The great global baby bust is under way In 2010, there were 98 nations and territories with fertility rates below 2.1 (known as the replacement rate) according to the United Nations. In 2021, that number had risen to 124, or more than half the countries for which data were available. The world’s 15 largest economies all have fertility rates below the replacement rate. As the proportion of children declines, average ages are rising, particularly as old people live longer (though the rise in longevity has slowed in recent years: in Britain lifespans are flatlining and in America they are falling). Some long-running demographic trends are changing, too. Educated women have for decades tended to have fewer children. But fertility among the less educated is now falling. On a global level the link between national incomes and fertility rates has also weakened. India’s fertility rate, for example, fell below 2.1 in 2020, despite a gross domestic product of less than $3,000 per person. All continents other than Africa are currently at or below zero population growth and Africa is trending downward.
The Mathusians need to pack it up. Make way for the reverse Malthusians, were the population cant reproduce a labor force to feed people.
Doesn't 2.1 feel a little high as a "replacement rate"? Yeah, I am way out of my area of expertise, and have not studied this. I get that there are two parents, so in theory 2 kids would replace you. But in most families there seem to be a good 3 generations (briefly 4) alive at once. So it seems like a pair of grandparents would spawn 2 (2.1) children, and 4 (4.4) grandkids, and potentially 8 (9.3) great-grandkids. Sure, each needs a spouse/partner. It just seems like the population would still be expanding at a 2.1 average, based on life expectancy and average age of reproduction. I would have expected a number a little below 2.
Perhaps if we stop telling Gen Z that the world is ending from climate change, they'll move out of their parents basement and start families.
There's been no shortage of people pointing this out for quite some time. With the advancements of automation and AI, perhaps there's a balance to be struck here somewhere, but we'll need a new economic model - one that isn't dependant upon growth. What that is is beyond my pay grade.
Yes, we should ignore the climate and focus on scaring them about our existential battle against science and books
There are 3 big issues I see here: - will technology / automation help to offset the labor shortages and aid in the care of elderly? Probably. - I spite of that, will automation lead to further wealth inequality such that not everybody benefits from it? Probably. - Will we find a way to fund the needs of the growing middle and lower classes in the growing automated economy? TBD - will Africa eventually step up and provide a labor force? Hard to say but given the o gong geopolitical cluster there it seems doubtful.
I have been saying this about Hispanic immigration. How long before we are begging for laborers from Latin America? I actually wasn't aware Africa was dipping in population that dramatically.
I’m going to guess it’s because you have to figure 1:1 male to female births and males really don’t contribute to population growth. If we were bears this would be true anyway. Likely true here. Reproductive aged females are what drive population growth and are the lynchpin for a population. 1 male can accomplish the reproductive duties of 10.
If everybody lived past reproduction age, the ratio would be 2.0. For every 2.0 parents, they would need to produce 2.0 kids to stay stready long term. If 50% of kids died before reproduction age you would need 4.0 for every 2.0 parents. 2.1 reflects that a small number of kids die before they complete their reproduction age cycle. In places like Africa it would probably need to be higher than 2.1 to account for higher child mortality. Even if a country is at ZPG, or 2.1, it could still be growing or shrinking. If the country is very young even at zpg birth rate the population will continue to increase until the average age levels out.
Perhaps aborting millions a year for two generations might perhaps lead to a decline in birth rate? And before all the "come on man's" and "disagrees" , I believe it is a fair part of the conversation.
Perhaps, but this trend is really driven by the fact that wealthy people just have fewer kids, and the US is wealthier today than in the past. Income and fertility - Wikipedia
Abortion didn’t stop me from producing 13 kids like my grandparents were part of, or producing 4 kids like my parents did. People like me are choosing to have less kids. Your come on man was earned.
