The Big Picture - Where's the world going?

[Valmy]

Internationally, I wonder if (and how) the change in population percentages is going to work out - India will be much more populous than China, for example; and the African population will become comparatively bigger.

India's fertility rate is 2.0, below replacement level. Granted giant compared to China, so I guess that checks out.

The African fertility rate is falling rapidly but still huge. The continent right now is 4.0 which is...hard for my western mind to get around. But it was 5 twenty years ago.

[crazy canuck]

My assumption is that population shrinkage will result in less aggregate demand and therefore shrink the economy, but I am far from certain

the shrinkage is in the young age group, the olds will increase.  Demand goes up but the workers needed to meet the demand goes down.

[DGuller]

I wonder if there will come a point where evolution will step in and correct for demographic implosion, either at individual level or at societal level;  selecting for individuals directly or indirectly more driven to reproduce, or selecting for societies which discourage childlessness.  Surely in the long run humanity can't survive indefinitely with below replacement level fertility.  Then again, no species is guaranteed survival, plenty of them go extinct all the time because they couldn't adapt to new environment...

[Jacob]

India's fertility rate is 2.0, below replacement level. Granted giant compared to China, so I guess that checks out.

Yeah, I was skimming some reports earlier - before I made the post - and what I saw as something saying that China was set to decline from 1.2 billion, maybe all the way down to 800 million; while India was set to peak at 1.4 billion (also starting from 1.2 billion) before starting to decline.

So basically China is deeper in the hole than India.

The African fertility rate is falling rapidly but still huge. The continent right now is 4.0 which is...hard for my western mind to get around. But it was 5 twenty years ago.

Yeah, it's something. Though by current projections it seems likely (though projected) that Africa will eventually decline to below 2.1 as well - though it's further in the future. Who knows what will actually happen?

[Jacob]

I wonder if there will come a point where evolution will step in and correct for demographic implosion, either at individual level or at societal level;  selecting for individuals directly or indirectly more driven to reproduce, or selecting for societies which discourage childlessness.  Surely in the long run humanity can't survive indefinitely with below replacement level fertility.  Then again, no species is guaranteed survival, plenty of them go extinct all the time because they couldn't adapt to new environment...

Yeah... fertile ground for new types of sci-fi: 1) Descendants of decline empires, not because of apocalypse but just lack of replacement; 2) The descendants of social media billionaires in their AI & robot doomsday bunkers, contrasted with whatever happened outside... and probably more.

[Sheilbh]

There are unavoidable demographic realities that impact now on all developed countries.  In Europe, the effect is particularly strong, as birth rates are now very low and have been far below replacement for a while now. For the rhetoric about automation and AI, it isn't feasible to substitute capital for labor fast enough to handle that transition without serious economic fallout.  Modern developed economies are overwhelming service based and with a rapidly aging society, the demand for care workers and all kinds of domestic labor will only increase.  And of course, the demographic profile flows into worsening dependency ratios, with potentially catastrophic consequences for public pension schemes.

It is strong in Europe but Europe also has immigration at releatively high levels (historically). There are several European countries with a larger immigrant share of the population than the US including the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands etc.

The really interesting countries to watch I think are in Asia where the immigration rate is lower - particularly South Korea and Japan. I think South Korea last year had more 81 year olds than 1 year olds. I don't know what that society looks like.

One thing I slightly wonder is even just social attitudes around age.

I have no idea on the demographic point both how societies will change but also globally how the world will change as the population centre of gravity moves from Asia to Africa (why I think development is such an important question here). I think it's the biggest challenge/policy issue because I just don't know what that social change will look like.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if there will come a point where evolution will step in and correct for demographic implosion, either at individual level or at societal level;  selecting for individuals directly or indirectly more driven to reproduce, or selecting for societies which discourage childlessness.  Surely in the long run humanity can't survive indefinitely with below replacement level fertility.  Then again, no species is guaranteed survival, plenty of them go extinct all the time because they couldn't adapt to new environment...

Yeah... fertile ground for new types of sci-fi: 1) Descendants of decline empires, not because of apocalypse but just lack of replacement; 2) The descendants of social media billionaires in their AI & robot doomsday bunkers, contrasted with whatever happened outside... and probably more.

You might like Paradise, on Disney

[Josquius]

We're definitely going to need a change away from the current pension ponzi scheme. Even if immigration lets us kick the can down the road further, or governments manage to make it affordable and desirable for people to have kids, we can't just keep growing forever.
A bit of population decline would actually be a good thing in itself- its just the economic mess that results from this that is a problem, and of course caring for all those old people.

Another place where it seems Japan isn't actually weird, its just ahead of the curve. Though there- lets stop repeating the myth Japan doesn't want immigrants. It really really does. Its just not many foreigners learn Japanese and salaries in Japan aren't brilliant.
Their official data masks a tonne of foreigners resident in the country. Short term residents like Chinese "interns" for instance and those with a Japanese passport.
One thing I find interesting on Japan's decline is how unequal it is. Tokyo, Osaka, and other big cities are doing fine. You have vast swathes of the country becoming ghost towns however. Predictions for many European countries have similar, France for instance, though the UK is rather different with our different cultural attitudes to the city and country.


On Africa- there its just a few countries which are breaking things. Nigeria is a key one where they've this big cultural thing about having huge families. Lots of places like Kenya already have population growth under control.

[Sheilbh]

On Japan less than 3% of the population are foreign nationals - that is millions of people. But in terms of the debate in Europe and North America that means Japans has fewer immigrants than Victor Orban's Hungary. So I'm not sure we can say Japan really really wants immigration unless we're just applying a different frame than we do for Europe.

With immigration and pensions it slightly depends. For example a lot of European immigration is primarily refugees/asylum seekers and family unification visas - so they're not economically focused migrants (I think this is one of the challenges with integration that some European countries have). I'm not sure the extent to which they help pay for pensions especially because in continental Europe there is a persistent earnings gap with second and third generations too.

The UK is a bit different - immigration looks more North American here. It is more heavily based on economic/work visas (plus students and family unification) and second and third generations tend to earn above the national average. So I think the argument on helping pay for pensions is stronger here. Having said that I think current rates of around 750,000 to 1 million net migration per year is not sustainable for more than a few years (especially in a country with the vaulting ambition of building 1.5 million new homes over five years).

With Africa no country is breaking things really. Most of Africa has the birth rate you would expect based on income and female literacy rates - the big exceptions are South Africa which is lower than you'd expect and the Sahel which is higher than you'd expect. But broadly fertility rates in Africa are exactly where you'd predict them to be based on fertility rates in the rest of the world.

[jimmy olsen]

S. Korea has 2.5 million foreigners working here. Out of a total 51.7 million. That's close to 5%.

My neighborhood and church has a ton of folk from Liberia and Nigeria. 

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure what you guys are on about France. I've never seen a ghost town, and my family lives in the countryside. There's a zillion villages, and they're always building new houses.

EDIT: Google tells me France has the highest fertility rate in Europe, at 1.79. Add immigration and it seems fine to me.

[Josquius]

On Japan less than 3% of the population are foreign nationals - that is millions of people. But in terms of the debate in Europe and North America that means Japans has fewer immigrants than Victor Orban's Hungary.

As I say Japanese data is misleading however. Their census doesn't differentiate between 'native' Japanese and naturalised immigrants, lots of short term residents, which are most foreign workers, aren't counted, and so on.
They still have nothing on the UK of course, but they're not so immigrant free as is popularly believed.

So I'm not sure we can say Japan really really wants immigration unless we're just applying a different frame than we do for Europe.

I want to be a millionaire. Doesn't mean I am. 
The Japanese government for years has been making efforts to try and encourage more immigration. They have problems doing this however.

With Africa no country is breaking things really. Most of Africa has the birth rate you would expect based on income and female literacy rates - the big exceptions are South Africa which is lower than you'd expect and the Sahel which is higher than you'd expect. But broadly fertility rates in Africa are exactly where you'd predict them to be based on fertility rates in the rest of the world.
.

Checking up my data might be out of date on Nigeria. Seems their birth rate has fell by a whole 1 in the last 5 years.
I do recall reading a piece a while ago how a handful of countries, them included, were the 'issue' in terms of African population growth however.

I'm not sure what you guys are on about France. I've never seen a ghost town, and my family lives in the countryside. There's a zillion villages, and they're always building new houses.

EDIT: Google tells me France has the highest fertility rate in Europe, at 1.79. Add immigration and it seems fine to me.

Its looking at the future rather than today.
I mention France less about it having especially poor population growth, and more without immigration Paris remains a pretty lone notable spot of growth in Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/feb/18/europes-population-crisis-see-how-your-country-compares-visualised

France also does seem to have similar cultural vibes to Japan with the vibes that everything that is worth anything comes from the metropole.