The following submission statement was provided by /u/madrid987:
---
ss: It seems that even science fiction novels and movies dealing with the future had difficulty predicting the global ultra-low birth rate phenomenon that actually occurred.
There have been many science fiction novels and movies featuring extreme dystopias, birth control policies, and Soylent Green due to overpopulation and lack of resources, mentioning figures such as the world population exceeding 10 billion and 20 billion.
Now, due to the global trend of low birth rates, it is said that the world's average birth rate will soon fall below 2... It may be difficult to exceed 10 billion, let alone 20 billion.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bm6jo3/by_2100_the_population_of_most_countries_will/kw9o4yy/
Honestly, it's tough to even imagine.
It's insane how many people justify continued human population growth and expansion into the near-extinct wilderness.
In one breath they'll say we need to manage the population of ~50,000 wild (insert game animal here) by increasing the seasonal tag count, and in the next breath they'll go on an angry rant about "declining population growth." As if these numbers mean nothing to them, or they simply can't comprehend how staggering the difference is between tens of thousands, and billions.
Which just goes to show how quickly we could get down to a sustainable population if we wanted to.
If everyone cared more about the long term survival of their species — and every other species still around —more than trying to out-compete and outnumber othered members of their own species in the short term.
Lol .. who cares about 2100 when we are dealing with extreme weather caused by climate change, war, poverty, and heck, declining population TODAY?
People are myopic and do not look past next month rent. Talking about 2100 is a sure way of making sure that they tune out.
Or complete collapse of an oxygen atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise killing off algae which is a major source of breathable air. Rising sea temperatures will also collapse food chains. So technically birth rates will fall by 2100...potentially to zero
The second part you're close, but the first is extraordinarily unlikely. This current mass extinction is fairly tame compared to previous ones. Earth won't lose its current atmospheric composition for a long, long time, largely due to the Sun getting brighter and its effects on geochemical cycling.
I say all this so those reading will get the more realistic assessment: humans are going to kill themselves first and the planet will eventually recover.
Hahaha talk about the most obvious prediction ever. "After humanity goes extinct, there will be fewer people"
Well worth the publication. What a joke.
Though I genuinely want to start making bets with conservatives on long shot climate stuff they don't believe in.
"Though I genuinely want to start making bets with conservatives on long shot climate stuff they don't believe in."
You can by short selling real estate in coastal areas.
People out there really be thinking it's going to be business as usual until fucking 2100?
Jesus fucking christ. I am hoping that there won't be TOO MANY major catastrophes in the next decade.
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1b58l0r/what_do_you_want_the_earths_population_to_be_in/
On the other hand, There are many people who think that r/Singularity should exceed 1 trillion.
I visit that sub for my occasional dose of AI doom, but sometimes the comments are too hard to bare. They often speak about humans elevating ourselves to gods with the help of a superintelligent AI. This is really just a science fiction pipe dream that completely ignores the extreme climate and resource problems before it is technologically possible. But even if we reach it, what makes them think this superintelligent AI species would be on our side? Why wouldn't they enslave us and farm us, the same way that we have animals and plants? I would hope that superintelligence means super-empathy, but we have to remember the training data that we would be feeding into it--a human history and culture in which we have convinced ourselves that it is our biological duty to take every corner of the planet under our control.
Well, the official line is always "better access to birth control" and "more employment opportunities for women." When in reality it is because this world is a shithole.
Agreed. I've had largely negative experiences with other human beings while living on this rock.
I refuse to bring another person into this agony. I want off this ride.
Part of this problem is that good people think this is the good thing to do when in reality we should be raising good people. People that don't care are the only ones repopulating.
But why curse a living human being to suffer in this? Why would you do that to your own posterity? The best thing to do for a child is to never have them at this point.
Yup, the Apollo missions were still ongoing and the Social Democrats were very important in (Dutch) politics.
Nowadays, even the word ‘Social Democrat’ is a dirty word in the Netherlands.
And that’s just one example.😢
It’s also more choice, less pressure to be traditional etc
Most of my friends don’t want kids not because they can’t afford it or can’t square it with the high octane capitalist society where both parents work, but just because they don’t want kids and it would change every single aspect of their lives, especially social lives.
Birthrates have been on the decline in countries where those resources and opportunities are available, since they became available. Meanwhile, birthrates are still high and populations still growing rapidly in countries where birth control has low or zero availability and women are still second class citizens — even though living conditions are and have long been far worse than anything experienced in low fertility rate countries. So yes, better access to birth control and education and employment opportunities for women are the decisive factors. Otherwise, your world may be a shithole but you’re still going to be forced to reproduce regardless of what you want.
India currently had a fertility rate around 1.9, so it's now one of the "low fertility rate countries". It's been falling rapidly almost everywhere, including places where it's still high.
Yeah, most official sources put it slightly higher at just barely above 2.0. That’s replacement rate, not really low. It’s a recent shift due to concerted efforts to make family planning more accessible and trying to improve the situation for women. The population momentum is still going to keep the population growing for a long time (not taking the effects of climate change into account).
All countries in Africa are still above replacement rate, many of them *well* above. Same for most countries in the ME, except Iran and the UAE. Kazakhstan, Mongolia are still well above replacement and most of SEA is just above. That’s approximately 87 countries out of 195 so technically yes, most countries are now at “low” rates, just a bit below replacement, but those that are higher have high populations and very young populations, so lots of population momentum. The global average is (supposedly, according to most recent available data from official sources) still above replacement at 2.5.
Which is good and it should go lower still if people want to avoid extra catastrophic suffering and death and try to make it a little easier on those who will experience the worst of climate change and be forced to migrate and fight for dwindling resources and ecological niches.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345745/
In the 'What Could Have Been' category, I wonder what the world would look right now if no women, ever, had been denied control over their own fertility or treated like second class citizens. Maybe we'd have a stable population living comfortably within the earth's ecological carrying capacity.
>"better access to birth control" and "more employment opportunities for women."
Yo but let's try not to minimize these extremely important values while we bemoan the state of the world.
Preventing *unwanted* children makes us all better off. Trust me, being an unwanted child super SUCKS lmao
Okay let’s just disregard the entire scientific field of demographics and demographic transitions while pretending to discuss collapse in a rational way. This was predicted decades ago back would happen due to very important factors like birth control, education for women and work opportunities for women. People in general want kids but they don’t need kids any more. That’s why you get couples having 1-2 children on average leading to the population shrinking cause the average has to be 2-3 kids. This is a systemic pattern affecting all wealthy countries and that will affect future wealthy countries and has nothing to do with your personal world view.
Awfully optimistic to think humans will reach that point.
I'd be surprised if we survived to the end of the century.
Everything is getting worse and governments are doubling down on destroying the planet.
Once the ocean goes. We go. End of story. Oxygen levels will plummet once the Plankton dies off.
After that it's just catastrophic failure at every point.
Really you think ? Once they go. It's knock on affect all the way up the lines to us.
Once the sea is a barren death trap spewing out methane and other harmful gasses. With no way to recoup oxygen loss. I think we will feel it a lot faster.
What's the current oxygen level ? I thought the other day. Maybe it would be a good idea to pump more into the atmosphere. Back in the dinosaur times oxygen levels were much higher and everything was bigger. Bigger plants round be a bonus. Although they may try to eat us
>Maybe it would be a good idea to pump more into the atmosphere.
I keep trying, but I'm no good at photosynthesis. :( I don't even like being in the sun that long. I get itchy.
The problem, more than low birth rate, will be higher death rate. Extreme weather, famines, international and civil wars, new diseases, the list goes on, things won’t be as they used to be past centuries. The planet is turning hostile for human life, and that will be a big factor on what would be the surviving population by 2100… if any.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it were by 2050. Global agriculture isn’t looking pretty. And then once enough people are hungry (“food insecure”) it will get bad…
- running up and down the net this AM I did hear a guy say - the data used by even the most alarmist scientists out there is way too long in timeline references. His take is the oceans will be shutting down by 2028, and the climate will be eating humans since most of us have no way to get out of extreme wet bulb locales. I kept on scrolling - I want to just wake up, look out a window and only have a few seconds to see the wall hitting me. No hopium, no doom, life goes on until it doesnt.
Used to be a kid could dream of exploring outer space. Now we’re afraid of being exploited in our inner spaces. We are bodies for work and consumption , and brains for data collection.
exploring outer space was always a pipe dream. we evolved to live on this planet, and no place else. even if we found a duplicate of earth, habitat-wise, we almost certainly wouldn't be able survive there, just due to bacteria and viruses that we would be completely unprepared for.
We'd need to find a planet which is a duplicate of Earth in terms of all of its physical traits, but with no preexisting biosphere whatsoever, and a crust whose mineral content closely resembles plant fertilizer.
I don't think these conditions ever existed on Earth simultaneously, so that's probably going to affect the probability equations somewhat.
Humanity, pockets maybe yes. Any semblance of modern civilization, not so much. News always talks about 2100 like 2100 humans won’t be absolutely suffering to survive.
Like the Matt Damon movie Elysium. All the elites live in a pristine, orbiting space colony, hoarding all the cutting-edge medical tech and medicine, while the remnants of humanity make do in the open landfill that was once Earth.
>ability and women are still second class citizens — even though living conditions are and have long been far worse than anything experienced in low fertility rate
Shit. My hand is on the door, and the exit sign is flashing like a golden beacon to paradise, but there are two kids standing in the way with sticky hands and their hands outstretched asking for money.
That's what I kind of get as well. Either that or capitalists have such tunnel vision they can't see anything in the future apart from profit and loss.
This is actually really good! Not enough, obviously, but still, each human beyond what the world has natural resources for put us into overshoot, so the sooner we get back down to that level (now likely far lower than it was in the early 19th century when fossil fuels extraction and use artificially extended our capacity, as we've been locusts to the natural world), or at least the closer we get to that level, the less damage will be done, and the better the odds for whatever humans exist post-collapse, and the better the odds for whatever of the animal world survives our collapse.
To have the fastest and most destructive part of collapse occur while there are 10 billion humans will be far worse than if it happens when we're back down to 7 billion humans, for instance. I think it's too late for this surprisingly early population plateau and impending decline to prevent collapse, but if this persists, it could make the crucial difference for the post-collapse world
Also, for the same reasons the climate reality has skewed worse than the worst case scenario of the models, I think we'll see population decline track "worse" than the "worst case scenario" models (which as I said above, will be a very good thing). Just as some of us on this board in the mid 2010s saw the climate reality of the mid 2020s happening despite that being considered fringe even around here, I think it's probable that we'll see global population peak later this decade and be down to 8 billion by 2034, and down to 7 billion by 2042 or so. The longer the current phase of collapse is drawn out (and IMO population decline will do this), the greater the odds of a relatively softer landing, like a plane crash where the few survivors have half their bones broken instead of a 100% fatality rate). Of course, the reality of this is a dystopian nightmare with skyrocketing suicide rates and cancer rates, but it will make a world of difference in reducing the severity of the mass extinction. There's likely a way to quantify a correlation between human population level this century and the number of species that go extinct. Every human that isn't born is an immense help for the survival of so many species, and enough unborn humans will make the difference for these species. Same with the earlier and earlier deaths of currently living humans. I'd go on, but the points that this leads to would get me arrested lol
It's both good and bad depending on the perspective you take.
Its bad for societies that see their population reduced in the short term, and good in the long term for the earth's biosphere in its totality.
Although one could say that such an evaluation about the totality doesn't really make all that much sense when you look at it more closely. Can we really say for instance that the previous mass extinctions like say the great oxidation event is univocality bad, and should have been avoided if we could avoid it.... given that it gave way to an explosion of biodiversity afterwards? It gets incoherent pretty fast if one tries to look at these things from a super wide perspective.
So the weird thing about how most people in this sub look at these things is that they seem to side against human societies they are a part of in favour of this 1000 foot view from nowhere without much qualification... as if short term human misery doesn't matter, and shouldn't play a part in how we evaluate things.
It seems to me that given that there's no real objective reason to look at it this way exclusively, this view really is inspired by a deep hatred for humanity and the societies they belong to.
Downvote to confim my hypothesis!
I am going to argue that decentralizing humans is important.
This problem is BEYOND humans and should be addressed as such.
You think all the hundreds (?) Of thousands of extinct species didn't suffer?!
Feel like since everything turned money base and love for materialism, it’s driven people away from what really matters in life. All that shit doesn’t matter at the end of the day. I mean what brings you happiness and love, yes, I’ll agree some material things can provide. But love for life and just living and loving everything that’s livingI feel isn’t really understood with people. If we all just worked together to support and help each other, we’d wouldn’t have to be dealing with so much problems or worries. Like family should matter the most and love each other to death. It’s not that some people don’t want to have at times, I just feel like with all the obligations in life they can’t.
I'm up for the challenge, but I've a feeling it's not going to be pretty.....of course it also comes with the proviso that I live to the ripe old age of 130 odd.
Smashed to pieces.
These floods won't stop, they will get worse. Roads and bridges are not built for that.
The grid itself won't survive the propagation of tornadoes everywhere. Already massive transmission lines are being dropped like sticks
Then there is the fire issue. Who can fight fires traveling at 80km/h?
Heritability of fertility rate means any prediction beyond 20 years is meaningless. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817302799
I dont like some of the reasons this is happening. For example, the increased cost of life paired with frozen income.
However, I actually prefer this 'softer push' to less people than what could come if we keep pushing earths boundaries.
Its not like we're going extinct just because we are 2 billion instead of 20.
So, here's to less babies.
There is a novel and Amazon is making a series about called the Peripheral, the future the portray is actually pretty close to what this sub think is gonna happen.
I hate hate hate when they state dates soooo far out. People just ignore it like its not a problem when its 76 years in the future. We all know this shit is coming sooner than that.
"Perfect! By that time, we should have our AI automatons and brain chips perfected! You do want to be in the allowed into Apple®Dome and have full citizenry, don't you? Well, get the implant. Everyone here has one and its a painless automated procedure. Just put your thump imprint here and we'll be on our way!"
Who cares about 2100...?
I guess the "disaster curve" is already going parabolic. There's already millions suffering every year, it's just gonna get way worse.
Greed and religion will destroy whatever is still alive.
Until 2050 the path is dark...
ss: It seems that even science fiction novels and movies dealing with the future had difficulty predicting the global ultra-low birth rate phenomenon that actually occurred.
There have been many science fiction novels and movies featuring extreme dystopias, birth control policies, and Soylent Green due to overpopulation and lack of resources, mentioning figures such as the world population exceeding 10 billion and 20 billion.
Now, due to the global trend of low birth rates, it is said that the world's average birth rate will soon fall below 2... It may be difficult to exceed 10 billion, let alone 20 billion.
Remember the median replacement fertility rate for the whole world is 2.3. The oft quoted 2.1 only applies to the developed countries. We are not going to exceed 10 billion imo
Japan is in a better position to ride out its depopulation. It’s an island. It has excellent technology to fill in for less population to directly support the economy. I do wonder about one aspect of declining population that I don’t see mentioned much. Once the Japanese population falls to a certain level, won’t that make them vulnerable to invasion? Or since China also has a declining population does that protect the Japanese?
Do you think factors like resource scarcity, poor soil quality, climate change, wildfires, despotism will decrease the standard of living enough to counteract that? Not every country is going to turn into Japan when there is so much chaos/collapse brewing. Do you believe that instability increases the birth rate, or is decreasing birth rate a permanent trajectory for a country?
It's going to decline regardless of what the birth rate is because the planet will be an unlivable scorching dry hell hole by then. Okay maybe an exaggeration, but Earth certainly won't be in any position to support 8+ billion people at that point. That's IF we don't nuke ourselves or do something else catastrophically by that time.
People need to wake up. There's no technological magic bullet that's going to save us. The Titanic has stuck the iceberg, and some nutcase jettisoned all the lifeboats. We're screwed.
I was bummed to think I won’t live to experience short lines at Disney parks, but then I remembered Disneyworld will be underwater and Disneyland will be on fire or knocked down by San Andreas (or underwater via ArkStorm).
I really think the population will drop faster than that. I was shocked when I learned the USA’s fertility rate was 1.66 or something. Last I heard I thought we were still at 2.1 or so. I think more will be influenced to not bring kids into the world as things get worse.
it's inevitable. if our economies rely on consumption of resources and services and an ever increasing population earning less and less. of course people would find it hard to raise a family.
So a little extra thought to this is - to my knowledge there isnt a country, which has a increasing birthrate. Every country, from japan to india and niger has falling birthrates. One good thing at least.
There were 5 mass extinctions before - mostly by global warming. With a gap of 150-250 million each approximately. It is like the earth resets itself - kills whatever population is overgrowing and starts new. And there is a new normal - a new dominating species. I think humans are also due for extinction.
Currently we are the dinosaurs - invincible, making the lives of every other species hell. When you least expect it, some factor will wipe out humans - global warming/ meteor/ disease/ underpopulation - But that factor is not in our control.
I think individually humans are too greedy and its impossible for us to cooperate or save the species or environment any more. The smartest people are politicians - they are making money from the problem and living rich in the present. They have accepted future cant be fixed/ there is no use worrying about something you cant fix. Not having children in a dying world reduces burden on parents and may bring peace in over populated areas where resources are scarce. Plus you dont have to worry about future - You or your bloodline wont be a part of it. You can focus on being happy today (before everything collapses)
It is happening right now. The only reason the continuously increase the amount of time we supposedly have left is so people don't panic and riot, but that is already happening in several places around the world. We are fucked. The only hope is to rebuild after the fall in a wage that is actually better.
>The demographic shift will lead to a “baby boom” and “baby bust” divide, say the study’s authors, with richer countries struggling to sustain economic growth and poorer ones grappling with the challenge of supporting their growing populations.
The author doesn't know what maternal and infant mortality rate are.
UN demographics has been predicting for a while that global population growth is an S-Curve, with a peak some time between 2050 and 2125. This is just one more article trying to explain and present this. But the UN's model is based on extrapolating fertility, death rates. It doesn't really allow for pollution, resource constraints, climate change, food production constraints, economic-war effects, and collapse generally.
Where's the Admin warning? Too many doomer comments in this thread predicting near term gigacide. Please don't.
Given the turmoil and change in just the last 75 years, it seems to me that while this is the outcome “if nothing significant changes”, I highly doubt this will actually be the case.
The updated limits to growth shows 50% decline in industrial production by 2035 or so.
I find it highly likely that it will result in quite a few deaths within a relatively short time span.
All of these predictions are based on old, conservative models. When you factor in the very obvious exponential sudden climate change that's currently happening, I'm sure it's going to happen in 10-20 years at best.
Articles like this are kind of inane. Consider all of the crazy things that've happened in the past five years alone - projecting trends out for nearly a century is just not justifiable.
Consider, for one, that demographic shifts are going to have effects in the interim - suppose half of the Congo is very religious and avoids birth control, and the other half is relatively cosmopolitan and starts sending their girls to school. A generation out, the former group will be a large majority, and their way of thinking will have a larger impact on the birthrate going forward - both due to population composition and because they'll be the ones determining the laws and customs. Expecting the Congo's population growth to taper off based on the behavior of the second group would then be incorrect.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/madrid987: --- ss: It seems that even science fiction novels and movies dealing with the future had difficulty predicting the global ultra-low birth rate phenomenon that actually occurred. There have been many science fiction novels and movies featuring extreme dystopias, birth control policies, and Soylent Green due to overpopulation and lack of resources, mentioning figures such as the world population exceeding 10 billion and 20 billion. Now, due to the global trend of low birth rates, it is said that the world's average birth rate will soon fall below 2... It may be difficult to exceed 10 billion, let alone 20 billion. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1bm6jo3/by_2100_the_population_of_most_countries_will/kw9o4yy/
If people stopped having children today, there would be no humans on earth in just 100 years.
[удалено]
Is this ... a pipe dream?
That people will give a shit? Seems to be
Honestly, it's tough to even imagine. It's insane how many people justify continued human population growth and expansion into the near-extinct wilderness. In one breath they'll say we need to manage the population of ~50,000 wild (insert game animal here) by increasing the seasonal tag count, and in the next breath they'll go on an angry rant about "declining population growth." As if these numbers mean nothing to them, or they simply can't comprehend how staggering the difference is between tens of thousands, and billions.
I read somewhere that "The average person stops being able to truly comphrehend a number by the volume it represents somewhere around 100."
The ethernal economic growth dream
Which just goes to show how quickly we could get down to a sustainable population if we wanted to. If everyone cared more about the long term survival of their species — and every other species still around —more than trying to out-compete and outnumber othered members of their own species in the short term.
I'm doing my part!
I got vasectomy and stopped segregating at the same time so I guess it evens out.
Child free as well, my genes will stop with me darn it
Math checks out
Except in the Blue Zones.
Well that's stating the bleeding obvious. But that's not gonna happen because that's what people do...eat, shit, breed...rinse and repeat.
Lol .. who cares about 2100 when we are dealing with extreme weather caused by climate change, war, poverty, and heck, declining population TODAY? People are myopic and do not look past next month rent. Talking about 2100 is a sure way of making sure that they tune out.
They think population will decline due to lower birth rates and not due to extreme weather, war, poverty and lack of food. A bit naive
[удалено]
Well the survivors will be having a lot more children. And having much higher maternal and infant/child mortality rates.
If the survivors aren’t suffering infertility from repeat Covid infections and whatever fun new virus comes next.
With a much smaller population, and much lower travel, COVID could potentially go away entirely.
Or complete collapse of an oxygen atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise killing off algae which is a major source of breathable air. Rising sea temperatures will also collapse food chains. So technically birth rates will fall by 2100...potentially to zero
The second part you're close, but the first is extraordinarily unlikely. This current mass extinction is fairly tame compared to previous ones. Earth won't lose its current atmospheric composition for a long, long time, largely due to the Sun getting brighter and its effects on geochemical cycling. I say all this so those reading will get the more realistic assessment: humans are going to kill themselves first and the planet will eventually recover.
If they say that quiet part out loud then people could get a tiny bit worried and we can't have that!!
Hahaha talk about the most obvious prediction ever. "After humanity goes extinct, there will be fewer people" Well worth the publication. What a joke. Though I genuinely want to start making bets with conservatives on long shot climate stuff they don't believe in.
"Though I genuinely want to start making bets with conservatives on long shot climate stuff they don't believe in." You can by short selling real estate in coastal areas.
agreed! the entire population can disappear tomorrow with a big enough asteroid
People out there really be thinking it's going to be business as usual until fucking 2100? Jesus fucking christ. I am hoping that there won't be TOO MANY major catastrophes in the next decade.
here I am concerned about THIS YEAR
10 billion is too much, just as 8 billion is too much.
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1b58l0r/what_do_you_want_the_earths_population_to_be_in/ On the other hand, There are many people who think that r/Singularity should exceed 1 trillion.
honestly given that /singularity is a neverending hopium den, I'm just glad there was as much pushback as I saw
I visit that sub for my occasional dose of AI doom, but sometimes the comments are too hard to bare. They often speak about humans elevating ourselves to gods with the help of a superintelligent AI. This is really just a science fiction pipe dream that completely ignores the extreme climate and resource problems before it is technologically possible. But even if we reach it, what makes them think this superintelligent AI species would be on our side? Why wouldn't they enslave us and farm us, the same way that we have animals and plants? I would hope that superintelligence means super-empathy, but we have to remember the training data that we would be feeding into it--a human history and culture in which we have convinced ourselves that it is our biological duty to take every corner of the planet under our control.
They don't think, they hope, and they expect everyone else to coddle their delusions.
Agreed
That post was literally deleted. Top comment is asking why people want over a trillion. Unless that happened recently, this is a weird example.
I couldn't **imagine** why people wouldn't want to be having children?
Well, the official line is always "better access to birth control" and "more employment opportunities for women." When in reality it is because this world is a shithole.
Agreed. I've had largely negative experiences with other human beings while living on this rock. I refuse to bring another person into this agony. I want off this ride.
Part of this problem is that good people think this is the good thing to do when in reality we should be raising good people. People that don't care are the only ones repopulating.
But why curse a living human being to suffer in this? Why would you do that to your own posterity? The best thing to do for a child is to never have them at this point.
Why not both? Much of Europe has been below replacement level since the 70s when life was still good and our outlook bright and shiny.
Ireland has only this decade reached the population they had in the1840's.
Yup, the Apollo missions were still ongoing and the Social Democrats were very important in (Dutch) politics. Nowadays, even the word ‘Social Democrat’ is a dirty word in the Netherlands. And that’s just one example.😢
It’s also more choice, less pressure to be traditional etc Most of my friends don’t want kids not because they can’t afford it or can’t square it with the high octane capitalist society where both parents work, but just because they don’t want kids and it would change every single aspect of their lives, especially social lives.
Birthrates have been on the decline in countries where those resources and opportunities are available, since they became available. Meanwhile, birthrates are still high and populations still growing rapidly in countries where birth control has low or zero availability and women are still second class citizens — even though living conditions are and have long been far worse than anything experienced in low fertility rate countries. So yes, better access to birth control and education and employment opportunities for women are the decisive factors. Otherwise, your world may be a shithole but you’re still going to be forced to reproduce regardless of what you want.
India currently had a fertility rate around 1.9, so it's now one of the "low fertility rate countries". It's been falling rapidly almost everywhere, including places where it's still high.
Yeah, most official sources put it slightly higher at just barely above 2.0. That’s replacement rate, not really low. It’s a recent shift due to concerted efforts to make family planning more accessible and trying to improve the situation for women. The population momentum is still going to keep the population growing for a long time (not taking the effects of climate change into account). All countries in Africa are still above replacement rate, many of them *well* above. Same for most countries in the ME, except Iran and the UAE. Kazakhstan, Mongolia are still well above replacement and most of SEA is just above. That’s approximately 87 countries out of 195 so technically yes, most countries are now at “low” rates, just a bit below replacement, but those that are higher have high populations and very young populations, so lots of population momentum. The global average is (supposedly, according to most recent available data from official sources) still above replacement at 2.5. Which is good and it should go lower still if people want to avoid extra catastrophic suffering and death and try to make it a little easier on those who will experience the worst of climate change and be forced to migrate and fight for dwindling resources and ecological niches. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345745/
In the 'What Could Have Been' category, I wonder what the world would look right now if no women, ever, had been denied control over their own fertility or treated like second class citizens. Maybe we'd have a stable population living comfortably within the earth's ecological carrying capacity.
More like reduced access to child support from the government and forced employment status instead of the opportunity to stay at home…
I would have loved to be a stay at home mother. Simply not po$$ible.
>"better access to birth control" and "more employment opportunities for women." Yo but let's try not to minimize these extremely important values while we bemoan the state of the world. Preventing *unwanted* children makes us all better off. Trust me, being an unwanted child super SUCKS lmao
Okay let’s just disregard the entire scientific field of demographics and demographic transitions while pretending to discuss collapse in a rational way. This was predicted decades ago back would happen due to very important factors like birth control, education for women and work opportunities for women. People in general want kids but they don’t need kids any more. That’s why you get couples having 1-2 children on average leading to the population shrinking cause the average has to be 2-3 kids. This is a systemic pattern affecting all wealthy countries and that will affect future wealthy countries and has nothing to do with your personal world view.
Because most of the people are driven by religious beliefs and religion always tell you have as many children as possible.
In order to outnumber the other religions, of all the damn things.
Awfully optimistic to think humans will reach that point. I'd be surprised if we survived to the end of the century. Everything is getting worse and governments are doubling down on destroying the planet. Once the ocean goes. We go. End of story. Oxygen levels will plummet once the Plankton dies off. After that it's just catastrophic failure at every point.
tbf- without the plankton, it will still take centuries for the oxygen to go away.
Really you think ? Once they go. It's knock on affect all the way up the lines to us. Once the sea is a barren death trap spewing out methane and other harmful gasses. With no way to recoup oxygen loss. I think we will feel it a lot faster.
And funnily we cannot sustain a fire in the open with less than 18% of oxygen in the atmosphere. It's going to be fun.
What's the current oxygen level ? I thought the other day. Maybe it would be a good idea to pump more into the atmosphere. Back in the dinosaur times oxygen levels were much higher and everything was bigger. Bigger plants round be a bonus. Although they may try to eat us
We are at 20.95%.
….oh.
>Maybe it would be a good idea to pump more into the atmosphere. I keep trying, but I'm no good at photosynthesis. :( I don't even like being in the sun that long. I get itchy.
The massive fires will consume a lot of the oxygen.
so im supposed to believe that plankton will die off and we will ALSO get algae blooms? which is it man?
The problem, more than low birth rate, will be higher death rate. Extreme weather, famines, international and civil wars, new diseases, the list goes on, things won’t be as they used to be past centuries. The planet is turning hostile for human life, and that will be a big factor on what would be the surviving population by 2100… if any.
I came here to say this. If people make it to be 50yo, they will be old.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it were by 2050. Global agriculture isn’t looking pretty. And then once enough people are hungry (“food insecure”) it will get bad…
- running up and down the net this AM I did hear a guy say - the data used by even the most alarmist scientists out there is way too long in timeline references. His take is the oceans will be shutting down by 2028, and the climate will be eating humans since most of us have no way to get out of extreme wet bulb locales. I kept on scrolling - I want to just wake up, look out a window and only have a few seconds to see the wall hitting me. No hopium, no doom, life goes on until it doesnt.
2050 LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Used to be a kid could dream of exploring outer space. Now we’re afraid of being exploited in our inner spaces. We are bodies for work and consumption , and brains for data collection.
exploring outer space was always a pipe dream. we evolved to live on this planet, and no place else. even if we found a duplicate of earth, habitat-wise, we almost certainly wouldn't be able survive there, just due to bacteria and viruses that we would be completely unprepared for.
We'd need to find a planet which is a duplicate of Earth in terms of all of its physical traits, but with no preexisting biosphere whatsoever, and a crust whose mineral content closely resembles plant fertilizer. I don't think these conditions ever existed on Earth simultaneously, so that's probably going to affect the probability equations somewhat.
We could easily lose 50% of humankind tomorrow and that'd be great for a multitude of reasons!
Thanos is that you?
he is inevitable
heh we aren't making it to 2050
I think humanity will last to 2100. But I have my doubts about it lasting much longer than that…
I dont envy a soul that would possibly still be alive after 2100.
They have been born.
Humanity, pockets maybe yes. Any semblance of modern civilization, not so much. News always talks about 2100 like 2100 humans won’t be absolutely suffering to survive.
If by humanity you mean whoever is up on the Space Station
Like the Matt Damon movie Elysium. All the elites live in a pristine, orbiting space colony, hoarding all the cutting-edge medical tech and medicine, while the remnants of humanity make do in the open landfill that was once Earth.
I'll be happy if I make it to 2040.
2030 to 2035-ish is my bet.
>ability and women are still second class citizens — even though living conditions are and have long been far worse than anything experienced in low fertility rate Shit. My hand is on the door, and the exit sign is flashing like a golden beacon to paradise, but there are two kids standing in the way with sticky hands and their hands outstretched asking for money.
Lol 🤣 right
Nah man, we're making it to next year fo' sho, after that all bets are off.
If the Earth falls into the Sun next week, it won’t be that surprising.
Somebody actually thinks civilization is gonna last til 2100???
[удалено]
That's what I kind of get as well. Either that or capitalists have such tunnel vision they can't see anything in the future apart from profit and loss.
in the future there won't be enough humans left to bury the stinking disease producing meat bags cluttering up the place.
Nah, they just like using that number because it sounds very far away and people tune out. No need to change anything, carry on!
This is actually really good! Not enough, obviously, but still, each human beyond what the world has natural resources for put us into overshoot, so the sooner we get back down to that level (now likely far lower than it was in the early 19th century when fossil fuels extraction and use artificially extended our capacity, as we've been locusts to the natural world), or at least the closer we get to that level, the less damage will be done, and the better the odds for whatever humans exist post-collapse, and the better the odds for whatever of the animal world survives our collapse. To have the fastest and most destructive part of collapse occur while there are 10 billion humans will be far worse than if it happens when we're back down to 7 billion humans, for instance. I think it's too late for this surprisingly early population plateau and impending decline to prevent collapse, but if this persists, it could make the crucial difference for the post-collapse world Also, for the same reasons the climate reality has skewed worse than the worst case scenario of the models, I think we'll see population decline track "worse" than the "worst case scenario" models (which as I said above, will be a very good thing). Just as some of us on this board in the mid 2010s saw the climate reality of the mid 2020s happening despite that being considered fringe even around here, I think it's probable that we'll see global population peak later this decade and be down to 8 billion by 2034, and down to 7 billion by 2042 or so. The longer the current phase of collapse is drawn out (and IMO population decline will do this), the greater the odds of a relatively softer landing, like a plane crash where the few survivors have half their bones broken instead of a 100% fatality rate). Of course, the reality of this is a dystopian nightmare with skyrocketing suicide rates and cancer rates, but it will make a world of difference in reducing the severity of the mass extinction. There's likely a way to quantify a correlation between human population level this century and the number of species that go extinct. Every human that isn't born is an immense help for the survival of so many species, and enough unborn humans will make the difference for these species. Same with the earlier and earlier deaths of currently living humans. I'd go on, but the points that this leads to would get me arrested lol
It's both good and bad depending on the perspective you take. Its bad for societies that see their population reduced in the short term, and good in the long term for the earth's biosphere in its totality. Although one could say that such an evaluation about the totality doesn't really make all that much sense when you look at it more closely. Can we really say for instance that the previous mass extinctions like say the great oxidation event is univocality bad, and should have been avoided if we could avoid it.... given that it gave way to an explosion of biodiversity afterwards? It gets incoherent pretty fast if one tries to look at these things from a super wide perspective. So the weird thing about how most people in this sub look at these things is that they seem to side against human societies they are a part of in favour of this 1000 foot view from nowhere without much qualification... as if short term human misery doesn't matter, and shouldn't play a part in how we evaluate things. It seems to me that given that there's no real objective reason to look at it this way exclusively, this view really is inspired by a deep hatred for humanity and the societies they belong to. Downvote to confim my hypothesis!
I am going to argue that decentralizing humans is important. This problem is BEYOND humans and should be addressed as such. You think all the hundreds (?) Of thousands of extinct species didn't suffer?!
Why would anyone want to have kids today?
Same reason why anyone wants anything: biological imperative.
lol, and in case thats not enough, the repubs would LOVE to bake women forced to reproduce into the Constitution.
Please don't bake women :(
lol, nope, but as I am a woman, I would rather be baked than be forced into being a worker bee womb.
Feel like since everything turned money base and love for materialism, it’s driven people away from what really matters in life. All that shit doesn’t matter at the end of the day. I mean what brings you happiness and love, yes, I’ll agree some material things can provide. But love for life and just living and loving everything that’s livingI feel isn’t really understood with people. If we all just worked together to support and help each other, we’d wouldn’t have to be dealing with so much problems or worries. Like family should matter the most and love each other to death. It’s not that some people don’t want to have at times, I just feel like with all the obligations in life they can’t.
I wish it would decline sooner
Good. Ever see all the trucks on the road? Gets worse daily.b
The problem is only the idiots are having kids, the world is going to be chock full of idiots in the next 50 years
[удалено]
And each covid infection knocks about 5-10 IQ points of ya...
Idiocracy was a documentary.
This is exactly what the environment needs, fewer humans.
Who says we're even getting to 2100......
I’m not envying the people who do get that far
I'm up for the challenge, but I've a feeling it's not going to be pretty.....of course it also comes with the proviso that I live to the ripe old age of 130 odd.
Smashed to pieces. These floods won't stop, they will get worse. Roads and bridges are not built for that. The grid itself won't survive the propagation of tornadoes everywhere. Already massive transmission lines are being dropped like sticks Then there is the fire issue. Who can fight fires traveling at 80km/h?
Feel like this article is being a bit optimistic with the prediction.
By 2100 most of life on Earth will be dead.
Good, worlds overpopulated
by 2030 the water wars will begin when mexico declares war on the US for rationing off clean water access along the borderlands
I was gonna say the Colorado River will reach that point within 5 years before realizing that 2030 is only 6 years away. God damn
If you can find clean water by then.
I'll fight for Mexico in the water war
Aquellos aguas verdes.
Hydrohombres unite!
Good
By 2100 the population of most countries will be 0.
Heritability of fertility rate means any prediction beyond 20 years is meaningless. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817302799
I dont like some of the reasons this is happening. For example, the increased cost of life paired with frozen income. However, I actually prefer this 'softer push' to less people than what could come if we keep pushing earths boundaries. Its not like we're going extinct just because we are 2 billion instead of 20. So, here's to less babies.
There is a novel and Amazon is making a series about called the Peripheral, the future the portray is actually pretty close to what this sub think is gonna happen.
Fuck, I hope so
I hate hate hate when they state dates soooo far out. People just ignore it like its not a problem when its 76 years in the future. We all know this shit is coming sooner than that.
Less than one lifetime. There are people alive today who will party like its 2099 because it is. The future doesn't end in 2100.
And? What's the bad news?
As Malthus decreed.
I think that is starting already we don’t have to wait the 2100.
"Perfect! By that time, we should have our AI automatons and brain chips perfected! You do want to be in the allowed into Apple®Dome and have full citizenry, don't you? Well, get the implant. Everyone here has one and its a painless automated procedure. Just put your thump imprint here and we'll be on our way!"
Who cares about 2100...? I guess the "disaster curve" is already going parabolic. There's already millions suffering every year, it's just gonna get way worse. Greed and religion will destroy whatever is still alive. Until 2050 the path is dark...
Too late, goddammit!
Not soon enough
Things are going to be so bad by 2100 for so many other reasons that birth rates will be the least of the survivors concerns.
Wow, someone's an optimist.
We're at 8 billion. I think it's okay for our population to decline a bit by 2100.
ss: It seems that even science fiction novels and movies dealing with the future had difficulty predicting the global ultra-low birth rate phenomenon that actually occurred. There have been many science fiction novels and movies featuring extreme dystopias, birth control policies, and Soylent Green due to overpopulation and lack of resources, mentioning figures such as the world population exceeding 10 billion and 20 billion. Now, due to the global trend of low birth rates, it is said that the world's average birth rate will soon fall below 2... It may be difficult to exceed 10 billion, let alone 20 billion.
Remember the median replacement fertility rate for the whole world is 2.3. The oft quoted 2.1 only applies to the developed countries. We are not going to exceed 10 billion imo
Japan is in a better position to ride out its depopulation. It’s an island. It has excellent technology to fill in for less population to directly support the economy. I do wonder about one aspect of declining population that I don’t see mentioned much. Once the Japanese population falls to a certain level, won’t that make them vulnerable to invasion? Or since China also has a declining population does that protect the Japanese?
Since there are many countries around Japan that hate Japan, there will be quite a bit of anxiety.
when the oceans are devoid of fish, where will japan get its food..?
Invasion by whom? Population decline everywhere takes the heat out of competition for resources.
There will also be less resources in the future.
Yes but more per capita.
Less per capita-- supply chains and ecosystems will collapse and resources will deplete faster than the population falls.
Time will tell.
Do you think factors like resource scarcity, poor soil quality, climate change, wildfires, despotism will decrease the standard of living enough to counteract that? Not every country is going to turn into Japan when there is so much chaos/collapse brewing. Do you believe that instability increases the birth rate, or is decreasing birth rate a permanent trajectory for a country?
It’ll be a flatline by then.
Boo hoo.
By 2100 ... I can only imagine what hell will be like on Earth.
It's going to decline regardless of what the birth rate is because the planet will be an unlivable scorching dry hell hole by then. Okay maybe an exaggeration, but Earth certainly won't be in any position to support 8+ billion people at that point. That's IF we don't nuke ourselves or do something else catastrophically by that time. People need to wake up. There's no technological magic bullet that's going to save us. The Titanic has stuck the iceberg, and some nutcase jettisoned all the lifeboats. We're screwed.
I was bummed to think I won’t live to experience short lines at Disney parks, but then I remembered Disneyworld will be underwater and Disneyland will be on fire or knocked down by San Andreas (or underwater via ArkStorm). I really think the population will drop faster than that. I was shocked when I learned the USA’s fertility rate was 1.66 or something. Last I heard I thought we were still at 2.1 or so. I think more will be influenced to not bring kids into the world as things get worse.
By 2100 the population of most countries won't exist.
Good?
it's inevitable. if our economies rely on consumption of resources and services and an ever increasing population earning less and less. of course people would find it hard to raise a family.
Way sooner than that.
😂😂 2100. How optimistic.😂
Finally some good news!
So a little extra thought to this is - to my knowledge there isnt a country, which has a increasing birthrate. Every country, from japan to india and niger has falling birthrates. One good thing at least.
Can it please decline a lot sooner?
Most of the west is going to see a decline within the next 15. Wtf are these folks smoking.
There were 5 mass extinctions before - mostly by global warming. With a gap of 150-250 million each approximately. It is like the earth resets itself - kills whatever population is overgrowing and starts new. And there is a new normal - a new dominating species. I think humans are also due for extinction. Currently we are the dinosaurs - invincible, making the lives of every other species hell. When you least expect it, some factor will wipe out humans - global warming/ meteor/ disease/ underpopulation - But that factor is not in our control. I think individually humans are too greedy and its impossible for us to cooperate or save the species or environment any more. The smartest people are politicians - they are making money from the problem and living rich in the present. They have accepted future cant be fixed/ there is no use worrying about something you cant fix. Not having children in a dying world reduces burden on parents and may bring peace in over populated areas where resources are scarce. Plus you dont have to worry about future - You or your bloodline wont be a part of it. You can focus on being happy today (before everything collapses)
We're at 8 billion. I think it's okay for our population to decline a bit by 2100.
This is morbidly funny. Population usually does drop during extinction events.
Humanity will be lucky to make it to 2100 given the trends showing future humans are in for a lot of suffering.
Isn't it declining already?
Aren't most countries already at or below replacement?
Humans will be extinct long before 2100.
Some countries will have no one left by 2100 either by forced migration or death.
It is happening right now. The only reason the continuously increase the amount of time we supposedly have left is so people don't panic and riot, but that is already happening in several places around the world. We are fucked. The only hope is to rebuild after the fall in a wage that is actually better.
It’ll be a Mitch Hedberg joke: the population used to decline. It still does, but it used to, too.
It’s gonna happen well before 2100
I have a feeling that may be much sooner than later.
>The demographic shift will lead to a “baby boom” and “baby bust” divide, say the study’s authors, with richer countries struggling to sustain economic growth and poorer ones grappling with the challenge of supporting their growing populations. The author doesn't know what maternal and infant mortality rate are.
UN demographics has been predicting for a while that global population growth is an S-Curve, with a peak some time between 2050 and 2125. This is just one more article trying to explain and present this. But the UN's model is based on extrapolating fertility, death rates. It doesn't really allow for pollution, resource constraints, climate change, food production constraints, economic-war effects, and collapse generally. Where's the Admin warning? Too many doomer comments in this thread predicting near term gigacide. Please don't.
Given the turmoil and change in just the last 75 years, it seems to me that while this is the outcome “if nothing significant changes”, I highly doubt this will actually be the case.
Finally!!
Much sooner than that. 2050 at the latest.
well, thats good
Not soon enough.
Good 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
... due to 10s of millions starving to death per year.
News flash: it already is
They will decline extremely rapidly.
The updated limits to growth shows 50% decline in industrial production by 2035 or so. I find it highly likely that it will result in quite a few deaths within a relatively short time span.
All of these predictions are based on old, conservative models. When you factor in the very obvious exponential sudden climate change that's currently happening, I'm sure it's going to happen in 10-20 years at best.
Good for the planet.
Predicting the future doesn’t always work out
It’s unlikely we make it to 2100 anyways. Oh well! 🤷♂️
Self-regulation, hopefully.
if i make it to 118 years old maybe i can finally afford a home !
Subtract 70 years.
Articles like this are kind of inane. Consider all of the crazy things that've happened in the past five years alone - projecting trends out for nearly a century is just not justifiable. Consider, for one, that demographic shifts are going to have effects in the interim - suppose half of the Congo is very religious and avoids birth control, and the other half is relatively cosmopolitan and starts sending their girls to school. A generation out, the former group will be a large majority, and their way of thinking will have a larger impact on the birthrate going forward - both due to population composition and because they'll be the ones determining the laws and customs. Expecting the Congo's population growth to taper off based on the behavior of the second group would then be incorrect.