It says fertility isn't an issue today, but it's a little out of touch with today's anxieties; most of Europe and Japan have such low fertility that their native populations are in decline.
Which does not prevent it from being a problem. Government policy can change that. Not forcing teenagers to go $150.000 in debt and to have a career to repay that until they're in their 30s would be the bare minimum.
Well, they clearly can, as many more people in more deeply impoverished parts of the world are having lots of children. Likely, they cannot afford to have children while providing the standard of living (own bedroom, back yard, healthy food, bonding time, good school, college education, etc) they consider the lower bound on acceptable.
Every affluent country's fertility rate is below replenishment levels. Their population growth rate is only positive due to immigration.
In fact, global population will likely peak around 2050, and then start falling, which will be a whole new crisis. People will look back at overpopulation fears and laugh.
In fact, global population will likely peak around 2050, and then start falling, which will be a whole new crisis. People will look back at overpopulation fears and laugh.
A rapid fall in population would be problematic, but a steady state or slow gradual decline would be beneficial - and perhaps environmentally necessary.
Obviously you need to ensure there are enough young people to support and care for the elderly, so population can't be too top-heavy. But improving technology (robots, AI) should reduce the need for labour without compromising living standards.
Yes, environmental factors largely dictate the fertility rate, particularly economic such as career opportunities, and health care related (longevity and particularly infant mortality).
I was really surprised the article didn't mention this. To be fair it's apparently something that has been evolving for decades, so it wasn't so much prediction but they definitely aren't inventing something wild. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/
The anxiety from the film is very close to Europe's anxiety, I think. In the story, England is relatively stable and prosperous in a world full of chaos, but there's a sense that if refugees were allowed in, the stability would be upended and the limited resources of the country would be unable to support the onslaught. Sure, in the world of the film, the English are trying to enjoy the last decades of human existence while clinging to their privilege, whereas in real-world Europe there's a feeling they'll be demographically out-competed by immigrants. Without the pressure from low fertility among natives, European countries wouldn't feel so threatened by immigration.
Ironically, of course, the only workable solution to the demographic crises in Europe and Japan is immigration. Otherwise, pension responsibilities will overwhelm the working-age population and the whole society will collapse.
Ironically, of course, the only workable solution to the demographic crises in Europe and Japan is immigration. Otherwise, pension responsibilities will overwhelm the working-age population and the whole society will collapse.
Staving off a demographic crisis using mass migration of middle class people from developing nations is a bit like staving off a petrochemical crisis by fracking or digging up national parks for coal. You're just shifting the problem to another time period and making irreversible changes to your country. It's not at all sustainable.
Global population will peak, so eventually every country will have to come to terms with an ageing population. In many ways, Japan is trail blazer here while the west has its head in the sand.
