3 ms·

Global Population to Shrink This Century as Birth Rates Fall

16 points by sarimkx 2y ago

sarimkx 2y ago
https://archive.md/3fWw0 https://archive.md/3fWw0
crooked-v 2y ago
It's wild to think of how many scifi stories and novels there are about immense, completely unmanageable world overpopulation and then give numbers that are lower than what we have right now. The classic example would probably be Make Room! Make Room! (the very loose basis for the film Soylent Green), where a United States of 344 million people is so massively crammed and overpopulated that the average person lives on strictly rationed water and food.
- Finnucane 2y ago
  Yeah, it’s possible we may dodge that bullet, but rather than take the win, economists are freaking out because they don’t know how to think about that.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > economists are freaking out Versus sticking our heads in the sand until problems arise? It’s wild that pointing out the logical consequences of changing trends, consequences which don’t manifest for almost a century, can be characterised as “freaking out.”
    - Finnucane 2y ago
      Well, so far, most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have I see both. (Also, loosening immigration.) In any case, the first step to reforming the system is exploring where it will break.
  - creato 2y ago
    This isn’t a solely a problem of modern economics/economists. A family or tribe would have the same problems. A primitive tribal village would struggle to survive with an inverted population pyramid too. It’s the same problem, modern economics and trade just makes the size of the tribe or family bigger.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    The whole basis of modern economics are theories that assumes exponential growth. Which is then used to justify rent seeking capitalists diverting an ever larger percentage of that growth. When raw growth stops then the economic system built to enable that crashes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
So I agree that this can have some bad economic side effects, especially as the (larger) previous generation ages, but otherwise I don't really see this as a bad thing (though I guess that's a pretty big "otherwise"). Humanity doesn't have to be like venture-backed startups, where growth is the only way to survive. I'm not a doomsayer that believes that there are way too many of us for the planet to support (IMO we're just bad at distributing resources equitably), but I can't help but assume that fewer people here and there will create less pressure on natural ecosystems. Certainly it would be bad if the population kept shrinking down to nothing (well, bad for humans, anyway), but I don't think some ups and downs here and there should be cause for much alarm. Regardless, though, they're talking about having 200M fewer people than expected in 2100, with a total population of 10.2B. Is 2% really going to be that noticeable? And the actual population drop (from 10.3B in 2080 to 10.2B in 2100) they're talking about is only 100M people, or about 1%.
- tuatoru 2y ago
  Besides the obvious disposable income effects (with proportionally smaller working-age populations, total production is reduced; with larger old age populations, a greater proportion of that production is spent on aged care and medical treatments) there are some second-order effects. South Korea looks set to disappear, effectively. Goodbye an interesting and occasionally beautiful language, culture, literature, and set of artforms. Japan will be in severe decline also, as will the Baltic states and some Eastern and Southern European ones. The potential for military adventurism goes up, as relative populations sizes change and previously dominant states look more and more feeble. In 1950, the population of Europe was around 550M, and that of Africa around 230M. Now Africa is around 1.5B while Europe is at maybe 750M. The cultures that still have high birth rates have little regard for the rights of women, as well. A greater proportion of the people alive in 2100 will have less happy lives than is the case today.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > South Korea looks set to disappear, effectively. Goodbye an interesting and occasionally beautiful language, culture, literature, and set of artforms. Japan will be in severe decline also. I do agree that would be a bummer, but if that's the choice of a country's population, then so be it. But even if South Korea or Japan get to the point where they don't have enough people to field a functioning country, it's not like their language and culture will disappear; there are millions of South Koreans and Japanese living outside their respective countries today who keep their language and culture alive. > The potential for military adventurism goes up, as relative populations sizes change and previously dominant states look more and more feeble. That doesn't really track for me. What matters is the state of a country's military. Sure, that's not completely divorced from population and population trends, but it's perfectly possible to have a formidable military with a smaller population. E.g., the US has a third-ish the population of China, but China's military is not 3x as powerful as the US's. Similar point for India. Availability of volunteers (or ability to conscript) and sophistication and availability of training and materiel are much more important than raw population numbers. Certainly a declining tax base can make it harder to maintain those things, but I'm not convinced this is such an outsized problem. > In 1950, the population of Europe was around 550M, and that of Africa around 230M. Now Africa is around 1.5B while Europe is at maybe 750M. I'm not sure how that supports your point, though. Are there African countries today that would stand a chance of successfully invading Europe? I... don't think so? > The cultures that still have high birth rates have little regard for the rights of women, as well. For now. A lot can -- and hopefully will -- change in the next 75 years.
james_marks 2y ago
> By 2100, Europe’s population is set to shrink by 21 per cent from its peak in 2020, marking the largest decline of any continent. That’s a big shift.

16 points by sarimkx 2y ago

https://archive.md/3fWw0 https://archive.md/3fWw0

It's wild to think of how many scifi stories and novels there are about immense, completely unmanageable world overpopulation and then give numbers that are lower than what we have right now. The classic example would probably be Make Room! Make Room! (the very loose basis for the film Soylent Green), where a United States of 344 million people is so massively crammed and overpopulated that the average person lives on strictly rationed water and food.

Finnucane 2y ago
Yeah, it’s possible we may dodge that bullet, but rather than take the win, economists are freaking out because they don’t know how to think about that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > economists are freaking out Versus sticking our heads in the sand until problems arise? It’s wild that pointing out the logical consequences of changing trends, consequences which don’t manifest for almost a century, can be characterised as “freaking out.”
  - Finnucane 2y ago
    Well, so far, most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > most of the proposed solutions are along the lines of 'have more babies so labor will go on being cheap" rather than try to think of way to make the economy work for the population you have I see both. (Also, loosening immigration.) In any case, the first step to reforming the system is exploring where it will break.
- creato 2y ago
  This isn’t a solely a problem of modern economics/economists. A family or tribe would have the same problems. A primitive tribal village would struggle to survive with an inverted population pyramid too. It’s the same problem, modern economics and trade just makes the size of the tribe or family bigger.
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  The whole basis of modern economics are theories that assumes exponential growth. Which is then used to justify rent seeking capitalists diverting an ever larger percentage of that growth. When raw growth stops then the economic system built to enable that crashes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago

So I agree that this can have some bad economic side effects, especially as the (larger) previous generation ages, but otherwise I don't really see this as a bad thing (though I guess that's a pretty big "otherwise"). Humanity doesn't have to be like venture-backed startups, where growth is the only way to survive. I'm not a doomsayer that believes that there are way too many of us for the planet to support (IMO we're just bad at distributing resources equitably), but I can't help but assume that fewer people here and there will create less pressure on natural ecosystems. Certainly it would be bad if the population kept shrinking down to nothing (well, bad for humans, anyway), but I don't think some ups and downs here and there should be cause for much alarm. Regardless, though, they're talking about having 200M fewer people than expected in 2100, with a total population of 10.2B. Is 2% really going to be that noticeable? And the actual population drop (from 10.3B in 2080 to 10.2B in 2100) they're talking about is only 100M people, or about 1%.

tuatoru 2y ago
Besides the obvious disposable income effects (with proportionally smaller working-age populations, total production is reduced; with larger old age populations, a greater proportion of that production is spent on aged care and medical treatments) there are some second-order effects. South Korea looks set to disappear, effectively. Goodbye an interesting and occasionally beautiful language, culture, literature, and set of artforms. Japan will be in severe decline also, as will the Baltic states and some Eastern and Southern European ones. The potential for military adventurism goes up, as relative populations sizes change and previously dominant states look more and more feeble. In 1950, the population of Europe was around 550M, and that of Africa around 230M. Now Africa is around 1.5B while Europe is at maybe 750M. The cultures that still have high birth rates have little regard for the rights of women, as well. A greater proportion of the people alive in 2100 will have less happy lives than is the case today.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > South Korea looks set to disappear, effectively. Goodbye an interesting and occasionally beautiful language, culture, literature, and set of artforms. Japan will be in severe decline also. I do agree that would be a bummer, but if that's the choice of a country's population, then so be it. But even if South Korea or Japan get to the point where they don't have enough people to field a functioning country, it's not like their language and culture will disappear; there are millions of South Koreans and Japanese living outside their respective countries today who keep their language and culture alive. > The potential for military adventurism goes up, as relative populations sizes change and previously dominant states look more and more feeble. That doesn't really track for me. What matters is the state of a country's military. Sure, that's not completely divorced from population and population trends, but it's perfectly possible to have a formidable military with a smaller population. E.g., the US has a third-ish the population of China, but China's military is not 3x as powerful as the US's. Similar point for India. Availability of volunteers (or ability to conscript) and sophistication and availability of training and materiel are much more important than raw population numbers. Certainly a declining tax base can make it harder to maintain those things, but I'm not convinced this is such an outsized problem. > In 1950, the population of Europe was around 550M, and that of Africa around 230M. Now Africa is around 1.5B while Europe is at maybe 750M. I'm not sure how that supports your point, though. Are there African countries today that would stand a chance of successfully invading Europe? I... don't think so? > The cultures that still have high birth rates have little regard for the rights of women, as well. For now. A lot can -- and hopefully will -- change in the next 75 years.

james_marks 2y ago

> By 2100, Europe’s population is set to shrink by 21 per cent from its peak in 2020, marking the largest decline of any continent. That’s a big shift.