[DCEite]

“Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming. Mark these words.”

In this tweet from August 2022, Elon Musk warned that a falling birthrate could pose an existential threat to human civilization.

I wanted to share some thoughts and discussion on what might be one of the most surprising shifts of our time: the global population isn’t exploding anymore—it’s actually slowing down and may even start to decline sooner than we thought !

What’s Happening?

For decades, we’ve heard alarms about overpopulation and its potential to wreck the planet. But now, data shows that in many parts of the world—especially in wealthier nations like Japan, much of Europe, and North America—population decline has already begun. In Japan, for example, the country is losing about 100 people every hour. Countries are witnessing fertility rates drop well below replacement levels as societies transition from agrarian to industrial and service-based economies. Women now have more choices regarding education and careers, which means fewer children per family.

Why It’s Surprising

It wasn’t long ago that some experts predicted our global numbers could reach 12.3 billion. Instead, projections now suggest a peak at around 10 billion in the 2060s before a decline sets in. Even major players like China and Japan are on a downward trajectory—China’s population is expected to shrink dramatically by the end of the century, a lingering effect of its old One Child Policy.

The Environmental Angle

Here’s the twist: fewer people might seem(me included) like a win for the environment. Less human activity could mean reduced overall resource consumption and lower pressure on natural ecosystems. But the reality isn’t so straightforward. While the headcount may drop, the per capita consumption in wealthier countries is sky-high. In fact, individuals in developed nations tend to have a much larger carbon footprint than those in poorer regions. Also, as populations age, older adults sometimes end up consuming more energy (think larger, less energy-efficient homes and increased healthcare demands).

Economic and Social Implications

Beyond the environmental debate, there are significant economic challenges. A shrinking workforce can lead to labor shortages, increased pressure on social support systems, and more intense competition for skilled workers. Migration policies might shift as countries scramble to balance their demographic scales, which could further complicate environmental and economic landscapes. This I think is the biggest worry of the likes of Musk.

So, Is a Falling Population a Good Thing?

It’s a mixed bag. On one hand, a smaller population could ease some environmental pressures if we also change consumption habits and decouple economic growth from environmental damage. On the other hand, without reforms in energy use, infrastructure, and global migration, the benefits might be offset by increased per capita emissions and the economic strains of an aging society.

TL;DR:

Global population growth is slowing, with some regions already experiencing declines. While fewer people might lessen our overall impact on the environment, high per capita consumption and an aging population introduce new challenges.

What do you all think? Could this demographic transition lead to a more sustainable future, or are there hidden pitfalls we need to prepare for?

I personally believe in the power of nature. With the exploding economies and globalization, climate change is one phenomenon that is indirectly linked to over population and if we have a steady decline in population going forward, it could mean a breather for mother earth to heal itself from the ill effects of over consumption, industrialization and emissions. I see the declining population growth as Nature's way of healing iself.

Ofcourse its not as black and white it seems, but for me this is a positive overall Development, irrespective of what Elon Musk thinks


Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

[deathwalkr]

Nature has a tendency to balance itself. Might take eons to do it, but do, it will.

Life expectancy will go up, humans will find ways to stay young for longer, humanoids will do work of blue collared labour.

Who know what can happen. We can only think different permutations and combinations of what may or may not happen as long as remember that we are just another species in this planet.

[V.Narayan]

Very pertinent topic relevant for the medium and the long term and the very long term. I doubt we shall get more than 25 responses at this point on Team BHP but 25 years from now it will be on everyone's mind something like climate change is today.

In the medium term ie 25 years it will destabilize the relative economic positions of countries and regions. China, Europe and Japan will feel a downward pressure due to population decline. I'm not yet saying their GDPs will shrink - that is a way more complicated matter - but that declining populations will exert a downward push to their economies. Russia might be the worst affected. Similarly countries like India, Indonesia, Vietnam, USA will experience an upward push due to populations remaining stable or growing slowly.

Come 50 years out the demographics of Africans almost doubling in size, China, Japan & Europe shrinking and India just beginning to shrink will alter the geo-political and cultural power bases across the world. That cultural shift might actually be harder to digest than the economic ones.

100 years out Africa could be the dominant continent or at least a lot more dominant than today. USA & Australia and maybe Canada because of their immigration doctrine & institutions might be the odd men who continue to build up. Amongst European nations the country with the best chance of being successful with immigration is the UK. They are down today but I would not write them off at all.

Of course Technology especially AI is the disrupter and we do not know where that will land especially AI as it is a disrupter to disrupt all past inventions. While some are predicting doomsday for those with a declining population we should remember these are advanced nations with technology and well developed institutions. They will work their way out of this problem. Some might make it an asset.

In 200 years a reduced population will help Mother Earth heal. Humanity can survive and thrive with a population of 2 billion or even 1 billion. That is not as absurd as it may sound to the young. It was 2 billion when by father was born, all in my living memory.

[PreludeSH]

Given that population decline is gradual, countries will also adjust to it smoothly. Technology will help in overcoming the decline.

We haven't been able to use our demographic advantage in supporting the world. And there will be even less dependence on human labour for services with technology solving such issues. AI will affect white collared jobs more and more.

[rishi.roger]

IMO, Population wasn't as much an issue as its density.

Also, population never has really been helpful as much as quality of it.

[Jeroen]

You are more likely to win a billion dollars in a lottery than to predict the population growth medium to long term for a country, let alone the world.

The variances in the different scenarios tend to be huge as well and there is a huge variety in population growth/shrinkage per country.

Europe is likely to grow till about 2050! Not a lot of people know that!

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ions_in_the_EU



But even during that period of population growth there is also a steady increase in average age and old age folks. So there are multiple issues with very different implications. And thus solutions.

Personally, one of the most fundamental question that need to be answered is how you would like a society to look 20-40-60-80 years from now. One of the key issues is whether we want to continue on this path of growth, more growth, and keep consuming more. The same needs to be done on topics such as for instance the environment. Do we keep eating animals in large parts of the world, or make some fundamental changes.

Most of these studies don’t make fundamental changes in their assumptions. It is essentially projecting the status quo. And even then, historically, population projections have been wildly of the mark since we began doing these projections.

So for me, the answer lies in having a much more in depth discussion in what kind of society you want your (grand) children to live. If everybody wants more and better, it’s going to be an even bigger mess as we have currently.

The old age related issues are very real and can be felt in many countries even today. It comes down to an out of control spiralling health cost systems and underfunded pension system.

The biggest hurdle in all of this is the current political climate and politician the world over. None of them seem to be able to think beyond their next tweet. Everybody is busy with acting tough. In fact if you look closely, it appears that speaking tough is even more important than actually accomplishing anything.

As long as we elect idiots like this, having a comprehensive and in-depth discussion about what our world should look like in the next 2-4 generations and what we need to start changing today ain’t going to happen I’m afraid. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot of politicians around the globe these days whose way forward is to go back in time.


Jeroen

[MinivanDriver]

It is sad that we are not utilizing the resources to improve quality of life for the existing population. The same Elon Musk is taking US government funding away from social welfare programs and health care for the poor(Medic Aid). If we look at his actions on cutting welfare for the needy and his advocacy for population growth, it seems like he wants a young workforce and atleast indirectly let the aged poor die early from lack of affordable health care.

[Hayek]

Anyone who “worries” about “decline in human populations” is either hugely misinformed or more likely spreading misinformation. The baseline projection for human population is to reach 9.7 bn by 2050 and peak at 10.8 bn in 2080. The 50 year projections are almost certain to be wrong - about 20 years ago, I remember reading projections of population peaking in the 2050s at 9 bn. We always thought India was over populated even in my school days when our population was 700 mm. We are insanely overpopulated at more than 1.4 bn today.

But yes, if I look at my paternal grand parents’ descendants, they had 5 children, 10 grand children - but (with no scope for any more) only 6 great grand children - since many of my cousins did not have kids and even those that did had only 1. So at a single family level, one could worry about population decline.

And that is what these people are really talking about.

I don’t think people who worry about population decline are worried about humanity vanishing. More often than not, whether in the case of the Japanese or Koreans or White Christians or South Indians or Hindus or Tamil Brahmins, the worry is that a particular “racial” group is about to decline. Is that a problem? For those of us who believe that humans are one species, certainly not! For those who see themselves as part of a small tribe rather than as part of humanity, there is reason to worry.

[DicKy]

Originally Posted by Hayek

the worry is that a particular “racial” group is about to decline. Is that a problem? For those of us who believe that humans are one species, certainly not! For those who see themselves as part of a small tribe rather than as part of humanity, there is reason to worry.

This is certainly what most people worry about when it comes to population decline. Concern for environment or workforce or ageing is of concern, but won't ring the alarm bells or fearmongering like a specific racial or ethnic group gaining or losing numbers. Regards to helping environment mere population decline won't help. It would need massive change in the current lifestyle to help the environment.

Slightly offtopic from declining population, but a more humourous take from a comedy movie regarding future population. Opinions are divided among people who see this as advocating eugenics and others who treat this as a future documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq6E9BJcs0Y

[Traxxrc1]

The last thing we Indians need to be worried about is the value of life in India. The main reason the value of life in India is minuscule is for this reason only. This may cause concern in countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia, but it's a step in the right direction for nations like India and China. The fertility rate has to drop to at least 2.1 or less to ensure a better quality of life and judicious resource distribution. This is just my take; many might disagree.

[TwinBishop]

This is a problem only for a) those who want to exploit human labour and b) those who want continuous growth in demand for their products.

For any sane mind there is no doubt about the harmful impact of the explosion in human population in the 20th century. The exponential rise in the exploitation of nature and fellow human beings is immoral and bad for our well being to say the least.

Elon Musk is a good engineer and I respect him as a fellow engineer. But it is better not to take him seriously outside the narrow field of engineering. Efficiency in exploiting nature and profit in business are not good parameters to evaluate epochal events which impact a whole planet and consequentially humans as a whole.

[Fuldagap]

In the Indian context, what if we had just 30 crore people instead of 140-50 crores today?

Look at Russia's or USA's land area vs the population. Their natural resources far surpass anything seen in India, while their respective populations are a fraction of ours.

I have never been able to understand why China and India are so populous. Is it climatic conditions, is it prosperity, is it the culture or what is it.

Populations tend to reside at favourable spots in any given geography because of which massive lands might be available for a healthy living but it is not feasible as we are humans and not animals who'd migrate just like that in search of greener pastures.

People at the lowest rungs live even without normal drinking or bathing water in cities like Delhi. They are ok with having to live with toxic water instead of migrating or even having to think about it. Huge populations get stuck for generations at a single place even while facing adversity.

The base number of global population is so huge that even a tiny percentage of growth translates into adding half an India to the world every year, the number is roughly 70 crores per annum or maybe even more. Japan, Russia currently have a negative population growth rate. While politically it might become a case of worry, isn't it going to be filled with willful migrants? Isn't it good for humans looking for better standard of living?

Countries in dire straits generally tend to have a much higher population growth rate compared to countries where economy is flourishing. African nations like Sudan sit at 4% per annum. Pakistan's population growth rate is double compared to ours.

Humans are complex creatures. With low awareness, low education, adverse living conditions, even then they produce, more and more.

These days it can be generally seen on media, some so called leaders asking Indians to produce even more children, a minimum of 3 to be precise. I'm not sure who listens to them, but it seems to be working in their favour.

[GhostRider28]

Controversial opinion: We humans, have always multiplied, taking mother nature for granted and with utter disregard for the environment in our efforts to “grow”, both economically and population wise. Yes, before the advent of modern medical science, average life expectancy was poor which fuelled our prehistoric desire to multiply for bettering the statistical advantage. Being social and learning from each other has been a key factor in our advancement as a species.

In my opinion, nothing can be better cure than gradual population rationalisation for a lot of our problems: poverty, environmental impact of civilisation and conditions of living.

Compare the world population in 1850s vs today. How bad can it be if we come down to that population in another 300 years with all the modern marvels of science.

AI and robotics will only advance and help in the cause, with more traditional jobs being taken care of by machines.

The downside: local rich cultures and traditions will vanish, power will get more concentrated in the hands of a few.

[Mustang Sammy]

Originally Posted by DicKy

Slightly offtopic from declining population, but a more humourous take from a comedy movie regarding future population. Opinions are divided among people who see this as advocating eugenics and others who treat this as a future documentary.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=zq6E9BJcs0Y

I was going to respond with this same movie as an example. I think it is a very likely future scenario, with a lot of added violence and societal upheaval.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by Fuldagap

Japan, Russia currently have a negative population growth rate. While politically it might become a case of worry, isn't it going to be filled with willful migrants? Isn't it good for humans looking for better standard of living?

For many reasons like political, cultural, etc, this is a non-starter. We have seen backlash against immigrants in countries that are seeing a declining population. No developed country is going to allow immigrants to flood in to compensate for their native population decline.