The world’s massive human population is leveling off. Most projections show we would hit peak humanity in this century, as people choose to have smaller families and women gain power over their own reproduction. This is great news for the future of our species.
And yet alarms are sounding. While environmentalists have long warned of a planet with too many people, now some economists are warning of a future with too few. For example, economist Dean Spears from the University of Texas has written that an “unprecedented decline” in population would lead to a bleak future of slower economic growth and less innovation.
However, demographers I spoke with say this concern is based more on speculation than science. A dramatic collapse in population is unlikely to happen within the next 100 years barring some new plague or nuclear war or other apocalypse. If we need more creative minds in the world, we could stop doing such a terrible job of nourishing and educating the people we are already producing.
Illustration: Yusha
Predictions about future population levels that do not come with wide margins of error should always be taken with a grain of salt. Joel Cohen, a mathematician, biologist and demographer at Rockefeller University, wants to see population projections treated like a real science with a proper accounting for uncertainty. We do not even know the exact number of people alive now, he points out. When the UN declared we would surpassed 8 billion on Nov. 15 last year, it was a “publicity stunt,” he says.
The uncertainty in counting world populations is at least 2 percent — which adds up to about 160 million people or more. Since the world population grows at most by 80 million a year, we could have hit 8 billion two years earlier, or it might not happen until next year.
Benjamin Franklin first recognized populations can grow exponentially and forecast that the US colonies would double every 25 years. In 1798, English economist Thomas Malthus applied this principle globally and wrongly predicted this growth rate would continue until we ran out of food and civilization collapsed.
This line of pessimistic thinking might sound familiar to those who remember the 1968 book by Stanford University scientists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Bomb. The Ehrlichs famously — and incorrectly — envisioned a 20th-century starvation catastrophe. They failed to recognize that technological advances might meet increased need, and that women worldwide would change from having six to slightly under two children each, on average, in the next 50 years.
Today’s forecasts account for multiple variables and recognize that population increases are leveling off, not spiking and then plummeting. Some of the most reliable projections, Cohen said, come from demographers with the UN. Their latest estimate shows the global population would plateau at about 11 billion people by 2100.
A different model, created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and published in The Lancet in 2020, showed an earlier, lower peak about 2064 at 9.7 billion, followed by a steady decline, bringing us down to around 6 billion by 2100. Cohen does not find that alarming — that is about the number of people alive in 2000.
That inevitable rise in the near term worries Daniel Blumstein, an ecologist at UCLA who is coauthor of a 2021 paper on avoiding a “ghastly future” (co-authored with, among other researchers, the Ehrlichs). Population and consumption patterns are intertwined, he said, and together are causing multiple environmental problems, some of them irreversible.
Blumstein said that the innovations in agriculture that Malthus and the Ehrlichs failed to account for have allowed our population to swell far beyond our ecological niche — with unintended consequences.
Pesticides, for example, are killing the bees necessary for pollinating crops. The big picture: Buildup of waste, especially carbon dioxide, along with the destruction of habitat for wild plants and animals, are now threatening humans more than a shortfall in the global supply of food. These changes are contributing to valid concerns about the creation of climate refugees.
There are also real reasons to be concerned about how society would adapt to an aging population. In many countries, the elderly make up a large and growing share of people. Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer and economist from the American Enterprise Institute, said most countries are already reproducing below replacement level, except for the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Even China’s massive population has begun to shrink, and India’s fertility has fallen below replacement level.
People are not selfish for choosing smaller families. We are powerfully programmed by Darwinian evolution to want to have offspring, or at least to have sex, but women are also endowed with the instinct to limit reproduction to the number who can be raised with a high probability of success in life. When women have large numbers of children, it is often a result of high child mortality or lack of power over their own lives.
Those warning that a population drop could decrease collective brain power and hurt the economy overlook a better solution than producing more babies: Taking better care of the ones we have.
About 22 percent of children under five today are too short for their age because they do not get enough of the right kinds of nutrients to grow, and because worms and infections compete for the inadequate food they do get, Cohen said.
That can affect not only the body, but the brain. Eberstadt worries about future mismatches between skilled jobs and an undereducated population.
Taking good care of the next generation is the logic parents around the world apply to their own families — and while it would not solve all our environmental and economic problems, it is a start.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s