For a start, having a falling population is great news for climate.
A hideous plague that wiped out humanity would be even better news for the climate, but I’m pretty sure people would still consider it a bad thing.
Oh Marvin. This is just being awkward for the sake of it. Yes of course we could lower our population and ecological footprint by killing loads of people. But isn't it fortunate that there is an alternative that avoids this? (Clue: "YES").
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing. The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing.
I don't think this is true. Obviously the world population is massively higher than it was 100 years ago. And obviously this produces massive pressure on environmental resources.
The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
Unfair distribution certainly is a problem - i.e. people in the West use far more than our fair share of resources. Therefore a fall in population in the UK is an especially good thing.
Actually perhaps I misunderstood you @Pomona . I agree that it is a myth to say things like "the UK is full" in order to discourage immigration. The UK could easily hold a lot more people.
But that is just moving people around. Whether the people are living in the UK or elsewhere they are still eating food and using energy. That means habitat destruction and CO2 emissions. We can ameliorate that by changing diet, cutting energy use and using renewables and nuclear - but that would not help if population continued to rise.
Water is a big issue. It shapes human population more than any other resource. Where water is abundant, people gather and thrive; where it is scarce or unpredictable, people move, struggle, even decline.
I think what we need to recognize as a society is that older people tend to be slower, less physically strong, and less capable than they were in their prime, but this is a long way away from being useless. We need a pattern of working that accommodates older people slowing down and doing less, whilst still being useful.
It should be obvious that this would involve people who are currently retiring instead doing less work for less money. Working people at the same high intensity until their bodies fail them is not a sustainable practice.
I would much rather live in a society that didn't require people to be "useful" in order to justify their existence. Paid employment tends to be organized one way or another into hierarchies, and hierarchies are inherently exploitative, even when well-intentioned people are at the top of them. I can't tell you how deeply grateful I am to have been able to retire early and not have most of my best time, effort and attention directed by someone else anymore.
* encourage more immigration (if migrants are available)
I can't help but think that when we say we want more immigration what is means is that we want countries in the Global South that haven't secured education for girls and women and therefore haven't seen their birth rates plummet, countries that have been massively exploited by the US, the UK, and Europe, should send their young adults to take care of us.
* work on health of elderly, try to increase proportion of their life over which they do not require intensive care
We'd have to start caring about people's health when they're in middle age to extend their healthspan. Lots of things would be involved (especially in the US, where we still don't have universal healthcare), but since I've been talking about work -- full-time work and the demands of family life in middle age make it difficult for a lot of people to get regular exercise, which is one of the major determinants of long-term health.
[I remember a West Wing episode (Season 5 episode 12) in which Toby tried and failed to get some bipartisan policy changes to address the long term unaffordability of social security costs in the US.
Social Security would be just fine if the maximum earnings threshold for the Social Security payroll tax were raised. This year it's $184,500; every dollar someone makes above that is not subject to this tax. Taxing company stock received as employment compensation like salaries and wages are taxed would be another thing.
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing.
I don't think this is true. Obviously the world population is massively higher than it was 100 years ago. And obviously this produces massive pressure on environmental resources.
The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
Unfair distribution certainly is a problem - i.e. people in the West use far more than our fair share of resources. Therefore a fall in population in the UK is an especially good thing.
A fall in population when we're facing a demographic cliff is not a good thing. Neither is a society that makes it difficult for people to have the children they want.
The biggest environmental pressures are caused by corporations, not individuals.
[I remember a West Wing episode (Season 5 episode 12) in which Toby tried and failed to get some bipartisan policy changes to address the long term unaffordability of social security costs in the US. By increasing the inequity in favour of the very rich and savaging the public services, Trump has made the lot of the poor even worse.]
[nerd moment] Actually he succeeds, but only by pretending that it was all done from the legislative branch with no White House involvement.
Of course the framing of the assumption of "unaffordability" tells you a lot about the prevailing neo-liberal consensus at the time obsessing over balanced budgets and never, ever, raising taxes.
I can't help but think that when we say we want more immigration what is means is that we want countries in the Global South that haven't secured education for girls and women and therefore haven't seen their birth rates plummet, countries that have been massively exploited by the US, the UK, and Europe, should send their young adults to take care of us.
Well yes I think that is a very fair comment. Although I would point out that birth rates are declining rapidly in the Global South too.
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing.
I don't think this is true. Obviously the world population is massively higher than it was 100 years ago. And obviously this produces massive pressure on environmental resources.
The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
Unfair distribution certainly is a problem - i.e. people in the West use far more than our fair share of resources. Therefore a fall in population in the UK is an especially good thing.
A fall in population when we're facing a demographic cliff is not a good thing.
A fall in population in the UK might not be a good thing for us. It is a good thing for everybody else.
Neither is a society that makes it difficult for people to have the children they want.
I will accept this. But I think it is a good thing for the world - a vital thing for the world - that people should choose to have fewer children on average than they used to.
The biggest environmental pressures are caused by corporations, not individuals.
Corporations only cause environmental pressures in order to make a profit from the demands of individuals. Big Oil wouldn't be nearly so polluting if it were only producing oil for one-tenth as many people in the world.
Very few people actually get to choose as freely as you're implying, at any stage of life in any location. Generally it's a choice between a bad thing and a somewhat less bad thing. I don't think I've ever met anybody who was able to freely choose the number of children they wanted--at least, every time we ended up in conversation about it, we'd come back to "I would rather have had x many, but..." and then the reasons why they did otherwise come pouring out. Money and time lead the list, but there are also problems like potential lack of medical support (genetic problems scaring them off), fears about their own ability to parent well (often due to being abuse survivors and very often unable to access mental health services), and inability to find a partner they trust with the joint effort of raising children.
But surely these were problems in the past too, and yet the birth rate was much higher. I think that suggests that in the past people were having children despite the fact that there was a lack of support, or confidence, or a trustworthy partner. Which is maybe a worse situation than the one we have now.
I think that suggests that in the past people were having children despite the fact that there was a lack of support, or confidence, or a trustworthy partner.
To a certain extent that's clearly true, but there's also the likelihood that lack of choice plays into it. People aren't going to stop having sex and even if pregnancy was a deterrent historical power imbalances and expectations meant that the person pushing for more sex was likely not the person who would have to bear and care for the resulting children.
I would agree with that and therefore suggest that the fact that people are now less likely to have children because of adverse circumstances is, while still difficult and distressing, a step forward rather than back.
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing. The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "overpopulation".
Very few people in developed countries are interested in reducing their consumption to the global average. The Global Footprint Network indicates that, as a planet, we are currently consuming resources at a rate approximately 1.8 times the rate at which the planet generates them. If everyone on the planet consumed like an American, that scale factor goes up to 5.
That's overconsumption. Whether you choose to view that as primarily a problem of too much consumption per capita, or primarily as a problem of too many capita, is a choice.
For me this is also part of my earlier comments wrt family-friendly policies being good for everyone - better access to childcare helps both parents but also takes pressure off grandparents being expected to provide childcare (or feeling like they ought to do so). Obviously many grandparents want to provide childcare, but having other childcare available makes it an actual choice rather than an obligation.
Children and older people are both some of the most vulnerable groups in society, and it makes sense to me that support for one group can benefit the other.
I missed this sorry but wanted to say that yes, this would be a very good idea. I am not against family-friendly policies, I agree that they would be beneficial for the whole of society - as long as the effect is not the re-start of population growth!
But overpopulation is a racist myth. It's just not a real thing. The problem is an unfair distribution of resources. A fall in population in the UK (as an example) isn't a good thing.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "overpopulation".
Very few people in developed countries are interested in reducing their consumption to the global average. The Global Footprint Network indicates that, as a planet, we are currently consuming resources at a rate approximately 1.8 times the rate at which the planet generates them. If everyone on the planet consumed like an American, that scale factor goes up to 5.
That's overconsumption. Whether you choose to view that as primarily a problem of too much consumption per capita, or primarily as a problem of too many capita, is a choice.
Clearly both! So we need population contraction AND economic contraction.
I argue for a sustainable equilibrium model which includes having fewer people, but higher productivity per person with a lower ecological footprint. Automation will help fill in labor gaps. It is possible to keep living standards stable, perhaps even raise them in many parts of the world.
The question is How do we redesign the economy so fewer people can live better lives without exhausting the planet?
Well I have the following futile thought - think about how much time and energy is spent, for example, playing and watching football, or obsessing over reality TV shows, or making and marketing luxury cat food. And what if a fraction of that could be diverted to social care...
Well I have the following futile thought - think about how much time and energy is spent, for example, playing and watching football, or obsessing over reality TV shows, or making and marketing luxury cat food. And what if a fraction of that could be diverted to social care...
You can end up being cast as Judas in that story about expensive perfume. It's a difficult balance.
"And as Jesus reclined at table, a woman came in, switched on Love Island and lo, began to discuss with the crowd which of the contestant were the most ripped. And Judas said - Why is this person wasting our limited time on earth with this trivia? And the Lord totally agreed with him..."
"And as Jesus reclined at table, a woman came in, switched on Love Island and lo, began to discuss with the crowd which of the contestant were the most ripped. And Judas said - Why is this person wasting our limited time on earth with this trivia? And the Lord totally agreed with him..."
You know what I mean. Reducing every question to whether it's a waste of energy and resources compared to another proposed use of that energy and resources.
Well I have the following futile thought - think about how much time and energy is spent, for example, playing and watching football, or obsessing over reality TV shows, or making and marketing luxury cat food. And what if a fraction of that could be diverted to social care...
But the funding for those things aren't coming from the same places. If you stopped people from playing or watching football, the money wouldn't then be diverted to social care.
Of course you are both right, which is why I called it a "futile thought". It's just annoying to think that there is no reason in principle why we could not support a growing elderly population - the potential workforce is there, it is just that our time, effort and resources are allocated to other, perhaps less important, things!
I've had a look at the British Newspaper archive, to see how Scotland's demographic "crisis" was reported in the 1990s. The Scotsman newspaper was describing it as the "much-publicised demographic timebomb" in 1990. The solution at that time seemed to be to increase the number of women in the workplace; with job-sharing, flexible working and increased childcare provision seen as necessary. Fascinatingly, there was also a suggestion that large companies might provide, not just creche facilities but also "day care centres for old people" so that middle-aged women who were not working due to care responsibilities for parents, might be able to drop their elderly relatives off and go to work.
A conference at Stirling University in 1999 reported that Scotland was being looked to as an international example as the demographic timebomb of an increasingly elderly population was hitting here before many other Western countries. Their solution was to encourage a range of initiatives to keep people fit and healthy into old age.
It is reckoned said one report that by 2050 the median age of the European population will have reached 42. It was 30 in 1980.
What actually happened? Why didn't the demographic crisis hit Scotland? Firstly, more women did re-enter the workforce. Secondly, Eastern European immigration boosted the workforce. Neither will help now. There is no large pool of at-home mothers (although I do know a few of my contemporaries who have retired earlier than they might to care for elderly parents). Brexit has reduced immigration from Eastern Europe, although immigration from further afield is ongoing.
The forecast that the median age in Europe would reach 42 by 2050 is interesting. We are currently at 43 in Scotland in 2026, with some countries well over that (2024 figures) ; Italy 48, Germany, Greece, Spain and Portugal 46, Austria and Switzerland 44. The U.K. as a whole has a median age of 40.
These articles are absolutely everywhere at the moment. Here's the most optimistic one I've been able to find, from the Economist. Note that India is now well below replacement rate. (Economist is paywalled but I think I get this as a "gift article"?)
The other day, I think it was on the PBS they interviewed Paul Salopek, a journalist for National Geographic. He is about mid way through a walk out of Eden. Just completed the trek through Eastern Asia. He talked about coming into rural villages in Korea and finding no one around. They have been abandoned. I tried to find the segment, but no luck.
The other day, I think it was on the PBS they interviewed Paul Salopek, a journalist for National Geographic. He is about mid way through a walk out of Eden. Just completed the trek through Eastern Asia. He talked about coming into rural villages in Korea and finding no one around. They have been abandoned. I tried to find the segment, but no luck.
And guess what is even better! This slowdown in birthrate is most pronounced in rich countries, where people consume disproportionately more resources! So from an environmental, planetary view the population will be reduced in exactly the best places!!
My point is - if I haven't made it clear - is that this is not a disaster, or bad news. Rather it is an astonishing benison that the people of the world should be going down on our knees for and thanking the Lord for an almost unbelievable deliverance.
Surely we should not be planning for population to grow indefinitely. I mean, maybe the Second Coming will occur but even so I do not think we are meant to pursue an unsustainable path.
In the long-term, a population that's declining indefinitely isn't any more sustainable than one that's growing indefinitely. But if the idea is to keep the population at a sustainable level, who gets to decide what that sustainable level is, and who gets to implement the policies that will bring it about?
These articles are absolutely everywhere at the moment. Here's the most optimistic one I've been able to find, from the Economist. Note that India is now well below replacement rate. (Economist is paywalled but I think I get this as a "gift article"?)
"Optimistic" isn't the word I'd use:
… In particular, India, and countries like it, will be forced to divert scarce public resources into things like pensions and old-age care sooner than expected. That makes it more important than ever to increase the tax take: far more people, especially women, should be brought into India's formal labour force, for example.
The source of falling fertility — girl's education, lower child mortality and the choices of individuals — are unambiguously good. But as India and others hurtle through their demographic transition, the consequences will not be pain-free.
Do you know if there any countries with a total fertility rate (TFR) that's below the replacement rate that are currently implementing policies for the long-term management of a declining population, other than by trying to manipulate the TFR?
NB The Economist's page on gifting articles suggests that posting a URL to a gifted article is only going to work for the first few people who click on it.
@pease I think it highly unlikely that the human population will decline to zero, if that's what you are implying. It will find its own equilibrium. And the great thing is that no-one needs to decide on the level. It looks like it will reach an equilibrium without anyone having to enforce it.
I realise that the Economist article is not super-optimistic - but every other article I've read, and there are lots of them, has been even more pessimistic. That's what is annoying me! It's as though they all think endless exponential growth is possible and desirable!
@pease I think it highly unlikely that the human population will decline to zero, if that's what you are implying. It will find its own equilibrium. And the great thing is that no-one needs to decide on the level. It looks like it will reach an equilibrium without anyone having to enforce it.
I'm not clear why you think that, because it doesn't look like it to me…
The trajectories I've seen don't show worldwide population levelling-off - they show it peaking, maybe as soon as the 2050's, and then declining. And whether this is soon enough to have a significant effect on climate change also seems to be rather debatable.
I realise that the Economist article is not super-optimistic - but every other article I've read, and there are lots of them, has been even more pessimistic. That's what is annoying me! It's as though they all think endless exponential growth is possible and desirable!
The message I'm getting isn't that endless growth is possible and desirable, it's that prevailing expressions of capitalism (including China's) are predicated on growth and, more than 50 years on from Schumacher's arguments, that most of us are more worried about what we have to lose by getting off the escalator.
Meanwhile, as has already been pointed out, the main short-term fix that seems to be being contemplated is immigration. But as the Economist article points out:
If most countries are set for low fertility, it will be harder for anyone to bank on imports of migrant labour to tackle their own worker shortages.
@pease I think it highly unlikely that the human population will decline to zero, if that's what you are implying. It will find its own equilibrium. And the great thing is that no-one needs to decide on the level. It looks like it will reach an equilibrium without anyone having to enforce it.
I'm not clear why you think that, because it doesn't look like it to me…
The trajectories I've seen don't show worldwide population levelling-off - they show it peaking, maybe as soon as the 2050's, and then declining.
You can level off from above as well as from below. I imagine the decline will persist for a few decades and then the population will become roughly steady. And in my opinion the decline is a good thing since a steady population of 11 billion or whatever is far too high. If it doesn't decline to zero - and it won't - then it will level off somewhere.
And whether this is soon enough to have a significant effect on climate change also seems to be rather debatable.
Better late than never. Now you want the decline to be steeper?
The message I'm getting isn't that endless growth is possible and desirable, it's that prevailing expressions of capitalism (including China's) are predicated on growth and, more than 50 years on from Schumacher's arguments, that most of us are more worried about what we have to lose by getting off the escalator.
Yes that's the problem. So we should get on with developing a working society that isn't predicated on growth. Really we should have been doing that long ago.
Meanwhile, as has already been pointed out, the main short-term fix that seems to be being contemplated is immigration. But as the Economist article points out:
If most countries are set for low fertility, it will be harder for anyone to bank on imports of migrant labour to tackle their own worker shortages.
@pease I think it highly unlikely that the human population will decline to zero, if that's what you are implying. It will find its own equilibrium. And the great thing is that no-one needs to decide on the level. It looks like it will reach an equilibrium without anyone having to enforce it.
I'm not clear why you think that, because it doesn't look like it to me…
The trajectories I've seen don't show worldwide population levelling-off - they show it peaking, maybe as soon as the 2050's, and then declining.
You can level off from above as well as from below. I imagine the decline will persist for a few decades and then the population will become roughly steady.
I'd still like to know why you think this will be the case.
And in my opinion the decline is a good thing since a steady population of 11 billion or whatever is far too high.
So what is an appropriate level? 1 billion, 2 billion, 5 billion? More? Less? What are the criteria and factors involved in deciding on a figure?
If it doesn't decline to zero - and it won't - then it will level off somewhere.
As above, I'd like to know why you think this will be the case.
And whether this is soon enough to have a significant effect on climate change also seems to be rather debatable.
Better late than never. Now you want the decline to be steeper?
No. I'm pointing out that the argument that it will have a significant effect on climate change is moot.
The message I'm getting isn't that endless growth is possible and desirable, it's that prevailing expressions of capitalism (including China's) are predicated on growth and, more than 50 years on from Schumacher's arguments, that most of us are more worried about what we have to lose by getting off the escalator.
Yes that's the problem. So we should get on with developing a working society that isn't predicated on growth. Really we should have been doing that long ago.
And yet we haven't. Maybe it's because the majority of us continue to be under the impression that it's not in our own personal interests to do so.
I think it is your forecast which is the more radical and therefore needs the justification. You appear to be saying "world population will keep declining to zero". I think extrapolating exponential trends indefinitely into the future is usually the wrong approach.
As for "what is an appropriate level" we do not need to decide this or do anything about it. We just wait and see.
And yet we haven't. Maybe it's because the majority of us continue to be under the impression that it's not in our own personal interests to do so.
Perhaps this summarises the distance between you - @TurquoiseTastic surmises that it indeed is in their personal best interest. Having read 'The Limits to Growth' it seems that way to me too. As for 'worker shortages' - 'AI' doing to white collar professions what automation did to blue over the last 40-50 years, seems possible right now. We might not be short of workers to fill the remaining available roles, even as population shrinks. Whether this can be made to work economically is very important, but (to me) a second-order problem compared to whether we have a habitable rock on which to live. I guess this means I am uplifted by TT's optimisim.
TurquoiseTastic, I didn't use the word "exponential" to describe population decline. But in the course of life on this planet, many species have experienced a decline in population to zero. This isn't a very radical observation. Hoping that a declining population reaches a stable level seems to be more about wish fulfillment (or maybe an article of faith).
Thanks mark_in_manchester. One reason for asking the questions is that the optimism looks to me to be both unfounded and misplaced.
It seems just as relevant to refer to The Limits to Growth (1972) as to Schumacher's Small is Beautiful (1973). From the introduction to The Limits to Growth:
Our conclusions are:
If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.
If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.
These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns, and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition – the transition from growth to global equilibrium.
Note that the growth trends are across a number of areas, including pollution and resource depletion. Population decline, on its own, is not going to bring about equilibrium. If anything, it seems to me likelier that population decline on its own, without a drastic adjustment to our economies, will make the situation, and the inequality, worse for an increasing proportion of the world's population.
As for the outcome for which we are striving, my point is that our words about changing the situation are belied by our actions - more precisely, our inaction. The vast majority of us (the people reading and posting on this thread) continue to live our lives as though our unsustainable consumption of resources somehow continues to be in our own interests.
I don't see the economy as being a second-order problem. In the case of AI, we might not know how it is going to affect the human jobs market in the longer-term, but we can already see how it is contributing to pollution and resource depletion, and thus how it is affecting planetary habitability.
@TurquoiseTastic I would also like an answer as to what you suggest for a massive increase in people with dementia due to people living long enough for dementia to be their primary illness, but with far fewer people available to care for them. If someone is otherwise healthy but has advanced dementia they can live for a long time but need a lot of intensive, specialised caregiving.
TurquoiseTastic, I didn't use the word "exponential" to describe population decline. But in the course of life on this planet, many species have experienced a decline in population to zero. This isn't a very radical observation. Hoping that a declining population reaches a stable level seems to be more about wish fulfillment (or maybe an article of faith).
Thanks mark_in_manchester. One reason for asking the questions is that the optimism looks to me to be both unfounded and misplaced.
It seems just as relevant to refer to The Limits to Growth (1972) as to Schumacher's Small is Beautiful (1973). From the introduction to The Limits to Growth:
Our conclusions are:
If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.
If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.
These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns, and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition – the transition from growth to global equilibrium.
Note that the growth trends are across a number of areas, including pollution and resource depletion. Population decline, on its own, is not going to bring about equilibrium. If anything, it seems to me likelier that population decline on its own, without a drastic adjustment to our economies, will make the situation, and the inequality, worse for an increasing proportion of the world's population.
I entirely agree that we need to drastically change our economies so that we have zero or negative growth. I totally disagree that population decline will make things worse. It is a great start and will help a lot. "Limits to Growth" is very much to the point:
* It is possible... to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability
* The sooner they begin working... the greater will be their chances of success.
I don't see the economy as being a second-order problem. In the case of AI, we might not know how it is going to affect the human jobs market in the longer-term, but we can already see how it is contributing to pollution and resource depletion, and thus how it is affecting planetary habitability.
Aargh! Yes, the expansion of the economy is a first-order problem! But people are talking as though the contraction of the economy is a first-order problem! No, the contraction of the economy is a second-order problem. You must see this!
@TurquoiseTastic I would also like an answer as to what you suggest for a massive increase in people with dementia due to people living long enough for dementia to be their primary illness, but with far fewer people available to care for them. If someone is otherwise healthy but has advanced dementia they can live for a long time but need a lot of intensive, specialised caregiving.
Yes, the only non-terrible answer to this will be for the non-elderly population to devote a larger proportion of available time and effort into dementia care than is happening currently. As @pease says we need a "drastic adjustment to our economies" (and societies too, I imagine).
@TurquoiseTastic I would also like an answer as to what you suggest for a massive increase in people with dementia due to people living long enough for dementia to be their primary illness, but with far fewer people available to care for them. If someone is otherwise healthy but has advanced dementia they can live for a long time but need a lot of intensive, specialised caregiving.
Yes, the only non-terrible answer to this will be for the non-elderly population to devote a larger proportion of available time and effort into dementia care than is happening currently. As @pease says we need a "drastic adjustment to our economies" (and societies too, I imagine).
But my point is that one way or another we will have to cope with this anyway. Increasing birth-rate is not a solution.
But in the course of life on this planet, many species have experienced a decline in population to zero.
This seems kind of irrelevant to me, given that none of them were terribly conscious of their growth or decline, never mind capable of counting their numbers, doing math, or theorizing about the long-term prospects for their species.
@TurquoiseTastic I would also like an answer as to what you suggest for a massive increase in people with dementia due to people living long enough for dementia to be their primary illness, but with far fewer people available to care for them. If someone is otherwise healthy but has advanced dementia they can live for a long time but need a lot of intensive, specialised caregiving.
Yes, the only non-terrible answer to this will be for the non-elderly population to devote a larger proportion of available time and effort into dementia care than is happening currently. As @pease says we need a "drastic adjustment to our economies" (and societies too, I imagine).
But my point is that one way or another we will have to cope with this anyway. Increasing birth-rate is not a solution.
But it's partially a problem of numbers - a shrinking population just literally has fewer people to work in dementia care. It's also not the kind of work that you want to fill with people who are there because they have no other choice, eg due to benefits sanctions. I should clarify that I oppose benefits sanctions anyway, but using the concept as an example of the kind of thing people say when presented with the problem of necessary jobs going unfilled. It's a problem that needs a multi-pronged approach, but one of those prongs is having the workforce available to work in the field. It's also, for obvious reasons, not a field that can be automated or use AI to replace human workers.
I think the reasons for people having fewer children or no children are complex, and vary from country to country. For example, single motherhood and being a mother working outside the home are both culturally frowned upon in Japan so that leaves fewer options for women there. Those things are still bad even if you think that a low birth rate is good. Likewise, people in the UK holding off on having children because they can't afford to stop living with their parents as adults is not a good thing.
I think that the kind of "ends justify the means" rhetoric in your argument is rather insensitive to the very harmful societal problems causing many people to opt out of having/delay/have fewer children (I realise that this likely isn't intentional). People who feel able to not have kids or only have one child due to education etc is a good thing that I am all in favour of. But often people are not having children due to socially harmful reasons such as eg workplace misogyny towards pregnant women/mothers or high housing costs. I think if you (general you) fixed those issues, the change in birth rates would be far less dramatic.
Way I see it we are going to soon either start changing how--as a society--see those who are not young, not able in every way, and not typical or we are going to go full fascist (and soon) and start murdering us/them. If everyone who has support needs they can't hide dies, I guess that resolves the problem, albeit in a horrific way. Otherwise, if the pendulum goes the other way, more people will wantto help care for people either because they are people and thus deserve help from fellow humans or because society remembers that those who need support have a lot to contribute.
It's also, for obvious reasons, not a field that can be automated or use AI to replace human workers.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get to a situation where a human care worker is paired with a robot rather than another human for tasks that currently require two.
If AI puts as many office workers out of a job as manufacturing automation did in that sector - there will be a lot of people looking for work which care professions might tap into. It's not hard to imagine - there was a recent time around here when die sinkers, foundry moulders, turners, millers, pattern makers etc etc etc etc were not arcane terms of history but described how Joe Blogs paid the mortgage/rent. All utterly gone within living memory, and unthinkable at the time. If the same happens due to AI, we'll need to shift again (trying to avoid the fate of mining communities whose whole economy disappeared in one hit, and who have spent 30-40 years getting over it).
But in all this - fewer mouths to feed is good.
The vast majority of us (the people reading and posting on this thread) continue to live our lives as though our unsustainable consumption of resources somehow continues to be in our own interests.
(@pease I think)
I never believed that (I am 55) though quite a few of my eco-compatriots in my cohort have slid off the wagon into middle-class consumption. My kids seem pretty hot on it, and freaked out, and perhaps therefore less likely to have children...
It's also, for obvious reasons, not a field that can be automated or use AI to replace human workers.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get to a situation where a human care worker is paired with a robot rather than another human for tasks that currently require two.
Yup. Right now we can't automate care or use AI, but sooner or later we will. Here's an interview with someone working on in-home robotics who envisions there being single-activity robots (to help someone off the toilet, e.g.) within 5-10 years and general-purpose robots in 20-25 years.
Comments
A hideous plague that wiped out humanity would be even better news for the climate, but I’m pretty sure people would still consider it a bad thing.
Oh Marvin. This is just being awkward for the sake of it. Yes of course we could lower our population and ecological footprint by killing loads of people. But isn't it fortunate that there is an alternative that avoids this? (Clue: "YES").
Unfair distribution certainly is a problem - i.e. people in the West use far more than our fair share of resources. Therefore a fall in population in the UK is an especially good thing.
But that is just moving people around. Whether the people are living in the UK or elsewhere they are still eating food and using energy. That means habitat destruction and CO2 emissions. We can ameliorate that by changing diet, cutting energy use and using renewables and nuclear - but that would not help if population continued to rise.
I can't help but think that when we say we want more immigration what is means is that we want countries in the Global South that haven't secured education for girls and women and therefore haven't seen their birth rates plummet, countries that have been massively exploited by the US, the UK, and Europe, should send their young adults to take care of us.
We'd have to start caring about people's health when they're in middle age to extend their healthspan. Lots of things would be involved (especially in the US, where we still don't have universal healthcare), but since I've been talking about work -- full-time work and the demands of family life in middle age make it difficult for a lot of people to get regular exercise, which is one of the major determinants of long-term health.
Social Security would be just fine if the maximum earnings threshold for the Social Security payroll tax were raised. This year it's $184,500; every dollar someone makes above that is not subject to this tax. Taxing company stock received as employment compensation like salaries and wages are taxed would be another thing.
A fall in population when we're facing a demographic cliff is not a good thing. Neither is a society that makes it difficult for people to have the children they want.
The biggest environmental pressures are caused by corporations, not individuals.
[nerd moment] Actually he succeeds, but only by pretending that it was all done from the legislative branch with no White House involvement.
Of course the framing of the assumption of "unaffordability" tells you a lot about the prevailing neo-liberal consensus at the time obsessing over balanced budgets and never, ever, raising taxes.
Well yes I think that is a very fair comment. Although I would point out that birth rates are declining rapidly in the Global South too.
A fall in population in the UK might not be a good thing for us. It is a good thing for everybody else.
I will accept this. But I think it is a good thing for the world - a vital thing for the world - that people should choose to have fewer children on average than they used to.
Corporations only cause environmental pressures in order to make a profit from the demands of individuals. Big Oil wouldn't be nearly so polluting if it were only producing oil for one-tenth as many people in the world.
To a certain extent that's clearly true, but there's also the likelihood that lack of choice plays into it. People aren't going to stop having sex and even if pregnancy was a deterrent historical power imbalances and expectations meant that the person pushing for more sex was likely not the person who would have to bear and care for the resulting children.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "overpopulation".
Very few people in developed countries are interested in reducing their consumption to the global average. The Global Footprint Network indicates that, as a planet, we are currently consuming resources at a rate approximately 1.8 times the rate at which the planet generates them. If everyone on the planet consumed like an American, that scale factor goes up to 5.
That's overconsumption. Whether you choose to view that as primarily a problem of too much consumption per capita, or primarily as a problem of too many capita, is a choice.
I missed this sorry but wanted to say that yes, this would be a very good idea. I am not against family-friendly policies, I agree that they would be beneficial for the whole of society - as long as the effect is not the re-start of population growth!
Clearly both! So we need population contraction AND economic contraction.
The question is How do we redesign the economy so fewer people can live better lives without exhausting the planet?
You can end up being cast as Judas in that story about expensive perfume. It's a difficult balance.
And think about the poor cats!
You know what I mean. Reducing every question to whether it's a waste of energy and resources compared to another proposed use of that energy and resources.
But the funding for those things aren't coming from the same places. If you stopped people from playing or watching football, the money wouldn't then be diverted to social care.
A conference at Stirling University in 1999 reported that Scotland was being looked to as an international example as the demographic timebomb of an increasingly elderly population was hitting here before many other Western countries. Their solution was to encourage a range of initiatives to keep people fit and healthy into old age.
It is reckoned said one report that by 2050 the median age of the European population will have reached 42. It was 30 in 1980.
What actually happened? Why didn't the demographic crisis hit Scotland? Firstly, more women did re-enter the workforce. Secondly, Eastern European immigration boosted the workforce. Neither will help now. There is no large pool of at-home mothers (although I do know a few of my contemporaries who have retired earlier than they might to care for elderly parents). Brexit has reduced immigration from Eastern Europe, although immigration from further afield is ongoing.
The forecast that the median age in Europe would reach 42 by 2050 is interesting. We are currently at 43 in Scotland in 2026, with some countries well over that (2024 figures) ; Italy 48, Germany, Greece, Spain and Portugal 46, Austria and Switzerland 44. The U.K. as a whole has a median age of 40.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/06/04/indias-surprise-baby-bust-is-a-warning-to-the-world?giftId=ZjNkMjAwMmItM2ViZi00Nzc5LTg3MjYtNDFkMGMyZTFjNTQ2&utm_campaign=gifted_article
The other day, I think it was on the PBS they interviewed Paul Salopek, a journalist for National Geographic. He is about mid way through a walk out of Eden. Just completed the trek through Eastern Asia. He talked about coming into rural villages in Korea and finding no one around. They have been abandoned. I tried to find the segment, but no luck.
Found the video: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/national-geographic-explorer-paul-salopek-on-his-trek-around-the-globe-on-foot
"Optimistic" isn't the word I'd use: Do you know if there any countries with a total fertility rate (TFR) that's below the replacement rate that are currently implementing policies for the long-term management of a declining population, other than by trying to manipulate the TFR?
NB The Economist's page on gifting articles suggests that posting a URL to a gifted article is only going to work for the first few people who click on it.
I realise that the Economist article is not super-optimistic - but every other article I've read, and there are lots of them, has been even more pessimistic. That's what is annoying me! It's as though they all think endless exponential growth is possible and desirable!
The trajectories I've seen don't show worldwide population levelling-off - they show it peaking, maybe as soon as the 2050's, and then declining. And whether this is soon enough to have a significant effect on climate change also seems to be rather debatable.
The message I'm getting isn't that endless growth is possible and desirable, it's that prevailing expressions of capitalism (including China's) are predicated on growth and, more than 50 years on from Schumacher's arguments, that most of us are more worried about what we have to lose by getting off the escalator.
Meanwhile, as has already been pointed out, the main short-term fix that seems to be being contemplated is immigration. But as the Economist article points out:
Better late than never. Now you want the decline to be steeper?
Yes that's the problem. So we should get on with developing a working society that isn't predicated on growth. Really we should have been doing that long ago.
No argument there - totally agree.
So what is an appropriate level? 1 billion, 2 billion, 5 billion? More? Less? What are the criteria and factors involved in deciding on a figure?
As above, I'd like to know why you think this will be the case.
No. I'm pointing out that the argument that it will have a significant effect on climate change is moot.
And yet we haven't. Maybe it's because the majority of us continue to be under the impression that it's not in our own personal interests to do so.
As for "what is an appropriate level" we do not need to decide this or do anything about it. We just wait and see.
Perhaps this summarises the distance between you - @TurquoiseTastic surmises that it indeed is in their personal best interest. Having read 'The Limits to Growth' it seems that way to me too. As for 'worker shortages' - 'AI' doing to white collar professions what automation did to blue over the last 40-50 years, seems possible right now. We might not be short of workers to fill the remaining available roles, even as population shrinks. Whether this can be made to work economically is very important, but (to me) a second-order problem compared to whether we have a habitable rock on which to live. I guess this means I am uplifted by TT's optimisim.
Thanks mark_in_manchester. One reason for asking the questions is that the optimism looks to me to be both unfounded and misplaced.
It seems just as relevant to refer to The Limits to Growth (1972) as to Schumacher's Small is Beautiful (1973). From the introduction to The Limits to Growth: Note that the growth trends are across a number of areas, including pollution and resource depletion. Population decline, on its own, is not going to bring about equilibrium. If anything, it seems to me likelier that population decline on its own, without a drastic adjustment to our economies, will make the situation, and the inequality, worse for an increasing proportion of the world's population.
As for the outcome for which we are striving, my point is that our words about changing the situation are belied by our actions - more precisely, our inaction. The vast majority of us (the people reading and posting on this thread) continue to live our lives as though our unsustainable consumption of resources somehow continues to be in our own interests.
I don't see the economy as being a second-order problem. In the case of AI, we might not know how it is going to affect the human jobs market in the longer-term, but we can already see how it is contributing to pollution and resource depletion, and thus how it is affecting planetary habitability.
I entirely agree that we need to drastically change our economies so that we have zero or negative growth. I totally disagree that population decline will make things worse. It is a great start and will help a lot. "Limits to Growth" is very much to the point:
* It is possible... to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability
* The sooner they begin working... the greater will be their chances of success.
Aargh! Yes, the expansion of the economy is a first-order problem! But people are talking as though the contraction of the economy is a first-order problem! No, the contraction of the economy is a second-order problem. You must see this!
Yes, the only non-terrible answer to this will be for the non-elderly population to devote a larger proportion of available time and effort into dementia care than is happening currently. As @pease says we need a "drastic adjustment to our economies" (and societies too, I imagine).
But my point is that one way or another we will have to cope with this anyway. Increasing birth-rate is not a solution.
This seems kind of irrelevant to me, given that none of them were terribly conscious of their growth or decline, never mind capable of counting their numbers, doing math, or theorizing about the long-term prospects for their species.
But it's partially a problem of numbers - a shrinking population just literally has fewer people to work in dementia care. It's also not the kind of work that you want to fill with people who are there because they have no other choice, eg due to benefits sanctions. I should clarify that I oppose benefits sanctions anyway, but using the concept as an example of the kind of thing people say when presented with the problem of necessary jobs going unfilled. It's a problem that needs a multi-pronged approach, but one of those prongs is having the workforce available to work in the field. It's also, for obvious reasons, not a field that can be automated or use AI to replace human workers.
I think the reasons for people having fewer children or no children are complex, and vary from country to country. For example, single motherhood and being a mother working outside the home are both culturally frowned upon in Japan so that leaves fewer options for women there. Those things are still bad even if you think that a low birth rate is good. Likewise, people in the UK holding off on having children because they can't afford to stop living with their parents as adults is not a good thing.
I think that the kind of "ends justify the means" rhetoric in your argument is rather insensitive to the very harmful societal problems causing many people to opt out of having/delay/have fewer children (I realise that this likely isn't intentional). People who feel able to not have kids or only have one child due to education etc is a good thing that I am all in favour of. But often people are not having children due to socially harmful reasons such as eg workplace misogyny towards pregnant women/mothers or high housing costs. I think if you (general you) fixed those issues, the change in birth rates would be far less dramatic.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get to a situation where a human care worker is paired with a robot rather than another human for tasks that currently require two.
But in all this - fewer mouths to feed is good.
(@pease I think)
I never believed that (I am 55) though quite a few of my eco-compatriots in my cohort have slid off the wagon into middle-class consumption. My kids seem pretty hot on it, and freaked out, and perhaps therefore less likely to have children...
Yup. Right now we can't automate care or use AI, but sooner or later we will. Here's an interview with someone working on in-home robotics who envisions there being single-activity robots (to help someone off the toilet, e.g.) within 5-10 years and general-purpose robots in 20-25 years.