The Idea: The recent UN projection that global population will level off at 9.5 billion is based on the flawed assumption that a recent phenomenon — families having fewer children than they want due to economic and political constraints — will continue throughout the century and become a global phenomenon. Remove those constraints and the linear growth of nearly a billion more people per decade will continue, and precipitate a great ecological challenge to our planet. Take a look at the historical demographic trends and you see that, with only a few exceptions in different places and times, people have the number of children they want. During pioneer times in North America, fifteen children were needed to run the farm, so that’s how many most families had. In Niger, Africa today men want 12-15 babies each, and women want almost as many, and that’s how many they have. In the last thirty years, a remarkable and global gap has arisen between the ideal number of children wanted and the number of children actually born. This gap has a number of different explanations, all of them transient. There is no precedent for such a gap continuing, and no reason to believe it will continue. When that gap closes, the average number of children per family will rise by between 0.50 and 0.75. The chart above shows what that will mean to world population. The entire basis for the projection that global population will peak at 9.5 billion and then level off is based on the assumption that this recent anomaly — families having 0.5 children fewer each than they want — will continue as a global phenomenon for the rest of the century and beyond. Every year a whole set of surveys are taken throughout the world on what people consider the ‘ideal’ family size. Here are some of their findings:
These ideals are, on average, between 0.5 and 0.75 children more than actual fertility rates. In other words, people are having fewer children around the world than they would like to. The 2004 UN population projection says “In the medium variant, fertility is projected to decline from 2.6 children per woman today to slightly over 2 children per woman in 2050. If fertility were to remain about half a child What are the reasons for the recent phenomenon of families having 0.5 to 0.75 children fewer than they want? They vary from country to country:
From this data, a very troubling hypothesis presents itself. We have taken great comfort from reports that correlate lower birth rates with higher education, especially of women. But it appears we may have missed the real cause and effect here: Higher rates of education for women mean, as the Two-Income Trap so eloquently explained, higher rates of participation of women in the workforce, which means more supply of labour relative to demand and hence ability to offer lower wages, and also means more price-pressure on housing in prestige areas especially near good schools, driving up the price of housing and forcing women to stay in the workforce longer and defer having children longer, or even until it is too late. So it is possible that it is the cost of living, not education, that has temporarily slowed soaring human population. That deferral will eventually start to crimp the availability of cheap labour (although offshoring could sustain it a bit longer). When that happens, wages will have to rise and women will once again be able to leave the labour force long enough to have the children they want. And then we’ll see a baby boom, leading to the red line in the chart above — 14 billion people by the end of the century. That will happen even with HIV and other epidemic diseases and famines — historically human population has always ‘bounced back’ from these setbacks by having more children to compensate for the ones that die young. Of course there’s always the possibility that the Two-Income Trap could become a permanent and global phenomenon, with wage increases always pushing housing and other prices up to negate any real increase, so people will forevermore have fewer children, and start having children later in life, than they would want to. Except that the Trap is not sustainable without the pressure of more and more people competing for wage-slave jobs and scarce resources. Alas, the 14 billion human population isn’t sustainable either. I know readers of How to Save the World don’t like my ‘pessimistic’ posts, and I suspect some will jump in with reasons why the red line forecast won’t happen, or say I’m just being an alarmist. I think expecting people to have the families they want is realism not pessimism, and while the idea of 14 billion humans troubles me, I think it makes sense to consider the possibility, and how to deal with the fact that our species, for the past several millennia, seems predestined and biologically driven to procreate at more than replacement levels until we hit a wall. Sources: Gallup International polls of ideal family size; the Guttmacher Institute family values studies; papers to the 2004 World Congress on Bioethics; Johns Hopkins INFO project reports; papers to the 2001 World Population Conference; the European Foundation quality of life studies; UN Population Prospects 2004 Revision report. |
Navigation
Collapsniks
Albert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Brutus (US)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Erik Michaels (US)
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Honest Sorcerer
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Mari Werner
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Resilience (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Morgan (UK)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
XrayMike (AU)
Radical Non-Duality
Tony Parsons
Jim Newman
Tim Cliss
Andreas Müller
Kenneth Madden
Emerson Lim
Nancy Neithercut
Rosemarijn Roes
Frank McCaughey
Clare Cherikoff
Ere Parek, Izzy Cloke, Zabi AmaniEssential Reading
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature Posts
About the Author (2023)
My Circles
E-mail me
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Collapse Watch:
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
Effective Activism
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Beyond Belief
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
Civilization Disease
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
Going Vegan
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Understanding Conservatives
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Credulous
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Species Shame
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
Pollard's Laws
On Caste
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Rogue Primate
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
True Story
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Useless Advice
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
Navigating Complexity
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Extinction Capitalism
Homeless
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Happy Now?
This Creature
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
Glimpses
How Our Bodies Sense the World
Fragments
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Creative Works:
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Improv (Poem)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Rune (Poem)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Invisible (Poem)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Enough (Lament)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
Conjurer (Satire)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
Just curious
Once again Dave i think you are exagerating, because ine thing its the number of sons thepeople WANT and other its the number of sons the people HAVE because based on your wayto take conclusion Mexico will be one of the richest countries in the world the next yearsbecause our Consumer confidence Index has been growing in the last years.. your article its fallacy…. you have to take conclusion based on FACTS no WiSHES.(i hope you dont propouse to get the womens back home because they are increasing the su-pply of labor and producing a decrease on wage as you use to do with the offshoring case)
During pioneer times in North America, fifteen children were needed to run the farm, so that’s how many most families had.According to this source, women in America had 7 children back in 1800, not 15.In Niger, Africa today men want 12-15 babies each, and women want almost as many, and that’s how many they have.According to these statistics, it’s 6.83 children born per woman in Niger.
Ken,Thanks for those sources. I had looked up the Niger number but forgot to mention it. As for women from pioneer times… obviously many of those children were unplanned and unwanted since those women had no modern methods or contraception.The European Commission released a report yesterday – see – http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/96&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enwarning about the large drop in population that Europe will be experiencing over the next 50 years.From the Report -Fertility ratesThe EU’s birth rate has been falling for 30 years. The total fertility rate for the EU in 2003 was 1.48 children per woman.Of the ten countries in the world with the lowest birth rates, * three are EU Member States: the Czech Republic (1.17 children per woman), Slovakia (1.2 children per woman) and Slovenia (1.22 children per woman) * and one is a candidate country (Bulgaria, 1.24 children per woman).Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland have a fertility rate of less than 1.3 children per woman.Europe is depending upon massive migration to make up for the shortfall in births. However, I think they are being overly optimistic in this. Germany, which wasn’t supposed to lose population for a few years yet has seen its population decline in both 2003 and 2004. Germany had been expecting a balance of 200,000 migrants a year. However like their births the net migration numbers are falling too… 143,000 in 2003 and 70-80,000 in 2004.see- http://www.destatis.de/presse/englisch/pm2004/p5510021.htmHowever, net inward migration, too, was further down in 2004. In 2003, the number of in-migrations to Germany was by 143,000 larger than that of out-migrations. In 2004, that balance of migration is expected to be down to about 70,000 to 80,000. This means that the migration surplus is not sufficient to offset the deficit of births, so that the total population (end of 2003: 82,532 million) will presumably have decreased to just under 82.5 million.
Joe/Miguel/Ken: Nothing you have said refutes in any way the validity of my arguments. Why in the world would you suppose people would continue to voluntarily have smaller families than what they really want? Do you really expect me to believe that people decide to have children on the same basis they decide to buy cars? Europe isn’t ‘depending’ on immigration to make up for a shortfall in births — In fact their policies are quite immigration-hostile. The data that Ken quotes are averages for America as a whole, not for pioneering farm families settling in new areas. The Niger stats actually support my argument that many people want more children than they are now having, although because of infanticide, poor reporting techniques, high infant mortality, polygamy and a host of reasons my guess would be the actual number of births per woman there is a lot higher than the ‘official’ numbers. The UN global projections are just like the US Census Bureau population projections in the 70s that said population in the US would be declining by 2000 — simple projections that didn’t allow for people’s actual preferences. Sorry, guys, you are all just so hell-bent on denial of the very real possibility that we’re going to breed ourselves into oblivion simply by obeying our biological imperatives, that there’s simply no point in arguing with you. It’s like arguing with Lomborg about global warming. The very idea that we should be more concerned about underpopulation than overpopulation would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
Dave, I would turn it around on you and say that you are the one in â
Rest assured:The line will stay below the black UN Median line, because well before 205 there will be a massive die-off. If you look closely at the current world situation you will recognize that there is no other conclusion.
Sorry it should be 2050 of course