ADVERTISEMENT

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

alaskanseminole

HB Legend
Oct 20, 2002
24,447
35,785
113
Maybe we'll get some breathing room after all. :)

--------------------------

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.

Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea cannot find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Although some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments.

The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation.

“A paradigm shift is necessary,” said Frank Swiaczny, a German demographer who was the chief of population trends and analysis for the United Nations until last year. “Countries need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.”

The ramifications and responses have already begun to appear, especially in East Asia and Europe. From Hungary to China, from Sweden to Japan, governments are struggling to balance the demands of a swelling older cohort with the needs of young people whose most intimate decisions about childbearing are being shaped by factors both positive (more work opportunities for women) and negative (gender inequality and high living costs).

The 20th century presented a very different challenge. The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. In some countries — representing about one-third of the world’s people — those growth dynamics are still in play. By the end of the century, Nigeria could surpass China in population; across sub-Saharan Africa, families are still having four or five children.

But nearly everywhere else, the era of high fertility is ending. As women have gained more access to education and contraception and as the anxieties associated with having children intensify, more parents are delaying pregnancy, and fewer babies are being born. Even in countries long associated with rapid growth, such as India and Mexico, birthrates are falling toward or are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family.

The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff.

“It becomes a cyclical mechanism,” said Stuart Gietel Basten, an expert on Asian demographics and a professor of social science and public policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “It’s demographic momentum.”

Some countries, like the United States, Australia and Canada, where birthrates hover between 1.5 and 2, have blunted the impact with immigrants. But in Eastern Europe, migration from the region has compounded depopulation, and in parts of Asia, the “demographic time bomb” that first became a subject of debate a few decades ago has finally gone off.

South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.92 in 2019 — less than one child per woman, the lowest rate in the developed world. Every month for the past 59 months, the total number of babies born in the country has dropped to a record depth.

That declining birthrate, coupled with a rapid industrialization that has pushed people from rural towns to big cities, has created what can feel like a two-tiered society. While major metropolises like Seoul continue to grow, putting intense pressure on infrastructure and housing, in regional towns it is easy to find schools shut and abandoned, their playgrounds overgrown with weeds, because there are not enough children.

Expectant mothers in many areas can no longer find obstetricians or postnatal care centers. Universities below the elite level, especially outside Seoul, find it increasingly hard to fill their ranks; the number of 18-year-olds in South Korea has fallen from about 900,000 in 1992 to 500,000 today. To attract students, some schools have even offered iPhones.
 
Continued:


To goose the birthrate, the government has handed out baby bonuses. It increased child allowances and medical subsidies for fertility treatments and pregnancy. Health officials have showered newborns with gifts of beef, baby clothes and toys. The government is also building kindergartens and day care centers by the hundreds. In Seoul, every bus and subway car has pink seats reserved for pregnant women.

But this month, Deputy Prime Minister Hong Nam-ki acknowledged that the government — which has spent more than $178 billion over the past 15 years encouraging women to have more babies — was not making enough progress. In many families, the shift feels cultural and permanent.

“My grandparents had six children, and my parents five, because their generations believed in having multiple children,” said Kim Mi-kyung, 38, a stay-at-home parent. “I have only one child. To my and younger generations, all things considered, it just doesn’t pay to have many children.”

Thousands of miles away, in Italy, the sentiment is similar, with a different backdrop.

In Capracotta, a small town in southern Italy, a sign in red letters on an 18th-century stone building looking onto the Apennine Mountains reads “Home of School Kindergarten” — but today, the building is a nursing home.

Residents eat their evening broth on waxed tablecloths in the old theater room.

“There were so many families, so many children,” said Concetta D’Andrea, 93, who was a student and a teacher at the school and is now a resident of the nursing home. “Now there is no one.”

The population in Capracotta has dramatically aged and contracted — from about 5,000 people to 800. The town’s carpentry shops have shut down. The organizers of a soccer tournament struggled to form even one team.

About a half-hour away, in the town of Agnone, the maternity ward closed a decade ago because it had fewer than 500 births a year, the national minimum to stay open. This year, six babies were born in Agnone.

“Once, you could hear the babies in the nursery cry, and it was like music,” said Enrica Sciullo, a nurse who used to help with births there and now mostly takes care of older patients. “Now there is silence and a feeling of emptiness.”

In a speech this month during a conference on Italy’s birthrate crisis, Pope Francis said the “demographic winter” was still “cold and dark.”

More people in more countries may soon be searching for their own metaphors. Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.

Their model shows an especially sharp decline for China, with its population expected to fall from 1.41 billion now to about 730 million in 2100. If that happens, the population pyramid would essentially flip. Instead of a base of young workers supporting a narrower band of retirees, China would have as many 85-year-olds as 18-year-olds.

China’s rust belt, in the northeast, saw its population drop by 1.2% in the past decade, according to census figures released Tuesday. In 2016, Heilongjiang province became the first in the country to have its pension system run out of money. In Hegang, a “ghost city” in the province that has lost almost 10% of its population since 2010, homes cost so little that people compare them to cabbage.

Many countries are beginning to accept the need to adapt, not just resist. South Korea is pushing for universities to merge. In Japan, where adult diapers now outsell ones for babies, municipalities have been consolidated as towns age and shrink. In Sweden, some cities have shifted resources from schools to elder care. And almost everywhere, older people are being asked to keep working. Germany, which previously raised its retirement age to 67, is now considering a bump to 69.

Going further than many other nations, Germany has also worked through a program of urban contraction: Demolitions have removed around 330,000 units from the housing stock since 2002.

And if the goal is revival, a few green shoots can be found. After expanding access to affordable child care and paid parental leave, Germany’s fertility rate recently increased to 1.54, up from 1.3 in 2006. Leipzig, which once was shrinking, is now growing again after reducing its housing stock and making itself more attractive with its smaller scale.

“Growth is a challenge, as is decline,” said Swiaczny, who is now a senior research fellow at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Germany.

Demographers warn against seeing population decline as simply a cause for alarm. Many women are having fewer children because that is what they want. Smaller populations could lead to higher wages, more equal societies, lower carbon emissions and a higher quality of life for the smaller numbers of children who are born.

But, said Gietel Basten, quoting Casanova, “There is no such thing as destiny. We ourselves shape our lives.”

The challenges ahead are still a cul-de-sac; no country with a serious slowdown in population growth has managed to increase its fertility rate much beyond the minor uptick that Germany accomplished. There is little sign of wage growth in shrinking countries, and there is no guarantee that a smaller population means less stress on the environment.

Many demographers argue that the current moment may look to future historians like a period of transition or gestation, when humans either did or did not figure out how to make the world more hospitable — enough for people to build the families that they want.

Surveys in many countries show that young people would like to be having more children but face too many obstacles.

Anna Parolini tells a common story. She left her small hometown in northern Italy to find better job opportunities. Now 37, she lives with her boyfriend in Milan and has put her desire to have children on hold.

She is afraid her salary of less than 2,000 euros a month would not be enough for a family, and her parents still live where she grew up.

“I don’t have anyone here who could help me,” she said. “Thinking of having a child now would make me gasp.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2021 The New York Times Company
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph and h-hawk
I've been saying this but no one wants to listen they are still stuck with 20th century thinking that the world is overpopulating.

We are making a massive mistake that is going to hurt humanity in a lot of ways. It's going to contract our economies, it's going to leave the aged abandoned to care for themselves at an age in which no one should be expected to do so. Of course I am guessing much like the left decided to fix the problem of sexual irresponsibility with abortion they will likely try to fix the problem of no one to care for the aged with pressure to kill oneself (with the help of a doctor so we can pretend it's not really suicide.)
 
I've been saying this but no one wants to listen they are still stuck with 20th century thinking that the world is overpopulating.

We are making a massive mistake that is going to hurt humanity in a lot of ways. It's going to contract our economies, it's going to leave the aged abandoned to care for themselves at an age in which no one should be expected to do so. Of course I am guessing much like the left decided to fix the problem of sexual irresponsibility with abortion they will likely try to fix the problem of no one to care for the aged with pressure to kill oneself (with the help of a doctor so we can pretend it's not really suicide.)
Perhaps if people had living wages they wouldn't feel so insecure and would be willing to have kids. When you can't afford a home or car having multiple kids seems like a terrible idea.
 
The well developed educated countries can just take in all the extra population from the underdeveloped uneducated countries.

This makes sense and everyone will get along fine with it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
I've been saying this but no one wants to listen they are still stuck with 20th century thinking that the world is overpopulating.

We are making a massive mistake that is going to hurt humanity in a lot of ways. It's going to contract our economies, it's going to leave the aged abandoned to care for themselves at an age in which no one should be expected to do so. Of course I am guessing much like the left decided to fix the problem of sexual irresponsibility with abortion they will likely try to fix the problem of no one to care for the aged with pressure to kill oneself (with the help of a doctor so we can pretend it's not really suicide.)
From what I have read demographic growth contributes maybe 1/3 of our GDP growth. The other major drivers being innovation, improved education, access to capital, etc. So, while the rate of growth may slow as population growth stalls it is not a foregone conclusion that we will see economic contraction. If we can maintain population stability we should still achieve single digit economic growth every year.

Sources of economic growth
 
Anecdotally, our teenagers are telling us that they never want kids and neither do any of their friends. The popular conception in their age range is that daycare is too expensive for anyone to reasonably handle.
 
From what I have read demographic growth contributes maybe 1/3 of our GDP growth. The other major drivers being innovation, improved education, access to capital, etc. So, while the rate of growth may slow as population growth stalls it is not a foregone conclusion that we will see economic contraction. If we can maintain population stability we should still achieve single digit economic growth every year.

Sources of economic growth

How do you maintain population stability if the population is shrinking.
 
Horrible article!

Populations are expected to continue to increase for a bit longer in India and South Asia, the Middle East and for a very long time in Africa. We're not running out of babies anytime soon. Global population is expected to hit 10 billion before long.

Why would Americans make more babies? We're exporting our jobs to any place that'll work for less, and we're making child rearing and retirement ridiculously expensive. We're not popping a couple of extra babies so they can be additional grist for the capitalist mill.

You like your China-made crap so much ... tell them to raise your baby workers.
 
Perhaps if people had living wages they wouldn't feel so insecure and would be willing to have kids. When you can't afford a home or car having multiple kids seems like a terrible idea.
That might make sense if it were the poor people deciding not to have kids. Unfortunately it's the opposite and the poors are the ones having the most kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far

Coincidentally the life expectancy for most of these are on the bad end of the spectrum so maybe it all evens out.

countries-with-the-highest-population-growth-rate.jpg
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if people had living wages they wouldn't feel so insecure and would be willing to have kids. When you can't afford a home or car having multiple kids seems like a terrible idea.

I don't disagree with that. However I would also point out that nations which provide a great deal of assistance to parents are also having problems getting people to reproduce.

There is an economic problem here. . . but there is also a cultural problem. We have under valued things like family and often treated them as secondary concerns.

For example one of the things this reminded me a bit of was my cousin from the Iowa side of the family. He is 7 years older than me. He's a lawyer, been one for a while. Income is not an issue for him and hasn't been. Dude flies from New Jersey to Iowa multiple times a year to attend Iowa home football games. And while he was doing this well and making tons of money he spent much of his time in short term relationships with women. He had one child on accident during that time.

In March of this year at age 45 he got married for the first time and his wife just delivered their first child. (Obviously she was pregnant when they married.) It just makes me wonder why marriage and children where not bigger priorities of his earlier in his life? I feel like he was too distracted going around having sex with random women to make it a point in his life to settle down and start a family.

I suppose it's good that he finally did settle down and start a family but. . . as I said I'm 7 years younger than him. I'm 38. I've been married for 11 years now and I have 3 kids.

Another guy at work I know. Guy is in his early 50's. I've been married longer than he has. And it wasn't like this was a 2nd marriage either. . . this is his first marriage.

Socially liberal views have also caused a rot in our society and that rot isn't going to be easily fixed. You can't just throw money at it and convince people to make family a priority when they have been told their lives by culture that family isn't that big of a deal.
 
Sweet. This is the answer to climate change. Now we can stop stunting economic growth in the name of climate change.
 
Like we have for quite some time - immigration from countries with higher birth rates. The birth rate has been below replacement level for well over a decade and has bounced below it fairly frequently since the 1970s.

Except what happens when those country's birth rates fall below replacement level?
 
Except what happens when those country's birth rates fall below replacement level?
I suspect that America will have an answer for that problem, if it is a problem. I think a country's productivity and GNP is a much better measure of its health than population growth. I think the only reason we fear a declining population is because we have never experienced it. Family life will be much different, I agree. But I also think human nature is a more powerful force than we give it credit for. We have likely seen the last of the Norman Rockwell era in America for the foreseeable future, I doubt we see smaller families turning their backs on each other simply because they are a smaller unit.
 
I suspect that America will have an answer for that problem, if it is a problem. I think a country's productivity and GNP is a much better measure of its health than population growth. I think the only reason we fear a declining population is because we have never experienced it. Family life will be much different, I agree. But I also think human nature is a more powerful force than we give it credit for. We have likely seen the last of the Norman Rockwell era in America for the foreseeable future, I doubt we see smaller families turning their backs on each other simply because they are a smaller unit.

The families are not in tact anymore.

Many never made the time to form a family in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkland14
Perhaps if people had living wages they wouldn't feel so insecure and would be willing to have kids. When you can't afford a home or car having multiple kids seems like a terrible idea.
Actually, the exact opposite is true.


The more money you have...the less likely you'll have kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dandh
I suspect that America will have an answer for that problem, if it is a problem. I think a country's productivity and GNP is a much better measure of its health than population growth. I think the only reason we fear a declining population is because we have never experienced it. Family life will be much different, I agree. But I also think human nature is a more powerful force than we give it credit for. We have likely seen the last of the Norman Rockwell era in America for the foreseeable future, I doubt we see smaller families turning their backs on each other simply because they are a smaller unit.

I don't understand the obsession with falling population rates ... especially as an economic issue. Even better than GNP is median and average per capita GDP to understand how a country is doing. Fertility rates seems to be dropping because people are choosing to stay single or have no children. Those that do have kids are usually having two or more kids (a different dynamic than, say, China0.

We all have our share of cousins / uncles / aunts who stayed single. I expect that'll continue. Nothing's going to change substantially about the basic structure of families.
 
When did we pivot to being worried about the world having too few humans?
Seriously? Did this start in 2020 and I just missed it amongst the other news?

World population in 2000 totaled 6,067,000,000 (6.1 billion) with 1,184,000,000 living in the more developed countries (Europe, North America, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) and 4,883,000,000 in the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.


Say the world population falls back to 1.6 billion - the 1900 number - with 1.1 billion living in the developed world and half a billion living in the undeveloped world.
You telling me that the planet and humanity are worse off in that scenario?
 
Actually, the exact opposite is true.


The more money you have...the less likely you'll have kids.
lol, look at how thin you have to slice the poverty levels to get a curve on that. The fact is that anyone who doesn't want to live in poverty isn't having kids anymore or is waiting until they're older to have one, maybe two. We have several nephews and nieces in their late 20s and early 30s. None have kids. All are working professionals. Most don't own a home. Kids aren't even on their radar.
Yes, poor people are still having babies. But young people who don't want to join them aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole
lol, look at how thin you have to slice the poverty levels to get a curve on that. The fact is that anyone who doesn't want to live in poverty isn't having kids anymore or is waiting until they're older to have one, maybe two. We have several nephews and nieces in their late 20s and early 30s. None have kids. All are working professionals. Most don't own a home. Kids aren't even on their radar.
Yes, poor people are still having babies. But young people who don't want to join them aren't.
I just don't think the main driver behind the declining birth rate is poverty and has more to do with lifestyle, choice, changing priorities. Another thing is a lot of folks put off having kids till later in life because they want to advance their career etc and they wait for the "perfect" time to have kids....

My Grandma told me once, if you wait for the "perfect" time.....you'll never have kids. Some truth to that...
 
I just don't think the main driver behind the declining birth rate is poverty and has more to do with lifestyle, choice, changing priorities. Another thing is a lot of folks put off having kids till later in life because they want to advance their career etc and they wait for the "perfect" time to have kids....

My Grandma told me once, if you wait for the "perfect" time.....you'll never have kids. Some truth to that...
I didn't say poverty, I said insecurity. You want call it priorities or lifestyle that's fine. just don't ascribe it to Hoosier's idea that the whole world has gone liberal and hates families.... but that seems stupid.
 
Anecdotally, our teenagers are telling us that they never want kids and neither do any of their friends. The popular conception in their age range is that daycare is too expensive for anyone to reasonably handle.

Daycare costing more than the mortgage or rent in some cases, they have to pay off their own student loans, ridiculous cost of housing, no guaranteed time off work after birth, the mom statistically does far more child caring and housework than the dad even if she works full time, the cost of kids in general (braces, medical care, risking losing your job if you kid gets sick too much - this more often affects lower income people, of course), increasing risk of maternal morbidity/mortality...
 
Younger people - those in their child-bearing years - are earning less than their parents did at the same stage of life. Millenials earn about 20% less adjusted for inflation than their parents and there is far less job security. It's worse for the younger cohorts and they're crushed by student debt, ridiculously high costs for child care, and a desire/need for both adults to work.

Years of policy choices have left us with the top 10% controlling nearly 80% of the wealth in the country. Doesn't leave a lot for the bottom 90% to split up and build on. Hardly a surprise they would choose to not have children.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT