Not Enough Of Us
"The global birth rate peaked around 1990 and has since declined."
“Population Explosion” screams the headlines. “Too many people are overburdening the planet, and we are heading for disaster.” That’s the dominant narrative: environmentalists, politicians, and every Johnny with a cause spout this line. According to the United Nations, as of 31 October 2011, the planet was home to 7 billion people. That’s up from 1.6 billion in 1900. We need to get a grip on this and sort it out.
Poverty, pollution, instability and wars are all blamed on overpopulation. The ‘save the planet’ crowd, allied with the ‘global warming pundits’, are the most vocal. Brandishing their data on PowerPoint slides, they make a grand living jetting about, telling us how to lead our lives. The problem is these folks are wrong about population growth. Here’s why.
Throughout most of recorded history, and as far as we can tell, the human population growth rate per year was less than one per cent. I understand the data is unreliable the further back we go, but that isn't a major concern. It's the modern trends we need to focus on.
After World War I, fertility rates—how many children each woman had—rose, and population growth rates increased to about four per cent by 1970. Only the Great Chinese Famine and World War II caused temporary declines. It is important to recognise that a 2% annual population increase compounds over time, doubling roughly every 35 years.
The growth we’ve seen over the past 100-odd years has been rapid and unprecedented. Moreover, if you haven't noticed, it has now come to a halt. The data is precise. The global birth rate peaked around 1990 and has since declined.
Please wait a minute, I hear you cry! Why is the world's population still growing when birth rates are declining? The answer is simple. It is not births that drive the ongoing growth, but the decline in deaths. People are living longer. Meanwhile, children are surviving childbirth and the vulnerable infant years. All these factors together keep the population rising, at least for now.
Forecasters observe counterintuitive factors that influence how the figures may change. For example, birth rates tend to be higher when child death rates are higher. This applies to both wealthy and developing countries. Additionally, wars, famine, and epidemics can lead to increased population growth over the longer term. This phenomenon helps to ensure the species' survival. Therefore, if we can prevent and avoid disasters, we contribute to stabilising the number of children born. That’s already happening.
Anti-malaria campaigns have prevented an estimated 6.5 million deaths, many of whom are children. When fewer children die, parents feel less pressure to have more children. Today, 100 countries have eliminated malaria. Consequently, this has led to a decrease in fertility rates. It’s as if that anti-malaria net you sponsored acts as a secondary birth control device. Don’t tell the Catholic Church.
To sustain a population, each woman needs to have 2.1 children. That’s assuming no flu epidemic or war occurs to wipe out millions. Once again, due to compounding, even small changes in fertility or mortality rates cause significant fluctuations in population numbers.
Forecasting is a complex process because it involves a degree of subjectivity and requires making certain assumptions. External factors also influence the outcomes. Singapore, as a newly independent nation in the 1970s, sought to understand and plan for its projected population growth.
Demographers aimed to predict 80,000 births a year by 2000, but the actual figure was 38,000. Policymakers struggled to recognise that the models used to forecast future numbers are weak at best and misleading at worst. No one realised that as society prospered, fertility rates declined. That’s now obvious.
There is some data we can rely on, which suggests likely trends rather than being entirely confident. In 1960, the average number of children per woman worldwide was five. Today, that has fallen to 2.5 children per woman, and the trend line continues downward.
While some nations have experienced increases in fertility rates, this is mainly due to young migrants having children. These changes are not intrinsic to the country and are not sustained.
Scientists agree that the population growth has slowed in both wealthy and developing countries. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the population will either stabilise or decrease.
Already, we see the signs. Major urban centres such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Rostock, and Detroit are experiencing depopulation. These cities relied on migration to sustain their populations. As this declines, the city's vitality drains away. We can expect more of this if fertility rates continue to fall.
We can identify factors that contribute to the decline in fertility. Female empowerment through the pill, improved education, economic factors, and culture all play a role.
The consequence of having fewer people is a double-edged sword. Some view this pessimistically, but there is also an optimistic perspective. It should, in theory, ease the pressure on the planet's resources, provided we don’t increase our consumption.
However, many of our current economic models rely on population growth and increased consumption. This will need to be reconsidered. Additionally, it is not just a matter of fewer people, but also more people living longer.
The affluent Western countries, currently moving towards restricting migration, might need to reconsider. With declining populations, who will do the low-skilled jobs and care for the elderly? Who will run the hospitals? Something to think about.
As I’ve shown, forecasting is a complex and difficult task. The most reliable data indicates that by 2100, the world's population could reach around 10 billion. After that, a decline might begin, although the extent of this decline remains uncertain. Nonetheless, with low birth rates, the population could decrease to 6.2 billion and keep falling.
Of course, we could be completely wrong. All those ladies pushing dogs around in prams may suddenly change their minds and get a boyfriend. Then all bets are off. Yet, my hunch is that dog pram makers have an excellent future.
December 2018
Poverty, pollution, instability and wars are all blamed on overpopulation. The ‘save the planet’ crowd, allied with the ‘global warming pundits’, are the most vocal. Brandishing their data on PowerPoint slides, they make a grand living jetting about, telling us how to lead our lives. The problem is these folks are wrong about population growth. Here’s why.
Throughout most of recorded history, and as far as we can tell, the human population growth rate per year was less than one per cent. I understand the data is unreliable the further back we go, but that isn't a major concern. It's the modern trends we need to focus on.
After World War I, fertility rates—how many children each woman had—rose, and population growth rates increased to about four per cent by 1970. Only the Great Chinese Famine and World War II caused temporary declines. It is important to recognise that a 2% annual population increase compounds over time, doubling roughly every 35 years.
The growth we’ve seen over the past 100-odd years has been rapid and unprecedented. Moreover, if you haven't noticed, it has now come to a halt. The data is precise. The global birth rate peaked around 1990 and has since declined.
Please wait a minute, I hear you cry! Why is the world's population still growing when birth rates are declining? The answer is simple. It is not births that drive the ongoing growth, but the decline in deaths. People are living longer. Meanwhile, children are surviving childbirth and the vulnerable infant years. All these factors together keep the population rising, at least for now.
Forecasters observe counterintuitive factors that influence how the figures may change. For example, birth rates tend to be higher when child death rates are higher. This applies to both wealthy and developing countries. Additionally, wars, famine, and epidemics can lead to increased population growth over the longer term. This phenomenon helps to ensure the species' survival. Therefore, if we can prevent and avoid disasters, we contribute to stabilising the number of children born. That’s already happening.
Anti-malaria campaigns have prevented an estimated 6.5 million deaths, many of whom are children. When fewer children die, parents feel less pressure to have more children. Today, 100 countries have eliminated malaria. Consequently, this has led to a decrease in fertility rates. It’s as if that anti-malaria net you sponsored acts as a secondary birth control device. Don’t tell the Catholic Church.
To sustain a population, each woman needs to have 2.1 children. That’s assuming no flu epidemic or war occurs to wipe out millions. Once again, due to compounding, even small changes in fertility or mortality rates cause significant fluctuations in population numbers.
Forecasting is a complex process because it involves a degree of subjectivity and requires making certain assumptions. External factors also influence the outcomes. Singapore, as a newly independent nation in the 1970s, sought to understand and plan for its projected population growth.
Demographers aimed to predict 80,000 births a year by 2000, but the actual figure was 38,000. Policymakers struggled to recognise that the models used to forecast future numbers are weak at best and misleading at worst. No one realised that as society prospered, fertility rates declined. That’s now obvious.
There is some data we can rely on, which suggests likely trends rather than being entirely confident. In 1960, the average number of children per woman worldwide was five. Today, that has fallen to 2.5 children per woman, and the trend line continues downward.
While some nations have experienced increases in fertility rates, this is mainly due to young migrants having children. These changes are not intrinsic to the country and are not sustained.
Scientists agree that the population growth has slowed in both wealthy and developing countries. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the population will either stabilise or decrease.
Already, we see the signs. Major urban centres such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Rostock, and Detroit are experiencing depopulation. These cities relied on migration to sustain their populations. As this declines, the city's vitality drains away. We can expect more of this if fertility rates continue to fall.
We can identify factors that contribute to the decline in fertility. Female empowerment through the pill, improved education, economic factors, and culture all play a role.
The consequence of having fewer people is a double-edged sword. Some view this pessimistically, but there is also an optimistic perspective. It should, in theory, ease the pressure on the planet's resources, provided we don’t increase our consumption.
However, many of our current economic models rely on population growth and increased consumption. This will need to be reconsidered. Additionally, it is not just a matter of fewer people, but also more people living longer.
The affluent Western countries, currently moving towards restricting migration, might need to reconsider. With declining populations, who will do the low-skilled jobs and care for the elderly? Who will run the hospitals? Something to think about.
As I’ve shown, forecasting is a complex and difficult task. The most reliable data indicates that by 2100, the world's population could reach around 10 billion. After that, a decline might begin, although the extent of this decline remains uncertain. Nonetheless, with low birth rates, the population could decrease to 6.2 billion and keep falling.
Of course, we could be completely wrong. All those ladies pushing dogs around in prams may suddenly change their minds and get a boyfriend. Then all bets are off. Yet, my hunch is that dog pram makers have an excellent future.
December 2018
Copyright © 2015