"Uncertainty about the future and concerns about the ecological impact of the growing human #population were key factors also identified by research.
But concerns also differed in different parts of the world, Dillarstone said. “There was a concern that came out only in Zambia and Ethiopia, which was about a family’s ability to subsist and acquire resources,” she said."
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the "population bomb" was a Thing.
Now, not so much.
Yes, the world population is still growing. But the *rate* of growth is decreasing fast, and most demographers predict a population peak this century.
One of the best places for a reality check is this #OurWorldInData page:
https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth
Includes a link to visualisations, some interactive.
Population growth varies across the planet. You can look it up for a specific place by searching for #TotalFertilityRate (the average number of babies per woman) for that place.
The graph below shows that TFR is
1.64 United States
1.40 Canada
1.28 China
For a stable population, TFR = 2.1. Meaning, the US population is growing slightly only because of immigration.
In South Korea, TFR = 0.84.
I learned about population, growth, and total fertility rate from this TED talk by the late Hans Rosling, a scientist with an irrepressible way of talking about statistics as not only interesting but exciting and funny.
It's from 2006 but the trends in population growth have continued since then.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en
Global Population Crash Isn't Sci-Fi Anymore
"The European Commission’s Centre of Expertise on #Population and Migration projects that the global population will peak at 9.8 billion in the 2070s.
It is simply because, all over the world, the #TotalFertilityRate (TFR) — the number of live children the average woman bears in her lifetime — has been falling since the 1970s. In one country after another, it has dropped under the 2.1 value of the 'replacement rate'."
"Generally, to replace and maintain current populations, a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is required.
According to a 2024 US Central Intelligence Agency publication comparing fertility rates around the world, in India, the 1950 #BirthRate of 6.2 has plummeted to just above 2; it is projected to fall to 1.29 by 2050 and just 1.04 by 2100. The fertility rate in Nepal is now just 1.85; in Bangladesh, 2.07."
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/10/13/choosing-to-be-child-free-in-an-apocalyptic-south-asia
Back in the 1800s, women all over the world had, on average, 6 babies.
European women were the first to start having fewer babies.
Why?
The Industrial Revolution started in Europe.
This graph shows that as each region developed, women in that region have fewer babies. Today, highly developed nations have low total fertility rates: 1.4 in Europe, 1.8 in the US, even 0.8 in South Korea. Regions that have a higher birth rate simply started developing later.
With development comes women's empowerment, and lower child death rates. Women started having fewer babies.
This is illustrated by how the birth rate dropped in the four "Asian Tigers" as they rapidly developed between the 1950s and the 1970s; today, these countries have total fertility rates less than 1.
Vietnam followed about 15 years later. It introduced a 2-child policy in 1988, but by then the birth rate had already fallen by nearly half. Because development.
@CelloMomOnCars recovering physicist Tom Murphy is doing interesting analysis on his blog. TL;DR: "It is fascinating enough just to see that peak population might well happen before 2050. Even under the U.N.’s fantasy TFR evolution, alterations to the survival trends alone could credibly bring the peak to the first part of this century."
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/06/peak-population-projections/
I'm a fan of Murphy! and yes, it seems every time you look the year of peak population has shifted closer to today.
The article he links to is very good: why the handwringing over the coming "baby bust" is misplaced at best.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/06/04/making-more-babies-to-drive-economic-growth/
But it's a good idea to plan for it now.
Governments worldwide are in a race to see which one can encourage the most women to have the most babies. Hungary is slashing income tax for women with four or more children. Russia is offering women with 10 or more children a “Mother-Heroine” award. Greece, Italy, and South Korea are bribing women with attractive baby bonuses. China has instituted a three-child policy. Iran has outlawed free contraceptives and vasectomies. Japan has joined forces with the fertility industry to infiltrate schools to promote early childbearing. A leading UK demographer has proposed taxing the childless. Religious myths are preventing African men from getting vasectomies. A eugenics-inspired Natal conference just took place in the U.S., a nation leading the way in taking away reproductive rights.
There are still people shouting "Overpopulation!!" and calling for birth control, like it's still the 1970s.
Things have changed since then. One could wish it happened one generation earlier, but here we all are, we'll have to make the best of it together.
The change won't come without some pain. Certain things are planned *assuming* a growing population, e.g. pay-as-you-go social security.
@CelloMomOnCars yeah, don't want to turn it off like a switch, but imagine a world with 2 billion people with a decent standard of living and all being able to contribute…
Turning the ship around should not be done abruptly, but it should be done.
But that's exactly the point of this article: once TFR < 2 the population can go down as quickly as it went kablooie during the "population bomb".
And TFR = 1.7 in the US
1.5 in Europe
1.3 in China.
It will go pretty fast once it kicks in.
@CelloMomOnCars It’ll be interesting to see. I remain skeptical that it’ll go poof as quickly as it went kablooie, but being an expert in that ain't my jam, so I guess I'll watch from the sidelines.
When have we ever been good, as a species, at a smooth landing? 😉
The time scale is a generation, so 2-3 decades, a time scale that makes it hard to plan. Until one day we wake up and the whole place looks like those deserted villages in Italy or Japan today: lots of empty houses, and the ones that are occupied have mostly older people living in them. Who will take care of them?
Any dislocation in demographic distribution is going to require a change. 150 years ago we started addressing infant and childhood mortality. Now we're going to have to deal with taking care of an aging population.
Who's taking care of our aging population now? It's a, pardon the term, growth industry.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-elderly-care-market-reach-185000100.html
According to Arizton's latest research report, the US elderly care services market will grow at a CAGR of 6.15% from 2022 to 2029.
Yes, and that change will not come without pain. Japan is so desperate that they've even allowing an increase of work permits for - gasp - foreigners ! as caretakers for older people.
They're SO desperate that they're even encouraging women to join the workforce. Women!
In the US, we should all be watching in fear and trepidation while private equity takes over elderly care homes. Expect tragic outcomes, not too long from now.
I wouldn't wish private equity takeovers on anyone or any industry.
Japan is doing something about their situation. That’s a positive.
CelloMom On Cars
Les capsules du prof Lutz
glasspshr