Humanity is about to turn a major population corner, a new estimate showed. A recent article in The Lancet predicts that by 2030, we would no longer be reproducing fast enough to replace ourselves.
We are not about to go extinct, but this is an unexpected trajectory. As recently as 2017, the UN predicted human numbers would not peak until 2100, when we would reach more than 11 billion people. However, the new estimate shows our numbers could rise from 8.1 billion to a maximum of just 9.5 billion before declining by the early 2060s.
While a catastrophic population explosion used to seem inevitable, women’s increasing levels of education and reproductive freedom have staved off some of the worst predictions of the 20th century. That is actually something to celebrate: We are not about to suffer a population overshoot and run out of food, as sometimes happens to animals in the wild — and as was predicted in the 1968 book The Population Bomb.
Illustration: Yusha
However, the relative number of older people would skyrocket around the world, causing anxiety among some economists, and some political leaders want more people to have more kids. On the other side, some environmentalists argue for pushing population to drop faster to slow global warming, and loss of habitat for other species and ultimately for us humans. At the core of the debate are big, unanswered questions: Is 9.5 billion too many people? Would the population subsequently fall to a number that is too low? Is there a right number of humans?
Maybe instead of focusing on the number of children people are having, policymakers should focus on the fact that too many children worldwide are not getting adequate nutrition, education or medical care. Even now, although humans grow enough food to feed everyone, roughly one person in 10 is chronically undernourished — that is scientific jargon for “hungry all the time” — and more than one child in five is stunted (too short) because of chronic hunger and infections.
After all, as demographer and mathematician Joel Cohen explains, the “right number of people” question depends on yet more questions, among them: What would be the accepted standard of material wealth? How much inequality would be acceptable? Would it be okay to build cities in areas prone to catastrophic flooding and earthquakes? Do people prefer parking lots or parks?
The new Lancet estimate is credible, Cohen said.
“This is really the most serious piece of work in the business about what has happened and what to expect,” he said. “There are lots of connections to climate, religion, economics, politics — but the fact is that fertility has been going down and is likely to continue to go down.”
Fertility is usually measured by looking at the number of children born each year to women of each age, from 15 to 55. However, the Lancet model follows cohorts of women born each year — counting the babies born to women who turned 15 in 1950, then 16 in 1950 and so on — up until the time they turn 50.
“Cohort fertility is a much better summary of the real experience of real women,” Cohen said. The new projection also factored in the estimated effects on education and access to contraception, both of which have a big effect on reducing fertility.
Attempts by some governments to encourage parenthood with economic incentives or abortion restrictions are failing, Cohen said. He pointed to a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that in the US, rates of voluntary sterilization rose after the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision revoked national abortion rights.
Although cause and effect are not proven, he said it is possible that restrictive abortion laws are “pushing people out of reproduction … which I don’t think is the intended effect.”
It is impossible to know all the unintended consequences of trying to engineer the population to grow or shrink, but there is no downside to taking better care of the children we already have.
The focus of future policy should be to help people have the number of kids they want, when they want, with whom they want.
In her book Sex and the Planet, University of Utah bioethicist Margaret Pabst Battin starts with a thought experiment: What would happen if everyone had access to reliable, safe, free, foolproof long-term contraception, so that getting pregnant would only happen if a woman or couple opted in?
Right now, 45 percent of pregnancies worldwide (and a higher proportion in the US) are unplanned, and some of those lead to the 73 million abortions that take place every year. With reliable long-term birth control, the rates of abortion would plummet, as would the rates of teen pregnancy. Birthrates in many regions would go down, which would prevent rapid population growth. People would not need to resort to permanent sterilization.
Gloom and doom sells, of course, which is why population trends always tend to be framed as impending disasters — whether they are baby booms or baby busts. If we cannot agree whether we are facing too many or too few people, perhaps it is a good time to help people have the number of children they think is right for them.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS