Fwd: Don’t panic about the global fertility crash (The Economist, 11 Sept 2025)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Art Hunter
Oct 11, 2025, 4:28:13 PM (7 days ago) Oct 11
to cacor-discussion@googlegroups com, cacor-public
I think it's worth a read.
After 4 decades of personal research and activism, with over 3 billion added and the planet increasingly trashed, finally some mainstream individuals are waking up. Voluntary simplicity isn’t in our genes. Best to go with the flow here and not fight it. Nature is rebalancing the plague species.
Steve
>
> https://d8xhj7ycm38v4v.archive.is/
>
> Don’t panic about the global fertility crash
> A world with fewer people would not be all bad
>
> Sep 11th 2025
> In “The Population Bomb”, published in 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a biologist, wrote that humans were breeding so fast that food would inevitably run out and “hundreds of millions” would soon starve to death. Having toyed with the idea of “interstellar transport for surplus people”, he advocated strict birth control, “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail”.
>
> Many people still worry about overpopulation. But an increasing number, especially in rich countries, fret about the opposite: a population implosion. “Low birth rates will end civilisation,” predicts Elon Musk, a father of many.
>
> Though the number of people is still rising, the fertility rate—the number of babies a woman can expect to have in her lifetime—has been plummeting. And not just in the rich world: two-thirds of people now live in countries where it is below the “replacement rate” of 2.1—the standard estimate of what is needed to maintain a stable population. Bogotá, Colombia, now has a lower fertility rate (0.91) than Tokyo (0.99).
>
> The global population will peak at 10.3bn in 2084, says the UN’s central estimate. But as we report this week, its assumptions are questionable <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/humanity-will-shrink-far-sooner-than-you-think>. It assumes a sudden change in momentum, starting now: that fertility rates in many low-fertility countries will stop falling or rebound, and that plunging rates in high-fertility countries will fall more slowly. If it is wrong, peak human is much closer. If current trends continue for just ten more years before the UN’s more optimistic assumptions kick in, the global population peaks at 9.6bn in 2065, then tumbles to 8.9bn by 2100. Even that may be too optimistic.
> Regardless of when the peak arrives, sub-replacement fertility implies that the global population will shrink slowly at first—and then dramatically, in a mirror image of the exponential growth that made it soar from 1bn in 1800 to 8bn today. Such a prospect alarms many.
>
> One type of fear is broad and economic. Fewer people means fewer brains, so the pace of innovation would slow. It means less scope for specialisation and division of labour. (If only 1,000 people live in your city, good luck finding Ethiopian food or a club for your niche hobby.) Rapid shrinkage could be hugely disruptive. Heavy public debts would suddenly fall on fewer shoulders, many of them ageing. Megacities might be fine, but small towns could hollow out as the last school closes.
>
> Another kind of worry is narrower and nationalistic. Fertility rates vary a lot between countries and groups. So some people fear a future with too few people like themselves and too many they see as culturally alien or threatening. That is one reason why populists all over the West favour bribing families to have more children, and Donald Trump has promised to be the “fertilisation president”.
>
> Demographic forecasts are an odd mix of the certain (all the people who will be 50 in 2070 have already been born) and the unknowable (how many nippers will today’s 20-year-olds choose to have?). On a long time-scale, exponential shrinkage looks astonishingly fast. However, during the initial phase, which is when societies must grapple with the problem, the speed of change ought to be manageable.
>
> There are several reasons to doubt the doomsayers. Artificial intelligence may be hyped <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/09/11/what-if-the-3trn-ai-investment-boom-goes-wrong>, but it is plainly advancing faster than populations are likely to shrink. So it, or another as-yet-unknown technology, will surely ease the drag on innovation from dwindling numbers of human boffins.
> Another cause for optimism is that healthy human lifespans keep stretching, allowing people to stay productive for longer. In a 41-country sample, a 70-year-old in 2022 had the same cognitive abilities as a 53-year-old had in 2000. Perhaps such progress will end. But as long as it continues, it will slow the shrinkage of labour forces, giving societies crucial extra decades to adapt. Countries that waste human capital may find ways to waste less of it, by feeding and educating young minds better, and removing barriers to women working. In sum, a declining population need not mean a poorer one <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/09/11/a-contracting-population-need-not-be-a-catastrophe>. Japan has been shrinking for nearly two decades, yet living standards have risen markedly.
> The nationalists are right that the world’s make-up will change. Even the UN’s projection has China’s population collapsing by more than half by 2100. India will hold steady longer. Europe and America may postpone shrinkage via immigration—or they may choose not to. The future will be more African than the present, but there, too, fertility is plunging. Big, gradual geopolitical and cultural shifts are normal. The world has coped with them in the past, and can surely cope again.
>
> Pro-natalists hope to counter these tectonic trends by using public money to boost birth rates at home. They will fail. Governments have a role in making life easier for families, but trying to pay people to have more children than they otherwise would is either staggeringly expensive or does not work. Even Hungary, which spends a colossal 6% of GDP on pro-natal policies, still has sub-replacement fertility, and some studies suggest that its bloated baby bonuses have mostly affected the timing of births, not the total.
>
> Go forth and divide
>
> Shrinking, and thus ageing, populations will eventually require big economic and social adjustments. The very old will need caring for (even if they are no costlier than the young, who often spend two decades needing support). The old are more likely to vote, so their views will shape politics. That could make it harder to raise pension ages in line with life expectancy, but sooner or later governments will have to.
>
> Adapting to an emptier planet will not be easy, but it will be doable. None of the predictions of demographic disaster seems plausible this century, and 2100 is so far away that forecasts beyond it seem pointless. Who knows? By then parents may have technology that makes child-rearing less exhausting, and families may expand again. But that is mere speculation. For now, there is reason to pay attention but not to panic. ■
>
>
--
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Steve Kurtz <kur...@ncf.ca>
Date: Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 6:23 AM
Subject: Don’t panic about the global fertility crash (The Economist, 11 Sept 2025)
To:
From: Steve Kurtz <kur...@ncf.ca>
Date: Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 6:23 AM
Subject: Don’t panic about the global fertility crash (The Economist, 11 Sept 2025)
To:
After 4 decades of personal research and activism, with over 3 billion added and the planet increasingly trashed, finally some mainstream individuals are waking up. Voluntary simplicity isn’t in our genes. Best to go with the flow here and not fight it. Nature is rebalancing the plague species.
Steve
>
> https://d8xhj7ycm38v4v.archive.is/
>
> Don’t panic about the global fertility crash
> A world with fewer people would not be all bad
>
> Sep 11th 2025
> In “The Population Bomb”, published in 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a biologist, wrote that humans were breeding so fast that food would inevitably run out and “hundreds of millions” would soon starve to death. Having toyed with the idea of “interstellar transport for surplus people”, he advocated strict birth control, “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail”.
>
> Many people still worry about overpopulation. But an increasing number, especially in rich countries, fret about the opposite: a population implosion. “Low birth rates will end civilisation,” predicts Elon Musk, a father of many.
>
> Though the number of people is still rising, the fertility rate—the number of babies a woman can expect to have in her lifetime—has been plummeting. And not just in the rich world: two-thirds of people now live in countries where it is below the “replacement rate” of 2.1—the standard estimate of what is needed to maintain a stable population. Bogotá, Colombia, now has a lower fertility rate (0.91) than Tokyo (0.99).
>
> The global population will peak at 10.3bn in 2084, says the UN’s central estimate. But as we report this week, its assumptions are questionable <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2025/09/11/humanity-will-shrink-far-sooner-than-you-think>. It assumes a sudden change in momentum, starting now: that fertility rates in many low-fertility countries will stop falling or rebound, and that plunging rates in high-fertility countries will fall more slowly. If it is wrong, peak human is much closer. If current trends continue for just ten more years before the UN’s more optimistic assumptions kick in, the global population peaks at 9.6bn in 2065, then tumbles to 8.9bn by 2100. Even that may be too optimistic.
> Regardless of when the peak arrives, sub-replacement fertility implies that the global population will shrink slowly at first—and then dramatically, in a mirror image of the exponential growth that made it soar from 1bn in 1800 to 8bn today. Such a prospect alarms many.
>
> One type of fear is broad and economic. Fewer people means fewer brains, so the pace of innovation would slow. It means less scope for specialisation and division of labour. (If only 1,000 people live in your city, good luck finding Ethiopian food or a club for your niche hobby.) Rapid shrinkage could be hugely disruptive. Heavy public debts would suddenly fall on fewer shoulders, many of them ageing. Megacities might be fine, but small towns could hollow out as the last school closes.
>
> Another kind of worry is narrower and nationalistic. Fertility rates vary a lot between countries and groups. So some people fear a future with too few people like themselves and too many they see as culturally alien or threatening. That is one reason why populists all over the West favour bribing families to have more children, and Donald Trump has promised to be the “fertilisation president”.
>
> Demographic forecasts are an odd mix of the certain (all the people who will be 50 in 2070 have already been born) and the unknowable (how many nippers will today’s 20-year-olds choose to have?). On a long time-scale, exponential shrinkage looks astonishingly fast. However, during the initial phase, which is when societies must grapple with the problem, the speed of change ought to be manageable.
>
> There are several reasons to doubt the doomsayers. Artificial intelligence may be hyped <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/09/11/what-if-the-3trn-ai-investment-boom-goes-wrong>, but it is plainly advancing faster than populations are likely to shrink. So it, or another as-yet-unknown technology, will surely ease the drag on innovation from dwindling numbers of human boffins.
> Another cause for optimism is that healthy human lifespans keep stretching, allowing people to stay productive for longer. In a 41-country sample, a 70-year-old in 2022 had the same cognitive abilities as a 53-year-old had in 2000. Perhaps such progress will end. But as long as it continues, it will slow the shrinkage of labour forces, giving societies crucial extra decades to adapt. Countries that waste human capital may find ways to waste less of it, by feeding and educating young minds better, and removing barriers to women working. In sum, a declining population need not mean a poorer one <https://archive.is/o/hcbrk/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/09/11/a-contracting-population-need-not-be-a-catastrophe>. Japan has been shrinking for nearly two decades, yet living standards have risen markedly.
> The nationalists are right that the world’s make-up will change. Even the UN’s projection has China’s population collapsing by more than half by 2100. India will hold steady longer. Europe and America may postpone shrinkage via immigration—or they may choose not to. The future will be more African than the present, but there, too, fertility is plunging. Big, gradual geopolitical and cultural shifts are normal. The world has coped with them in the past, and can surely cope again.
>
> Pro-natalists hope to counter these tectonic trends by using public money to boost birth rates at home. They will fail. Governments have a role in making life easier for families, but trying to pay people to have more children than they otherwise would is either staggeringly expensive or does not work. Even Hungary, which spends a colossal 6% of GDP on pro-natal policies, still has sub-replacement fertility, and some studies suggest that its bloated baby bonuses have mostly affected the timing of births, not the total.
>
> Go forth and divide
>
> Shrinking, and thus ageing, populations will eventually require big economic and social adjustments. The very old will need caring for (even if they are no costlier than the young, who often spend two decades needing support). The old are more likely to vote, so their views will shape politics. That could make it harder to raise pension ages in line with life expectancy, but sooner or later governments will have to.
>
> Adapting to an emptier planet will not be easy, but it will be doable. None of the predictions of demographic disaster seems plausible this century, and 2100 is so far away that forecasts beyond it seem pointless. Who knows? By then parents may have technology that makes child-rearing less exhausting, and families may expand again. But that is mere speculation. For now, there is reason to pay attention but not to panic. ■
>
>
David Dougherty
Oct 12, 2025, 11:45:29 AM (7 days ago) Oct 12
to cacor-di...@googlegroups.com, cacor-public
It seems to me that we either have a voluntary nonviolent population crash or a crash because of violence, starvation, and disease. There is actually no alternative.
Dave Dougherty
From: cacor-di...@googlegroups.com <cacor-di...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Art Hunter <art....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 4:28:00 PM
To: cacor-discussion@googlegroups com <cacor-di...@googlegroups.com>; cacor-public <cacor-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [cacor-discussion] Fwd: Don’t panic about the global fertility crash (The Economist, 11 Sept 2025)
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 4:28:00 PM
To: cacor-discussion@googlegroups com <cacor-di...@googlegroups.com>; cacor-public <cacor-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [cacor-discussion] Fwd: Don’t panic about the global fertility crash (The Economist, 11 Sept 2025)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cacor-discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cacor-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cacor-discussion/CAPDrCSAxtWkTPVOsBbUcMQ5ezMOvEseOXBSSV1HzL%2BDeXugiOA%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cacor-discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cacor-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cacor-discussion/CAPDrCSAxtWkTPVOsBbUcMQ5ezMOvEseOXBSSV1HzL%2BDeXugiOA%40mail.gmail.com.
Art Hunter
Oct 12, 2025, 12:20:23 PM (7 days ago) Oct 12
to cacor-discussion@googlegroups com, cacor-public
I have a slightly different understanding. Nature will do what it has demonstrated with every other species that poison their own environment while feeding an ever expanding population. Nature has a large toolkit of options to restore balance. I believe history has shown what we can expect. Species extinction has happened on this planet 5 times with about 200 million years between. Humans did not exist in all past extinctions. Human DNA is only about 45,000 years old in this the 6th cycle. Human Extinction is most likely in this 6th cycle.
Starvation, disease, war and other unpleasant population reduction drivers will be involved. Extinction will not be stopped by our behaviour change (if this was even possible).
I recently read that fire flies have become extinct and others of the 8,000 modern species already have or are on the path to extinction. Humans are on this same pathway. The only argument is "how long?" I read one estimate of 200 years but it was a wild guess.
In the next 200+ million years after this 6th extinction, a lot will change but there is no indication another form of humanity will rise from the ocean bottom hot springs.
Wikipedia and AI searches will give the inquisitive a lot of supporting facts for this scenario.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CACOR-Public" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cacor-public...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cacor-public/DM6PR04MB60576ABA225F57421AECFF2DDCEDA%40DM6PR04MB6057.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
SamratB
Oct 12, 2025, 5:46:58 PM (6 days ago) Oct 12
to cacor-pub...@googlegroups.com, cacor-discussion@googlegroups com, cacor-public
Hi All
"It seems to me that we either have a voluntary nonviolent population crash or a crash because of violence, starvation, and disease. There is actually no alternative."
This bit is hilarious and as abject Malthusian. Something which never happens. Why it won't happen even in the next 100 years is not even a question. Because one cannot see or build any other alternative, the problem is entirely theirs. The problem is not population but capitalism.
Samrat B
Protonmail.com - Secure. Encrypted. 2018.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cacor-public/CAPDrCSBFOOU343an-pdKoEeSJXD6LWSEmtOcP%3Drsh%3Dazz2uKgg%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages