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 story, apparently: after disastrous, tyrannical pandemic policies including mass theft via hyperinflation, "sensible moderate pro-market" economists, bankers, and conservative politicians impoverished you further by suppressing wages with migrant labor. Did I get that right?
If true it's a textbook case of plain catastrophically bad governance. Bungling a practical problem (pandemic response), reacting by printing money and causing huge inflation, then making the situation worse by suppressing the wages you yourself inflated, impoverishing workers.
"Pro-market" economists and politicians seem to have a very hard time accepting the outcome of the free market, when the market wants higher wages. Somehow they rationalize that mass-importing migrant labor at a crazy pace doesn't qualify as anti-market government intervention!
I still haven't read a single investigative journalism deep-dive on why every country in the Anglosphere, Eastern Europe, and Japan all simultaneously pulled the "More Immigration" lever so hard it apparently snapped off right around late 2021.
Anons seem to be slowly piecing together what no investigative journalist has bothered to do. The story interestingly seems to be that this was driven by economists and central bankers rather than left-wing political activists or politicians.
There is nothing stopping Boomers from looting the treasury to 1000% debt-to-GDP. There is nothing stopping fertility rates going to 0.1 kids per woman. There is nothing stopping developed countries from mass-importing more immigrants until natives are 30% of the population.
"Surely someone will do something!" Okay, but what if they don't? What then? We are all going to live to see the consequences for the rest of our lifetimes. What does the world actually look like as this plays out?
China is more than willing to spot us $10-$100 trillion in order to let us completely destroy our societies with debt, entitlement spending, overregulation, de-development, and mass immigration. More predictable victory that way than fighting WW3!
The really uncomfortable part is that this applies not just to the U.S. population, but the populations of at least a billion people outside the U.S. How deep, really, are the "cultural differences" among human beings integrated into one globalized industrial civilization?
I've never heard anyone argue that the entire globe ought to be considered a single civilization. Yet why not? When you look at economic, elite, intellectual, and cultural flows, we are far more closely integrated than Ancient Rome and Ancient China.
I am pretty sure the economic and institutional processes to manufacture most technologically advanced goods nowadays touch most if not literally all continents and definitely depend on multiple rival states/blocs, obviously China. What does this imply for "civilization"?
The real China bull case even China hawks/watchers don't appreciate yet is pretty simple: by default we should expect China to grossly surpass all previous attempts at industrial growth, because it has way more people, of greater discipline and math aptitude, at greater density.
The NATO+ bloc also has around 1-2 billion people, but almost maximally geographically dispersed compared to China with way more internal barriers to industrial growth. China can perhaps fundamentally get more efficient economies of scale, better concentration of talent, etc.
This reframes the U.S.-led world's task as not of passively containing China or rekindling a past industrial glory, but of implementing urgent, revolutionary reforms to remain competitive with a rival with on paper already superior fundamentals, to do things never done before.
I am allergic to "talent is lacking" arguments because most people are just blissfully unaware of how ridiculously, comically, unbelievably over-the-top generous progressive philanthropy is. They literally give away millions, *billions* of dollars with effectively no oversight.
Not only that but there is no shortage of progressive donors doing this. Forget about USAID—you scratch a random corporation anywhere in the world, say Ikea, and you discover that it is for some reason disbursing, also, billions of dollars to progressive causes indiscriminately.
Even apolitical, centrist, or even mildly right-coded donors will occasionally, for inexplicable reasons, dump a cool *$100 million* on *checks notes* Van Jones. No comparison here. Progressive philanthropy is a tsunami, everything else combined is a lukewarm glass of water.