Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(42,662 posts)
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 10:40 PM Jul 2020

Researchers Say Earth Is Headed for "Jaw-Dropping" Population Decline

"It's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganize societies."

https://futurism.com/global-birth-rates-falling-precipitiously?ref=thefuturist

People around the globe are having way fewer babies. By the year 2100, that might turn into a pretty big problem for humanity — rather than the relief one might expect. If they aren’t already, dozens of countries’ populations will be going into decline in this century, according to a new study published in the Lancet this week. 23 countries are expected to feel this effect intensify, with their populations dropping to half of what they are now by the year 2100.

The global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, according to the new projection, and then drop off to 8.8 billion towards the end of the century. “That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” Christopher Murray, co-author and researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle, told the BBC. “I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognize how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganize societies.”

The reality is that with more women receiving an education and entering the work force, combined with the wide availability of contraception, fertility rates are dropping, sometimes precipitously, around the world — a stark reversal of the baby boom following the Second World War. Countries including Spain, Portugal, and Thailand will have their populations more than halve by the end of the century — “jaw-dropping,” according to Murray.

But aren’t fewer humans better for a ravished world that’s rapidly being drained of its resources? The researchers suggest that there may be fewer babies being born, but any positive consequences for the environment would be offset by the challenges of a rapidly aging population. Much older populations “will create enormous social change,” Murray told the BBC. “Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?” “We need a soft landing,” he added.

snip


Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

https://tinyurl.com/ybadb2q7

snip

Findings

The global TFR in the reference scenario was forecasted to be 1·66 (95% UI 1·33–2·08) in 2100. In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100. The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71], Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]), China (732 million [456–1499]), the USA (336 million [248–456]), and Pakistan (248 million [151–427]). Findings also suggest a shifting age structure in many parts of the world, with 2·37 billion (1·91–2·87) individuals older than 65 years and 1·70 billion (1·11–2·81) individuals younger than 20 years, forecasted globally in 2100. By 2050, 151 countries were forecasted to have a TFR lower than the replacement level (TFR <2·1), and 183 were forecasted to have a TFR lower than replacement by 2100.

23 countries in the reference scenario, including Japan, Thailand, and Spain, were forecasted to have population declines greater than 50% from 2017 to 2100; China's population was forecasted to decline by 48·0% (?6·1 to 68·4). China was forecasted to become the largest economy by 2035 but in the reference scenario, the USA was forecasted to once again become the largest economy in 2098. Our alternative scenarios suggest that meeting the Sustainable Development Goals targets for education and contraceptive met need would result in a global population of 6·29 billion (4·82–8·73) in 2100 and a population of 6·88 billion (5·27–9·51) when assuming 99th percentile rates of change in these drivers.

snip
59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Researchers Say Earth Is Headed for "Jaw-Dropping" Population Decline (Original Post) Celerity Jul 2020 OP
Hello "Children Of Men". ret5hd Jul 2020 #1
That's right rusty quoin Jul 2020 #22
This is a good problem to have. PTWB Jul 2020 #2
eh I don't think it's as good as you think qazplm135 Jul 2020 #11
We definitely need fewer people. PTWB Jul 2020 #13
I'm with you, too many people. Alex4Martinez Jul 2020 #16
not really qazplm135 Jul 2020 #24
It's easier to reduce our population than change our nature. PTWB Jul 2020 #31
But we aren't going to reduce our population from what it is now qazplm135 Jul 2020 #33
That isn't what the article says. PTWB Jul 2020 #35
to a number over a billion MORE qazplm135 Jul 2020 #37
The decline will continue. PTWB Jul 2020 #38
lol qazplm135 Jul 2020 #40
Agree completely!! Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #29
Oh, brother, that they have to suggest an existential problem out Hortensis Jul 2020 #58
Initially, that will be a problem, but once lower birth rates become the norm, things will smirkymonkey Jul 2020 #17
Your answer confirms that... HelpImSurrounded Jul 2020 #41
lol qazplm135 Jul 2020 #42
LOL some of us already working into our 60s-70s! Id be living on dogfood if I Kashkakat v.2.0 Jul 2020 #54
I wouldn't trust the forecasts of anyone marybourg Jul 2020 #3
Your are incorrect. Forecasted is commonly used (but not limited to) British English, and is also Celerity Jul 2020 #47
Yes, we will have to reorganize societies, and I don't think this is a bad thing. smirkymonkey Jul 2020 #4
You are so very wise :) nt mr_lebowski Jul 2020 #7
+1000 Thekaspervote Jul 2020 #30
Yeah greytdemocrat Jul 2020 #43
Who would be killed? smirkymonkey Jul 2020 #46
Everything you said on this thread CatLady78 Jul 2020 #51
Please name a socialist country that does not want growth. former9thward Jul 2020 #53
yes indeed. Voltaire2 Jul 2020 #57
I'd say it's the Aschen, but we didn't get the cool technology. Nevilledog Jul 2020 #5
There's nothing bad about this. NOTHING ... mr_lebowski Jul 2020 #6
unless you live in Nigeria, they're projected to have more people than the US and the EU combined do Celerity Jul 2020 #8
That sounds absolutely insane for a country of that size. Ace Rothstein Jul 2020 #14
Bangladesh is one sixth the size of Nigeria and has 165 million, Nigeria has 206 million now Celerity Jul 2020 #27
Bangladesh sounds like a hard pass from me. Ace Rothstein Jul 2020 #34
... Celerity Jul 2020 #36
if Bangladesh was the same size as Nigeria, with its current density, it'd have 1.03 billion people Celerity Jul 2020 #32
Either nature will take over (disease, global warming, which will cause starvation and death from smirkymonkey Jul 2020 #21
This isn't a problem. BGBD Jul 2020 #9
It's gonna drop faster than these forecasts. roamer65 Jul 2020 #10
Or a pandemic 10x more deadly than covid Wednesdays Jul 2020 #23
A decrease in litter size is normal in rat overpopulation experiments. aggression is increased too Baclava Jul 2020 #12
8.8 billion by 2100? In your dreams NickB79 Jul 2020 #15
There will be more automation in the future. The only reason they say it's negative JI7 Jul 2020 #18
Earth is also headed for "Jaw-Dropping" decline in habitable areas. PSPS Jul 2020 #19
Remember when SOYLENT GREEN suggested that our real problem was overpopulation? brooklynite Jul 2020 #20
They had a lot of extras for that movie. It was the last movie for Edward G. Robinson. rusty quoin Jul 2020 #25
"Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly?" Mariana Jul 2020 #26
A peak population of 10 billion on an already severely stressed planet Crunchy Frog Jul 2020 #28
Yup.nt CatLady78 Jul 2020 #50
The Fascists will still keep having them though dustyscamp Jul 2020 #39
This pandemic that we're living through is only a preview of what will happen if we don't stop this. Initech Jul 2020 #44
This doesn't factor in medical advances meadowlander Jul 2020 #45
did you read the study (I provided the link to it in the OP)? Celerity Jul 2020 #49
This is a good thing-the planet is overburdened CatLady78 Jul 2020 #48
I already have enough stress worrying about the next 6 months. milestogo Jul 2020 #52
Call it Malthus' Revenge ucrdem Jul 2020 #55
Their figures can end up quite surprising muriel_volestrangler Jul 2020 #56
Idk, I think climate change will get in the way of this eventually Calculating Jul 2020 #59
 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
2. This is a good problem to have.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 10:48 PM
Jul 2020

There are too many people. Managing depopulation will be a challenge, but a good one.

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
11. eh I don't think it's as good as you think
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:04 PM
Jul 2020

merely changing one set of problems for others.

If you don't have enough young workers, and you combine that with lengthening lifespans, then you have people working into their 60s and 70s because we can't afford the cost of retirement as a society...which is great for those who can afford a healthy lifestyle, but as usual, the poor and minorities will see their lives basically filled with work, no retirement, no benefits.

Add in medical costs and it gets harder and harder to pay for that as well.

I'm not suggesting we need runaway birth rates, but the reality is we just need better living standards and "greener" living standards, not necessarily "fewer people."

 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
13. We definitely need fewer people.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:22 PM
Jul 2020

Things will be challenging for a few generations but once populations stabilize at a sustainable level, Earth will be better off.

Alex4Martinez

(2,180 posts)
16. I'm with you, too many people.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:34 PM
Jul 2020

Way too many.

I'll suffer the consequences to help it happen as a 63 year old.

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
24. not really
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:58 PM
Jul 2020

the problem isn't the number, it's how we live.

Fix how we live and the Earth will be just fine even if there are more than us, which there will be for a long, long time.

 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
31. It's easier to reduce our population than change our nature.
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:14 AM
Jul 2020

I’d be fine if there were only half a billion people in the future.

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
33. But we aren't going to reduce our population from what it is now
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:24 AM
Jul 2020

even this article says it's going to get bigger than it is now for the next 100 years or more.

So yeah, changing our nature is going to have more success than thinking all the humans are going to start going away.

 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
35. That isn't what the article says.
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:55 AM
Jul 2020

The article says the population will peak in ‘64 and then start declining.

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
40. lol
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:31 AM
Jul 2020

based on what? For how long? Forever?

100 years from now we will STILL have more people than we have right now.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
58. Oh, brother, that they have to suggest an existential problem out
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:27 PM
Jul 2020

of the needs of more older people. In a future when we have vast energy and production capacities and fewer people, but also more machines providing labor and brainpower, meaning that EVERYONE can be effectively rich while working far less long and hard for it.

It's the transitions that are hard. We're in one now after great advances in energy, technology, and multiplication of planetary wealth are forcing change RW plutocrats and knuckledraggers kept us from preparing for. But tomorrow is going to be great if reactionary idiots don't manage to blow us up first.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
17. Initially, that will be a problem, but once lower birth rates become the norm, things will
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:39 PM
Jul 2020

stabilize and there will be fewer older people to support and maintain.

If we don't start doing something to control population now, Mother Nature will find a way to cull the herd.

As for work, the only reason so many people need to work is to fund the capitalist machine. There will always be a need for people to perform work to meet the basic needs of society, but if there are fewer people, there will be less of a demand for goods and services and fewer people needed to meet those demands.

Maybe we need to get our priorities straight and not consume so much.

HelpImSurrounded

(441 posts)
41. Your answer confirms that...
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:42 AM
Jul 2020

...the only system that benefits from constant population growth is capitalism and, without it, capitalism collapses.

Kashkakat v.2.0

(1,752 posts)
54. LOL some of us already working into our 60s-70s! Id be living on dogfood if I
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 09:39 AM
Jul 2020

only had SS check. Not complaining- I have a comfortable life - just saying what youre presentingn as a "problem" already exists for vast nos of people throughout US, and more so throughout the world.

Who was it who said - if we humans don't willingly curb over-population, nature will do it for us and she will not be so kind.

marybourg

(12,540 posts)
3. I wouldn't trust the forecasts of anyone
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 10:49 PM
Jul 2020

who thinks the past tense of forecast is forecasted. I know, it's acceptable, because poorly educated people use it, but it's neither correct, nor preferred. Signed, grammar police

Celerity

(42,662 posts)
47. Your are incorrect. Forecasted is commonly used (but not limited to) British English, and is also
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:31 AM
Jul 2020

(regardless of regional origin) very common in academic, scientific, and financial writing. I am London raised, have multiple degrees in the financial-related arts and sciences, and can attest to this fully.

The use of forecasted you are taking umbrage with is from a scientific paper. published in The Lancet, one of, if not the foremost scientific medical journals in the world (and British).


I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to turn in your grammar police badge. (having a laugh )

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2.pdf







more examples



https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2017161800





https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forecast?q=forecasted





https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/hurricane-sandy-won-president-obama

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
4. Yes, we will have to reorganize societies, and I don't think this is a bad thing.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 10:49 PM
Jul 2020

Initially, a smaller, younger population will be difficult while there are still larger older populations, but if that smaller rate begins to hold steady, eventually I think it will improve conditions on the planet once the older populations die off and things are normalized.

Then, eventually, every generation will have a replacement population equal to the one before it, and it will be much smaller than what we have now, which is a huge burden on the planet.

It will balance out and I believe the quality of life of everyone will improve.

We have to get over this ridiculous capitalist notion that we constantly need to grow, get bigger, produce more, make more money and profit every year and that there can be no end to it. It's sick and it is not good for human beings.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
46. Who would be killed?
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:06 AM
Jul 2020

Nobody. It would simply be attrition. How can lower birthrates be percieved as killing people? We have plenty of money to take care of the elderly, it's just a matter of straigtening out our fucked up priorities. No more corporate welfare, no more excessive overseas aid, cut the military budget in half, no more tax breaks for the wealthy. If we wanted to, we could easily make this work.

The government should make a provision for taking care of the excess elderly until the population balances out, when there are equal amounts of old and young again, although fewer amounts of both. Which I think would be a good thing.

Celerity

(42,662 posts)
8. unless you live in Nigeria, they're projected to have more people than the US and the EU combined do
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 10:57 PM
Jul 2020
now

791 million, and that is in 2100, post peak for the rest of the world (although I assume they will be still be growing post 2064.)

Ace Rothstein

(3,109 posts)
14. That sounds absolutely insane for a country of that size.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:24 PM
Jul 2020

I'm gonna guess that they'll run into a lot of issues that will slow their population growth before there are 700m people living there.

Celerity

(42,662 posts)
27. Bangladesh is one sixth the size of Nigeria and has 165 million, Nigeria has 206 million now
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:04 AM
Jul 2020

Area
• Total
148,460[6] km2 (57,320 sq mi) (92nd)
• Water (%)
6.4




Area
• Total
923,769 km2 (356,669 sq mi) (32nd)
• Water (%)
1.4



List of countries and dependencies by population density




Celerity

(42,662 posts)
32. if Bangladesh was the same size as Nigeria, with its current density, it'd have 1.03 billion people
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:19 AM
Jul 2020
NOW

Bangladesh is roughly the same area, size-wise, as Iowa, and is smaller than Georgia (the state, not the nation)



madness

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
21. Either nature will take over (disease, global warming, which will cause starvation and death from
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:46 PM
Jul 2020

extreme weather conditions) or violence will cull the herd via wars, genocide, imposed starvation, etc. Population growth at those levels is not sustainable, especially in poor countries with few resources.

The best thing we can do in those countries is to educate women and economically empower them. The men too. The women need autonomy over their own bodies so that they are not just broodmares who keep popping out children that they cannot afford to feed or take care of. That is not a good life for anybody!

I really believe we should be shooting for zero population growth on a global level. Human beings are a detriment to the planet.

 

BGBD

(3,282 posts)
9. This isn't a problem.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:01 PM
Jul 2020

We already have way, way too many people on earth. Want to see a bad scenario, google what happened when a species exceeds carrying capacity for an ecosystem. That's a lot worse than need to figure out what taxes are going to need to be paid in 100 years.

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
12. A decrease in litter size is normal in rat overpopulation experiments. aggression is increased too
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:17 PM
Jul 2020

NickB79

(19,113 posts)
15. 8.8 billion by 2100? In your dreams
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:25 PM
Jul 2020

We're so far past multiple climate tipping points that our ability to maintain our current population is just starting to be threatened. And that's with only 1C of warming.

By 2100, with 4C of warming, most of our breadbaskets will be destroyed. Ocean life will be decimated, starving the communities that rely on it for protein. Vast areas in the tropics will be too hot to inhabit, creating vast refugee migrations. We'll be lucky to be at 5 billion.

JI7

(89,174 posts)
18. There will be more automation in the future. The only reason they say it's negative
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:40 PM
Jul 2020

is because there will be a lot more older people compared to younger people and they don't know who will take care of those older people.

This is where things like automation will be helpful .

PSPS

(13,512 posts)
19. Earth is also headed for "Jaw-Dropping" decline in habitable areas.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:40 PM
Jul 2020

We're already seeing some effects of global warming arriving 80 years earlier than forecast.

 

rusty quoin

(6,133 posts)
25. They had a lot of extras for that movie. It was the last movie for Edward G. Robinson.
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:58 PM
Jul 2020

He made several movies during WWII, against the Nazis, yet his involvement with socialism became real. Forget what he did for the war effort.
It’s back.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
26. "Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly?"
Sat Jul 18, 2020, 11:59 PM
Jul 2020

I love how it doesn't even occur to them that the older people who are wealthy can be taxed.

Crunchy Frog

(26,548 posts)
28. A peak population of 10 billion on an already severely stressed planet
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 12:06 AM
Jul 2020

is going to be very difficult to sustain, even with falling birth rates.

I wouldn't be surprised if climate change and environmental degradation result in a much more rapid and dramatic population decline.

There's too many unpredictable elements to really know what's going to happen in the future.

Initech

(99,914 posts)
44. This pandemic that we're living through is only a preview of what will happen if we don't stop this.
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:53 AM
Jul 2020

meadowlander

(4,358 posts)
45. This doesn't factor in medical advances
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 01:56 AM
Jul 2020

that could increase quality of life and need for invasive and expensive treatments. People may live longer but they may be able to work longer, have a better quality of life and might have a shorter window where they need care.

Look at where we were 100 years ago with medical technology and where we could be in 100 years. If research on the coronavirus develops new treatments that could be applied to other viruses we could massively increase productivity by "curing" the flu and common cold. There's no reason to think in 100 years we won't have much better treatments for diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer. Those advances alone would reduce the four of the top eight causes of death and two of the most persistent and expensive conditions in terms of long-term care needs.

Celerity

(42,662 posts)
49. did you read the study (I provided the link to it in the OP)?
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 03:02 AM
Jul 2020
Fourth, we leveraged the previously published future health scenarios model for cause-specific and all-cause mortality; this model also allows the effect of faster scale-up of educational attainment on mortality to be captured.


Uncertainty in past data inputs, covariate and health driver forecasts, and estimated model parameters were propagated by combining draw-level data from GBD 2017 with draws from the forecast-generating model incorporating, when feasible, parameter draws from estimated sampling or posterior distributions.


50.Blakely T
Major strides in forecasting future health.
Lancet. 2018; 392: e14-e15


The future of migration, human populations, and global health in the Anthropocene
Full-TextPDF




CatLady78

(1,041 posts)
48. This is a good thing-the planet is overburdened
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:44 AM
Jul 2020

We are wiping out all the other species that share it with us, factory farming more and more animals.....

Even that-as other posters have pointed out-is too many people.



ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
55. Call it Malthus' Revenge
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 10:03 AM
Jul 2020

Malthus was always wrong, his predictions were always preposterous, and his thinly veiled chauvinism fooled no one but those who wished to be fooled. But there are plenty of those unfortunately.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
56. Their figures can end up quite surprising
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 11:49 AM
Jul 2020

For instance, in their reference scenario, they have the Total Fertility Rate for India (currently 2.14) dropping to 1.29 by 2100, but for France (currently 1.84) to 1.78. That might be because they expect France to continue to get immigration from higher TFR countries. They have the USA dropping to 1.53, and the UK to 1.61. In fact, they expect more overall population growth in the UK than in the USA. Which I think, given the available space, historic immigration rates, and current TFR, seems unlikely.

Calculating

(2,954 posts)
59. Idk, I think climate change will get in the way of this eventually
Sun Jul 19, 2020, 02:43 PM
Jul 2020

I'm expecting some mass dying to start soon after 8 billion. We're getting near the point where some areas of the world are going to start getting too hot for continued habitability.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Researchers Say Earth Is ...