There is no indication that birth rates are going to stabilize, let alone recover, anywhere. Only Israel and Georgia (?) look like even half-way exceptions.
Unless they drastically and rapidly change, the 21st century will be the century of unbelievable aging and depopulation.
Based on these latest fertility numbers, we can expect the drop in new people in 100 years to be the following: USA (-47%), France (-46%), Russia (-65%), Germany (-68%), Italy (-78%), Japan (-81%), China (-88%), Thailand (-89%).
Turkey, UK, Mexico, etc. all similar.
People haven't really integrated what this means for our civilization, industrial society, and the progress of history because it's too big to wrap your head around.
I think what it means is that our civilization is about to collapse. Meaning sometime before 2200.
It is in every practical sense numerically *impossible* for immigration to fix this. You can't "make up the difference" with immigration when the difference is 50%+ of an entire generation. Especially not if you're China or the EU and your shortfall is in 100s of millions.
People still haven't updated on how rapidly fertility rates in the developing world are falling either. In 2022 already, Brazil was at 1.6, Mexico 1.8, India 2.0, Turkey 1.9, etc.
Numbers above say *Chile* is now at *0.88.* Thailand is at 0.95! What is happening!
The Danish population of Denmark hasn't changed a whit since 1980—44 years ago, or, you know, half a century.
The entire population growth in Denmark since 1980 has been immigrants. I bet this holds for many other countries too. Which means...
...the entire functioning of the quasi-redistributive quasi-capitalist system we have in Europe and North America has been subsidized by immigration for half a century already, while the previous population has stagnated and aged.
The system has been non-functional for decades.
There is no way to sustain the stack of institutions behind our version of modern industrial society when the next generations are collapsing by 50%+. It is as numerically impossible as throwing more immigrants at the problem. The math doesn't add up.
There is a strong psychological need to believe in utopian or apocalyptic visions of the near future, like AI doom/acc or imminent WW3 or ecological catastrophe, because the alternative is staring our incomprehensibly pathetic civilizational population collapse in the face.
I don't expect the dead players and bureaucrats to leap at opportunities for reform, but I think it's a catastrophic distraction for live players and independent thinkers, especially in tech, to forget that the straightforward solution is societal reform.
The solution isn't to hope we can build an AI who will solve all our problems for us or subsidize our incoherent, sociobiologically insolvent system with our wacky technology, the solution is coming up with a new, functional plan for organizing industrial societies.
People used to think that surely the low fertility rates of Asia would stabilize at, like, 1.1 at absolute minimum.
Nope. South Korea (population of 50 million) is now at 0.68. Others following. As @SamoBurja says, no reason not to expect 0.0 TFR societies in the near future.
If we fumble a much-needed reform of industrial society by 2100 or so, I think we miss our opportunity to establish permanent settlements in the Solar System and thus our chance at the stars down the line. It closes the book on that for us. Maybe in another 1000 years.
Everyone proposing to save the day with robots, AI, artificial wombs, longevity, or whatever other speculative wacky tech solution is proposing to do a great favor to the bad and broken system that brought us here.
The system needs reform, not more subsidy. Ideas, not tech.
The global economy and industrial/post-industrial standard of living, and all its attendant social norms, relies on a tremendous scale of population to be viable.
I don't think it's viable anymore when South Korea has 5 million people instead of 50 million.
I'm working on what I think will be a solution to industrial civilization's fertility problem. It's not a quick or easy problem. I published the first piece here in @palladiummag:
Also worth reading (and subscribing to!) @bismarckanlys Brief, which investigated India's rapidly falling fertility rates and near-future population stagnation here: brief.bismarckanalysis.com/p/fewer-than-o…
There is a personal upside to civilization-scale population collapse. If you are one of the few people to prioritize high fertility, your children and grandchildren will inherit a world:
Unfounded hope that fertility is a self-correcting problem, yet as @Empty_America is fond of pointing out, falling populations congregate in low-fertility cities even harder. They don't spread out to areas with cheap homes and fruitfully multiply!
If cheap homes attracted young people who automatically used them to be fecund according to some Malthusian logic, it would have happened already in places like rural America or Italy. The opposite is happening.
If you enjoyed these insights or wish to support further research on solving the problems raised herein, I warmly invite you to become a paid subscriber to @bismarckanlys Brief.
One underexplored aspect of the population collapse crisis is how many developing countries simply have fraudulent population numbers for various reasons.
Nigeria's population may be overstated by as much as double.
Every week, Bismarck Brief sends paid subscribers a new in-depth investigation of the strategy of a key institution, industry, or influential individual, from China to Silicon Valley.
Finding solutions to civilization-scale threats like the imminent demographic collapse is part of our daily work at @bismarckanlys. Make sure to follow our founder and president @SamoBurja and my colleagues @benlandautaylor and @RianCFFWhitton to stay up to date on our work!
Indeed. We could call the current demographic collapse trajectory "the Thanos Plan." Many think it will turn out very well, strangely enough. But maybe we shouldn't Thanos ourselves.
In 2025 your political options are either the group that wants to crush the human race into a fine powder for kind of unclear shifting moral reasons, or the opposition that wants to crush the human race into a fine powder because we don't follow market incentives closely enough.
The establishment view is that humanity is so evil and corrupt it needs to be crushed for reasons so obvious they do not even need to be explained, while the opposition view is that we must reluctantly crush humanity because hypothetical machines would be better workers.
My concern is that the only bipartisan position is crushing humanity into a fine powder and the other stuff seems kind of fake or speculative, which means the only material outcome we will get is crushing humanity into a fine powder.
The crisis of the last 500 years is basically a crisis of humanism. Wherever we can we keep denigrating, delegitimizing, constraining, and even destroying open and personalized human action, thought, and decision-making, in favor of opaque, manipulated, broken processes.
There is a straight line between the petty committees that stifle creativity and growth in ordinary professional and private life, and the expansive cosmological visions held by social and cultural elites that deny or delegitimize not just human agency but the human race itself.
Perhaps the story of the last 500 years is the humanists making the materially productive but politically fatal mistake of focusing their efforts on understanding the natural world rather than governing the human world. Gains in productivity sunk into political conflict.
When my grandkids ask me why we didn't do anything to prevent the ignominious collapse of modern civilization, I guess I will have to say that everyone knew exactly what was wrong, we had just already created a society where doing anything but raging online was impossible.
We have created a cage so perfect that the brightest minds of our era think it is easier to create artificial superhuman minds with silicon and software than reform governments and institutions, which when you take a step back is obviously a totally insane position to hold.
There is not going to be a "collapse" because the status quo is already the collapse. Working a fake job then sweating in the computer chair in a childless home *is* the collapse.
There are enough Indians for India to export 700 million people total to North America and Europe over the coming decades, become around 50% of the population on both continents, and still remain the world's most populous country with over 1 billion people.
This isn't even counting Pakistan and Bangladesh. Or the Philippines, Indonesia... the calculus for Western elites is very simple. The harder pension schemes, real estate markets, and GDP break down, the more immigrants we will import.
There is also Latin America, of course. If African or Muslim immigrants have proved too politically controversial, the same cannot be said for Indians or Filipinos, at least for now. The problem is solved as far as they are concerned.
Objectively I am mega-bearish on America, Europe, and China equally. I currently do not see any of them reversing the demographic and thus permanent decline of techno-industrial civilization, which will likely play out by 2100. All other discussion is just details until then.
So far every single disagreement with this post relies on multiple speculative science-fiction outcomes to pan out. While I'm not ruling it out entirely, if you can't see that this should not be taken as the default outcome, I don't know what to tell you.
It's a deep sign of how accustomed we have become to decline that nobody can talk about automation in any terms except as a replacement for dwindling human labor. But automation should be a force-multiplier for human labor, not a replacement!
I hope everyone under the age of 40 realizes that they are never going to see a single cent of the pensions they pay 10-20% of their income for in taxes.
Yes, you are very clever, applying cold hard facts and logic to turns of phrase. How about for $100k? At what number do you get uncomfortable and how far away is it from the lifetime number we expect a person to collect? Cards on the table buddy!
This @TheEconomist editor mocks me but is afraid to himself buy 20+ years of my social security income (just imagine all the life extension tech too!) worth maybe some $500k+ for a cheap $100k—apparently he doesn't really think it'll be worth shit either!