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.
The idea that business or even tech are redoubts of freedom and meritocracy where "only money counts," unlike Hollywood, government, or academia, are now 20 years outdated. Every unconventional young startup billionaire posterboy happens to be handpicked by one guy—Peter Thiel.
I suspect there are a ton of negative unmeritocratic selection effects, both obvious and illegible, happening in business and tech. This is because every business can live or die on one deal, and every deal can live or die on one investor, one regulator, one HR lady, one wife...
There are way fewer success stories of unconventional young startup founders when you strip out anyone who wasn't mentored or supported by the PayPal mafia network. You would have to strip out Mark Zuckerberg, Vitalik Buterin, Dylan Field, Palmer Luckey, Patrick Collison...
The fact the same error appears in both philanthropy and government policy when implemented by non-progressives indicates it is deeper than error. Psychologically they cannot "give something for nothing." But therefore they view both cultural labor and new children as "nothing."
This is the real damnation of this mindset. A worldview in which both the production of culture and of children are really considered worthless is not one that will survive. Its own standards are revealed to be deferential to incumbent powers and the conditions they create.
They do not actually think independently of current conditions. They pay lip service to making culture or children, but really what they want is to force culture and children to be solvent under the conditions incumbent powers have created, rather than change those conditions.
I wish people would stop the highfalutin spiritual explanations and try some simple material ones: Western elites and masses alike are too lazy and innumerate now to be successful captains of industry or disciplined industrial workers, so they let industry and technology wither.
"I don't understand why 43-year-olds who have spent their entire lives on creative writing, office politics, going to music festivals, and gender ideology do not support my proposal to radically reorient the economy around skills in mathematics and engineering."
The reason "the Left" opposes this is because they are not stupid enough to think that "the AI" is going to run everything, they know under this proposal it would be people in math and engineering running things. Although those people are too autistic to realize that.
The real reason to cultivate physical virtue in the industrial age is that physical virtue cultivates testosterone and testosterone is the hormone that allows you to build and rebuild organizations, which are the real unit of the industrial age.
I don't know why IQ is not enough to build and rebuild organizations on its own. It's an interesting question. We have biological general intelligences but they do not operate solely or even primarily on the level of IQ. More on the level of charisma, animal magnetism...
World War I annihilated the European aristocracy's conception of itself as cultivating ancient virtue, since simple machine guns mowed down heroic young men by the million. But this led to error. You still need physical virtue and testosterone to build machine gun factories...
I mean, it's a good question. Why hasn't human civilization naturally developed into a brutal aristocracy of the highly moral and high-IQ? Why don't we have a global "130 IQ high-trust Anglo" paradise already?
What mysterious force obviously overcomes and beats intelligence?
I think the only way I can answer it is something like: the force that mysteriously overcomes intelligence is the inertial collapse of structures put together by still yet more intelligent players in the past.
Why is it so hard to reform institutions even with great intelligence? It's because when functional institutions are built in the first place, they are designed with multitudinous failsafes and killswitches to prevent them from being changed (and thus also from being reformed).
It is a massive gaping fallacy threatening to swallow up all organized religions entirely that the only choices are "instrumentalizing religion for other ends" or "total and deliberate inward obscurantism with no outwardly verifiable or tangible signs of functionality needed."
E-trads are fully aware that essentially all notable organized religions are in massive decline and incapable of fighting the forces of the secular world in any meaningful way, but somehow also refuse to admit this obviously means religious institutions are dysfunctional.
The institutional decline of organized religion has obviously not resulted in a decline of religiously-inspired action and thinking. It has just been taken up by nominally irreligious ideologies and groups that nonetheless make moral and theological claims with great enthusiasm.