17 ms·

Haven't read the book, but for those who don't know who Zeihan is, his work follows two threads of post-WWII history: 1. Deglobalization; and 2. Depopulation

Haven't read the book, but for those who don't know who Zeihan is, his work follows two threads of post-WWII history: 1. Deglobalization; and 2. Depopulation The article focuses mostly on deglobalization, but depopulation is in the horse pulling the cart. Many are familiar with the deglobalization idea from the last US presidential administration. The current administration kept those tariffs, and abided by the previous commitment to exit Afghanistan. Zeihan argues that this trend toward increasing isolationism goes back decades. What may seem less familiar is the demographic implosion the entire world is undergoing - a baby bust. The vast majority of major countries with the exception of the US and Mexico have passed a point of no return demographically. Their populations will shrink with mathematical certainty. As their populations ebb, so will their economic growth prospects and place on the world stage. The problem is especially pronounced in Asia and Europe, but can be found everywhere. The reason for the bust: people moved to cities. On a farm, kids are free labor. In a city, kids are expensive conversational pieces.

puranjay 4y ago
Its alarming how fast all earlier projections are being proven wrong. Like in India, our latest survey revealed that our fertility rate is now already below replacement level - a landmark we were supposed to hit in 2050. We hit that three decades ahead of schedule.
- maccolgan 4y ago
  Funnily enough Meghalaya Rural and Bihar is keeping us still afloat.
topher515 4y ago
I just want to take some issue with your characterization of "with mathematical certainty". You're completely right that given fertility rates are under replacement rate—from memory: 2.1 children per woman—populations will decrease with mathematical certainty. But there is no universal law that developed countries must remain below replacement fertility levels; that's just what has always happened so far—given the cultures and policies which exist today. It's not completely absurd to imagine scenarios like: - a rich society getting serious about the fertility problem and putting it's money where it's mouth is: free childcare, free fertility clinics, generous subsidies for having a third kid, etc - a culture shift amongst the patriotic, or the religious, or whatever subgroup, to believe it's their responsibility to have more children.
- PakistaniDenzel 4y ago
  Look at Russia's attempts since ~2006 to basically throw money at their fertility problem and see how well it has worked out for them. There is just no actual need like there used to be (farm labor) for kids these days. Unless house prices crash such that people on minimum wage can afford a large house and still have lots of disposable income to put towards children I don't see how this can be solved with money. A cultural shift just won't occur in the span of a few years and would likely only be possible from the next generation onwards, but by then the damage has already been done. Maybe 50-100 years from now after "the end of the world" mindsets will change and we'll see a big repopulation.
  - tacocataco 4y ago
    > Unless house prices crash such that people on minimum wage can afford a large house and still have lots of disposable income to put towards children I don't see how this can be solved with money. Am I misreading your comment? "Unless people on minimum wage get more money, I don't see how this can be solved with money." Can you elaborate what you meant here please?
- maccolgan 4y ago
  Funnily enough only Israel has made that culture shift, but I don't think people like Haredis very much.
tacker2000 4y ago
Sure, the current population would shrink as is, but what about immigration? The US is a country built on that. Surely this would be a factor in preventing depopulation.
yrgulation 4y ago
> Their populations will shrink with mathematical certainty. Yeah you know why? Because both parents sitting in offices 8 hours a day have no means of looking after their kids. And a mother giving birth needs to return to work in a few months time, else she there's no pay. Oh and neither parent can give up work to raise these future adults because living expenses are too high. I don't know why everyone is so surprised by the raging population decline. Most of the western world is not child friendly, simple as that.
- smt88 4y ago
  This is a popular theory on reddit, but it's not true. Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally have good work culture. You would also expect birth rates to be lowest among people working 2-3 low-wage jobs, which is also not true. As financial stability and safety increase, birth rates go down. That's the only common driver of it. Historically, children were sources of unpaid labor. They worked (either at the family business or outside the job), raised younger siblings, and took care of elderly parents. In short, children were (and sometimes are) a social safety net. What happens in societies that try to eliminate poverty, take care of the elderly, and ban child labor? A lower birth rate. Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation.
  - iggldiggl 4y ago
    Endless (population) growth might not be sustainable, but > Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation. … neither is endless shrinkage, automation or not.
  - Miraste 4y ago
    Resulting from otherwise positive changes doesn't mean low birth rates aren't a problem. It's a long term one, of course, but they have to be fixed at some point. If the entire world gets to the development level of South Korea with birth rates below 1, civilization will collapse until it regresses to a point that people start having >2 children again.
andrewclunn 4y ago
> and abided by the previous commitment to exit Afghanistan. Ummm, what? Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country. I get that historical revisionism is popular with political partisans, but usually you wait until goldfish have forgotten the details before attempted to do so in such a blatant manner.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Are you trying to suggest the taliban wouldn't have launched an assault if the date wasn't moved and the US pulled out? I feel your desire to throw a political punch has utterly blinded you here.
  - andrewclunn 4y ago
    That is exactly what I'm claiming, as evidenced by the timeline and events as they occurred. To label a resounding defeat as a withdrawal, simultaneously claim the withdrawal treaty was Trump's plan (but not hold Biden to account for breaking it), and then also claim that this was a continuation of the previous administration's policy... I mean these responses are inline with the sort of "facts don't matter" tribal rage I expected. Yours however, that dismisses the US blatantly breaking a treaty, is the special kind of qualified US military apologist rhetoric (just so long as the president has a D by their name) that is truly contemptible. Hence why your comment got the reply.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      Well... I think that's a really dumb opinion. I guess we're just at an impass.
    - andscoop 4y ago
      I'll agree with one thing - the current administration did what they could to shake off the blame. However, your implications that the Taliban wouldn't have invaded if the timeline had been 4 months different seems to be "the sort of 'facts don't matter' tribal rage I expected". I'd suggest stepping back and evaluating your political blinders.
baxtr 4y ago
> The vast majority of major countries with the exception of the US and Mexico have passed a point of no return demographically Where is the data to back this statement up? Sub-Sahara African countries have been growing by 2.5% over the last decades. Just one example. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=ZG https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=Z...
- ParksNet 4y ago
  Sub-Saharan Africa is irrelevant, economically. Majority of the population engages in subsistence-level agriculture, or resource extraction for foreign companies. IQ Is measured at an average of 70 or lower: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php (partly due to inadequate nutrition and opportunities). Corruption and poverty is widespread, and population expansion is directly tied to environmental degradation. This part of the world is one area where fewer or no children should be ideal. The population of eg. Ghana could be 5 million (as it was as recently as 1950) instead of 50 million, there would just be more mechanization of agriculture (and substantially better quality of life for the people living there). https://www.populationpyramid.net/ghana/2050/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/ghana/2050/
  - baxtr 4y ago
    You are ignoring that people move. If there is a money gradient, people will follow it. The big challenge is to integrate these people such that major economies stay stable. It’s difficult yet manageable.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Sub-Saharan Africa is irrelevant, economically. Majority of the population engages in subsistence-level agriculture, or resource extraction for foreign companies. IQ Is measured at an average of 70 or lower: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php (partly due to inadequate nutrition and opportunities). That link seems super suspect to me because of this: > The last place with only 56 points is occupied by Equatorial Guinea. 56 seems to be a unbelievably low number for an average. It's so low that people with that score may have trouble comprehending the concept of death (e.g. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm: "The inability to comprehend abstract concepts may include the inability to fully understand the meaning of "death" or "murder". Morris Mason, whose I.Q. was 62-66, was executed in 1985 in Virginia after being convicted of rape and murder. Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on what to wear to his funeral."). I don't see how a society could even function with a majority like that. Seems much more likely that a result like this reflects a flaw in the tests.

puranjay 4y ago

Its alarming how fast all earlier projections are being proven wrong. Like in India, our latest survey revealed that our fertility rate is now already below replacement level - a landmark we were supposed to hit in 2050. We hit that three decades ahead of schedule.

maccolgan 4y ago
Funnily enough Meghalaya Rural and Bihar is keeping us still afloat.

topher515 4y ago

I just want to take some issue with your characterization of "with mathematical certainty". You're completely right that given fertility rates are under replacement rate—from memory: 2.1 children per woman—populations will decrease with mathematical certainty. But there is no universal law that developed countries must remain below replacement fertility levels; that's just what has always happened so far—given the cultures and policies which exist today. It's not completely absurd to imagine scenarios like: - a rich society getting serious about the fertility problem and putting it's money where it's mouth is: free childcare, free fertility clinics, generous subsidies for having a third kid, etc - a culture shift amongst the patriotic, or the religious, or whatever subgroup, to believe it's their responsibility to have more children.

PakistaniDenzel 4y ago
Look at Russia's attempts since ~2006 to basically throw money at their fertility problem and see how well it has worked out for them. There is just no actual need like there used to be (farm labor) for kids these days. Unless house prices crash such that people on minimum wage can afford a large house and still have lots of disposable income to put towards children I don't see how this can be solved with money. A cultural shift just won't occur in the span of a few years and would likely only be possible from the next generation onwards, but by then the damage has already been done. Maybe 50-100 years from now after "the end of the world" mindsets will change and we'll see a big repopulation.
- tacocataco 4y ago
  > Unless house prices crash such that people on minimum wage can afford a large house and still have lots of disposable income to put towards children I don't see how this can be solved with money. Am I misreading your comment? "Unless people on minimum wage get more money, I don't see how this can be solved with money." Can you elaborate what you meant here please?
maccolgan 4y ago
Funnily enough only Israel has made that culture shift, but I don't think people like Haredis very much.

tacker2000 4y ago

Sure, the current population would shrink as is, but what about immigration? The US is a country built on that. Surely this would be a factor in preventing depopulation.

yrgulation 4y ago

> Their populations will shrink with mathematical certainty. Yeah you know why? Because both parents sitting in offices 8 hours a day have no means of looking after their kids. And a mother giving birth needs to return to work in a few months time, else she there's no pay. Oh and neither parent can give up work to raise these future adults because living expenses are too high. I don't know why everyone is so surprised by the raging population decline. Most of the western world is not child friendly, simple as that.

smt88 4y ago
This is a popular theory on reddit, but it's not true. Birth rates are extremely low even in countries that paid parents to stay at home with kids and generally have good work culture. You would also expect birth rates to be lowest among people working 2-3 low-wage jobs, which is also not true. As financial stability and safety increase, birth rates go down. That's the only common driver of it. Historically, children were sources of unpaid labor. They worked (either at the family business or outside the job), raised younger siblings, and took care of elderly parents. In short, children were (and sometimes are) a social safety net. What happens in societies that try to eliminate poverty, take care of the elderly, and ban child labor? A lower birth rate. Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  Endless (population) growth might not be sustainable, but > Low birth rates are not a problem (and reflect enormous amounts of social progress). We just need to solve the Ponzi scheme of retirement and elder care, which I think is doable with automation. … neither is endless shrinkage, automation or not.
- Miraste 4y ago
  Resulting from otherwise positive changes doesn't mean low birth rates aren't a problem. It's a long term one, of course, but they have to be fixed at some point. If the entire world gets to the development level of South Korea with birth rates below 1, civilization will collapse until it regresses to a point that people start having >2 children again.

andrewclunn 4y ago

> and abided by the previous commitment to exit Afghanistan. Ummm, what? Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country. I get that historical revisionism is popular with political partisans, but usually you wait until goldfish have forgotten the details before attempted to do so in such a blatant manner.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
Are you trying to suggest the taliban wouldn't have launched an assault if the date wasn't moved and the US pulled out? I feel your desire to throw a political punch has utterly blinded you here.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  That is exactly what I'm claiming, as evidenced by the timeline and events as they occurred. To label a resounding defeat as a withdrawal, simultaneously claim the withdrawal treaty was Trump's plan (but not hold Biden to account for breaking it), and then also claim that this was a continuation of the previous administration's policy... I mean these responses are inline with the sort of "facts don't matter" tribal rage I expected. Yours however, that dismisses the US blatantly breaking a treaty, is the special kind of qualified US military apologist rhetoric (just so long as the president has a D by their name) that is truly contemptible. Hence why your comment got the reply.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Well... I think that's a really dumb opinion. I guess we're just at an impass.
  - andscoop 4y ago
    I'll agree with one thing - the current administration did what they could to shake off the blame. However, your implications that the Taliban wouldn't have invaded if the timeline had been 4 months different seems to be "the sort of 'facts don't matter' tribal rage I expected". I'd suggest stepping back and evaluating your political blinders.

baxtr 4y ago

> The vast majority of major countries with the exception of the US and Mexico have passed a point of no return demographically Where is the data to back this statement up? Sub-Sahara African countries have been growing by 2.5% over the last decades. Just one example. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=ZG https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=Z...

ParksNet 4y ago
Sub-Saharan Africa is irrelevant, economically. Majority of the population engages in subsistence-level agriculture, or resource extraction for foreign companies. IQ Is measured at an average of 70 or lower: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php (partly due to inadequate nutrition and opportunities). Corruption and poverty is widespread, and population expansion is directly tied to environmental degradation. This part of the world is one area where fewer or no children should be ideal. The population of eg. Ghana could be 5 million (as it was as recently as 1950) instead of 50 million, there would just be more mechanization of agriculture (and substantially better quality of life for the people living there). https://www.populationpyramid.net/ghana/2050/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/ghana/2050/
- baxtr 4y ago
  You are ignoring that people move. If there is a money gradient, people will follow it. The big challenge is to integrate these people such that major economies stay stable. It’s difficult yet manageable.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Sub-Saharan Africa is irrelevant, economically. Majority of the population engages in subsistence-level agriculture, or resource extraction for foreign companies. IQ Is measured at an average of 70 or lower: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php (partly due to inadequate nutrition and opportunities). That link seems super suspect to me because of this: > The last place with only 56 points is occupied by Equatorial Guinea. 56 seems to be a unbelievably low number for an average. It's so low that people with that score may have trouble comprehending the concept of death (e.g. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm: "The inability to comprehend abstract concepts may include the inability to fully understand the meaning of "death" or "murder". Morris Mason, whose I.Q. was 62-66, was executed in 1985 in Virginia after being convicted of rape and murder. Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on what to wear to his funeral."). I don't see how a society could even function with a majority like that. Seems much more likely that a result like this reflects a flaw in the tests.