backbone of boko haram/ISWAP wouldn’t find this extreme terrorist creed out of place at all. The fulani/sokoto caliphatesC of the early to late 19th century left an imprint here. Perhaps it is better to leave these places be, a semblance of organized chaos(“Managed Savagery”)inevitably forms which leaves the local population safer and better off; opportunities for long term treaties with the outside world then inevitably form(see:past and current taliban). And much of what you hear about boko haram is heavily tinged with propaganda, atrocities are committed with equal/exceeding vigor by all the govenrment forces in this regional war(especially the Chadians/Cameroonians)
Master Slacker wrote: “So yes, their data is usually accurate within the assumptions that must be made to generate the projections.”
Yep. That is the major issue. The WHO projections of 2008/9 were dead as dead can be in 2012 in case of Germany, because the assumptions were wrong.
Or as other experts in the field of demography tell you: a prediction of immigration levles even for 5 years is tricky, to assume that you can predict 50 years or more is a stupid exercise.
The UN uses fertility just as a measure of the number of children per woman. Whether the change is caused by biological factor or culture is another matter.
Better education, and late age for first marriage, and jobs and of course the pill are well-known causes for changes in fertility but sometimes they are not always the main reason.
One can look at Iran or Tunisia to see a drop in birth rates without jobs or education being a factor.
But no matter what is reasons for the fall in fertility the demographic changes can have a huge impact when seen over many decades. We can hope that African countries go along the Iranian path and see a plunge in fertility by over 65% in two decades. Tunisia took around three decades for the same result.
Apologizing for evil isn’t a good look for anyone.
The world has way too many people, for every added person there is a loss in biodiversity with loss of habitat, pollution and lower quality of life. Capitalism requires constant economic growth and population growth and since Europe and the US have no domestic population growth they import immigrants both legal and illegal to grow their economies with the commensurate decline in the quality of life.
Vegetius – maybe they didn’t find they needed wheels.
London Bob – 60 Million?
Grey of Fallodon reckoned that the optimum population for the UK would be 8 million. Still pushing it, that many, but I reckon we could motor along quite cheerfully at something around that level.
You can blame the Central Banks on this too….
Au contraire. The lockdown in the industrial countries, which started in March, is likely to lead to a baby boom come December and January. Heterosexual couples stuck at home probably got bored and unprotected sex was rampant. I believe we have a Baby BOOM BOOM coming.