The UN expects the global population to peak around 2100, but other experts – and Musk – believe that is far too optimistic. One startling scenario predicts the top to be in 2064.
A projection from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) warned that 23 countries, including Japan, Spain, South Korea and Thailand, will see their populations more than halve by the end of the century. China is currently the most populated country in the world but its numbers are forecast to crash from a peak of 1.4bn to 732m in 2100.
In developed countries, longer life spans and falling fertility rates mean societies are ageing rapidly with many soon unable to maintain their populations as deaths outstrip births. Rising numbers of women in education and work, usage of contraception and often precarious financial health of younger generations have driven the sharp decline in fertility rates in recent decades.
In China, enforced lower births via the one-child policy between 1980 and 2015 means its population is now ageing rapidly. Analysts at Bank of America warn it could begin declining as soon as this year after a 12pc drop in births in 2021 came off the back of an 18pc plunge the previous year.
Britain escapes relatively lightly in the IHME projections, seeing its population rise slightly by 2100 after a peak in 2063. But it still faces the same challenges from a rapidly ageing population – a boy born in the UK in 2020 can expect to live until 87 years old, and a girl over 90.
The UK’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.6 births per woman, but remains above Spain’s at 1.2, Japan’s at 1.4 and Germany’s at 1.5.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/22/depopulation-timebomb-facing-west-explode/
Col. Lang,
I think it’s just feminism, and the push to put women to work outside of the house. Western women, if they have children, have them much later in life, and they have fewer.
Prewar Japan had a healthy birth rate, but when women entered the work force en masse, after the war, the birth rate dropped like a stone.
– Eliot
First demography is slow moving changes, but one should also not forget that immigration is part of demographic forecasts.
Fx. Eurostat’s numbers for the EU population.
446,8 mio in 2019 with an estimate of 416 mio in 2100. However there is a feature (Type of Projection) were one can eliminate all immigration and descendants there off. Then the number for 2100 will 291 mio. And I have no doubt that half of those 291 mio. will be 60 years or older.
Germany would have a population of 50,9 mio. a drop of 32,2 mio., but with immigration the number would be only be 200.000 lower in 2100 than 2019. However I doubt the extra people will be from European background. 10% maybe 20% could be from European countries not members of the EU. (I follow the World Bank’s definition of Europe – so Turkey, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan & Armenia are not European countries, but Russia is) the rest will no doubt be from Africa & Western Asia.
If this trend takes place and continues into the next century the people who built Europe will be a minority, ready to be given the Palestinian treatment of colonization.
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=proj_19np&lang=en
Many such articles tend to discuss population decline in alarmist terms. It is merely a symptom of a sick overall system, that has been pulling forward future demand (via massive credit expansion, and an “economic efficiency” that focuses on the growth of stock market prices); a system that has resulted in a growing inequality through the constant shift of more money from workers to the pockets of capital (really, just Hillary and her ilk) through depressed wages, poor benefits, and precarity.
A population decline would perhaps give this planet a respite from our species that has grown “dizzy with success”.
We really don’t need half the shit we have in advanced countries, things that rarely last more than 3 years anyways before going to the dump. The fact is, if things were made to last, the same standard of living could be maintained with half the workforce, at half the total cost.
With all the brains and money behind yearly iterations of iPhones, we probably could have launched a dozen Webbs…
I agree that a lower total human population is a benefit but the problem is that the reduction is not uniform across all countries. All countries are moving towards negative population growth but some are spearheading the trend. That creates long term challenges.
Is Italy what we know today if 9 out of 10 people living in Italy in the year 2200 is from Africa or Western Asia?
No immigration on the other hand creates other problems like declining economies and few young people to develop/influence technology and culture.
Egypt could well have the same number of 0-24 year olds as the entire European continent in the next century. How would that play out in regards to global power between countries.
To save the planet from destruction the population must be dramatically decreased along with it’s attendant consumption.
No, thank you, “the planet” is very much alive and kicking (has been for billions years) it is just a particular breed of vermin which feels threatened by other inhabitants.
Gordon,
You first.
Gordon Reed
Re forced depopulation, I’m sure our wannabe technocrat overlords have it in hand. What was it Dr Mike Yeadon said (at around 22 mins)? “I’m worried that this is the calibration of a killing weapon“. Just relax and trust the science.
The planet can look after herself. Whether we ultimately cook ourselves with carbon or nuke ourselves with plutonium, life will flourish. I’m far more concerned about attempts to redesign humanity to live in harmony with nature.
Gordon Reed,
I’m with jld and Barbara Ann on this one. The Earth will do just fine even if we screw it up enough to make it miserable for the majority of our species. There are plenty of species just waiting for it to become hotter, colder, drier or wetter so they can flourish. We really don’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.
“The problem” of Western depopulation is easily fixed, if we want to.
First let’s define what we mean by “the problem” – I assume it to be defined as declining numbers of potentially educated, contributing, right thinking citizens capable of sustaining the western civilization we have built against the hordes of ignorance that will come out of Africa, the Middle East and South America.
That problem is one of economics and is easily fixed as demonstrated in Australia starting in 2002 – just make it economically advantageous for young women to have babies, and plenty of them, by means of a so called “Baby Bonus” and nature will do the rest. The baby bonus continued until 2014 and created something like a 20% increase in birth rates.
The reason young women don’t have babies in their early twenties is primarily economic – family units are not stable, primarily because current economic conditions do not allow it, there is a total lack of economic security. That means women require their own careers and cannot consider giving birth until they have generated enough income and assets to provide that security for a child.
Spare me the feminist claptrap about how children are a “lifestyle choice”. I watched the Thirty something childless female cohort of my MBA year, high powered career women to a man, taunt and bully their sisters who had decided to have kids in an attempt to silence their own biological clocks. I also have a DIL who has been so busy building a career and then a successful business that children were not a priority; she is now facing IVF with medical complications.
Make motherhood an honorable estate again and provide economic security and nature will do the rest.
Walrus,
The problem with your solutions, which I do think would help, is that they are dripping with socialism.
walrus,
“I assume it to be defined as … capable of sustaining the western civilization … against the hordes of ignorance that will come out of ….
Camp of the Saints? Really? I get your point, but, however, just what do you mean by “right thinking”? It sure can’t be a disagreement on policy, as seen here where the German Navy chief, Vice Admiral Schönbach, gets himself fired for violating the narrative:
https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1484992991622221826?s=21
“That problem is one of economics…” God no. The problem, sir, is lack of moral rectitude. That is seen hourly in the conduct of our morally corrupt Elites who believe a superior ability to make money means their moral choices are also superior to what served civilization for 2,000+ years.
“I also have a DIL who has been so busy building a career…”
Which generation taught those morals? Which educational system taught and reinforced those values? Which educational system will be educating the “…. contributing, right thinking citizens capable of sustaining the western civilization…” The current one, or do they all get fired by the next school board, country commission, etc? What cultural institution will back up the moral foundations of “Western Civilization”, the woke ones, or something else?
Fred,
“The problem, sir, is lack of moral rectitude. That is seen hourly in the conduct of our morally corrupt Elites who believe a superior ability to make money means their moral choices are also superior to what served civilization for 2,000+ years.”
You’re definitely on to something here. But I see a major source of that lack of moral rectitude as the hyper-individualism now so prevalent in our society. Did it start with the Protestant Reformation and man’s direct line to God? How about predestination leading to the idea that worldly wealth was an outward sign that one was one of God’s chosen few? I see a direct line from that to our gospel of prosperity. All marks of modern Western Man.
The idea of sacrificing or doing for the good of one’s family or society is out of style, even socialist. The new mantra is inalienable individual freedom to do what ever one wants, whenever one wants. We’ve become a “selfie” civilization and developed the technology and ideology to promote that “selfie” civilization.
TTG,
I wouldn’t put it as far back as the Protestant Reformation, that fine event that triggered 100+ years of religous wars in Europe. As to “predestination leading to the idea that worldly wealth was an outward sign that one was one of God’s chosen few…” I think few of our oligarchs feel that God has anything to do with them, or their wealth, perhaps excluding the few from the sub-continent, like the owner of the NBA team who sees nothing wrong with the enslavement of the Uyghurs by the CCP.
“The idea of sacrificing or doing for the good of one’s family or society is out of style, even socialist. ”
A few hundred million Americans, across all faiths and political parties, do precisely that. God knows too few of them run for office, yet.
“The new mantra is inalienable individual freedom to do what ever one wants, whenever one wants. ”
I believe you need to get out and about once more. Your line reminds me of what I learned of the late ’50s, ’60s, and “On the Road”. Jack Kerouac’s book might have made him a beatnic hero and househould name, yet his book is not a model for moral behavior, but a window into the world of a high trust society beginning to fall apart. (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/02/book-review-on-the-road/)
It took over 6 decades to get to where we are now. The dinousaurs of the Democratic left and GOP right are on their last legs. I see some glimmers of hope in the younger generations, and some amongst the older ones, who, like Victor Laszlo, never left the fight.
“We’ve become a “selfie” civilization and developed the technology and ideology to promote that “selfie” civilization.” That’s pushed by industries like tech and entertainment; and by a corrupt elite who want a divided and distracted populace not to notice what is being done to them.
TTG
This is an interesting topic. Individualism in the sense of self-belief, as Emerson describes it in his seminal essay on Self-Reliance, was long the bedrock of American dynamism. But the hyper-individualism you describe is its antithesis; narcissistic and shallow to the point of banality.
The selfie generation, who compulsively share every meaningless aspect of their dull lives with each other, are merely seeking the crutch of collective approval. The true individualist nowadays is the one who eschews such behavior.
Yes, since the 60’s counter culture revolution the inalienable individual freedom to do (and be) whatever one wants has become socially acceptable. Then Ayn Rand turned it into a belief system. And yet as Babak was fond of pointing out here, we must be careful not to confuse liberty with license. If we do forget this critical distinction, we risk losing our essential liberty – after which license ceases to be a meaningful concept.
What I see is the State embracing individual license in order that it can simultaneously undermine our liberties. This trend has reached its apogee with wokism and legislation like the Patriot Act. So the tradeoff is you can now “identify” as whatever you like, be one of any number of genders and defy all social convention – whilst at the same time accepting the government accessing your internet search history without a warrant and limiting your free speech by outsourcing censorship to Big Tech. It is the very confusion Babak referred to which permits such a creeping tyranny.
As for sacrifice for the greater good of one’s society or country, that requires a moral polity holding a set of values the citizenry can identify with. And yet here we are. If by some miracle that can be restored I don’t see why self-sacrifice couldn’t come back into fashion.
https://emersoncentral.com/texts/essays-first-series/self-reliance/
Barbara Ann,
Very well articulated. The distinction between liberty and license and how liberty is being eroded. This is fundamental.
I watched Bill Maher interview Jordan Peterson and the topic touched on the snowflake’s sensitivities and free speech. The idea that one can’t be offensive to protect the feelings of overtly sensitive people is a form of censorship that is the antithesis of liberty.
In BP’s post below he notes Howe’s ideas of generational power changes. It will be interesting to see how the Millennials who are larger than the Boomers respond to these questions as they start taking over from the Boomers.
Yes, Barbara Ann. that was very well articulated. Similar thoughts were articulated by Eric Sloane in his philosophy of awareness. It was based on his study of early American life, particularly in New England. He placed great emphasis on self-reliance, but also on how this self-reliance was meant to serve the family, community and future generations. I think it is similar to one of Emerson’s lines, “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
Sloane was a prolific writer, painter and illustrator. His philosophy of awareness is spread throughout his works. I think you might enjoy his beautifully written and illustrated books, if you’re not already familiar with him. I’d recommend “A Reverence for Wood” as a great place to start.
Thanks for the recommendation TTG.
TTG,
These are apparently cyclical issues. At least according to Neil Howe of 4th Turning fame. From what I understand the Boomer generation represented the individualistic mindset. On the other hand the Millennials are more communitarian. So according to Neil we’re heading back to more top down control, more socialism, even more coercion as the Millennials take over leadership positions.
If you’ve got the time listen to this interview of Neil Howe and Harald Malmgren discussing generational power changes.
Part 1: https://youtu.be/dK-TyUvnGBA (Harald who served in the Kennedy & Nixon administrations makes some very interesting points towards the end)
Part 2: https://youtu.be/ErueCZFGH14
Blue Peacock,
I remember some other author describing what each generation becomes based on what their world was like during their early formative years. Not exactly 4th Turning stuff, but a lot of similarities. I plan to watch those linked videos in the next day or so. Thanks for the links. I’m still cleaning up the trees after our last snow storm.
I agree, the powers that be put a great deal of effort in to dissuading women from following their natural maternal instincts, sadly many end up realising their mistake far too late.
Colonel:
Sorry, but I fail to see the problem. We are well into population overshoot. I guess I see this as good news. I was born in ’53. The population then was about 2.5 billion. Seems to me we were doing just fine then.
Degringolade,
We don’t have enough children to tread water. Without immigrants, we would become an increasingly old and incapable people, like the Japanese. With immigrants, we risk becoming minorities in our own countries. That would be its own kind of death. Our culture would not survive.
– Eliot
Japan has a very high standard of living. I would be fine with the British population dropping, the issue is immigration.
So population and climate predictions in 2022 are the opposite of 1970s, but equally alarming.
I know Austin has a runaway deer population problem. New Orleans it’s nutria and parts of TX it’s hogs. End of the day the earth will take care of all these situations including ours. Either something alive has enough food and water or it does not. Globalists don’t seem to like that fact for some reason. Bezos thinks earth should be a preservation and nobody allowed on it.
Overlaid with IQ of the populations the trend is very dark. Our current society is dysgenic for IQ. The American future is Amish at best. https://youtu.be/RO04pmW2Njk
Adapt or die. We are not really going to notice this – we tighten our belts or we loosen them as circumstances require.
Just think how they had to adapt after the Black Death. Pretty darn good if you missed being one of the deadly statistics, but then you would not have noticed anyway. Out of the Black Death depopulation bomb came the end of serfdom, the Renaissance, the age of the Explorers, rise of higher education, and the birth of the modern world we all now seem so eager to preserve and protect.
These things happen on much grander scales, than our own one puny lifetime. Allegedly took 35,000 to cross the new land bridge from Asia to North America and they just thought they were moving into new territory, not on a historic pathway to new lands.
Broken clock Sucki is perhaps right for once -we should all chill out and have a lime cooler or whatever.
Right now I am happy to see more about the Durham Report, finally tying up some longstanding and important loose ends – the missing predicate for the entire Trump-Russia investigation. It is morning in America again.