Posted 08.19.2009

Empty playgrounds

Global populations in decline

By Thomas Frey and Raymond Alvarez

In the next sixty seconds, 245 babies will be born in the world. Of these 36 will be from India and 29 will be from China. When numbers such as these are reported by the news media they paint a very gloomy picture of the world to come. However, a radically different picture is now emerging.

The population bomb is a misfire.

Notions that a massive wave of humanity will swamp the globe are simply wrong. Fears of over population are now being replaced with fears of under population. From a global perspective, we haven’t reached negative population growth just yet, but the numbers are painting an ominous picture.

Population growth is generally expected to decline gradually from 1.13 today to 0.60 by 2039. But several glaring features of the global population measurements make this prediction suspect. 

Radical new picture emerging
Modern pressures on infrastructure reinforce a belief that population growth is a problem. Crowded restaurants, brownouts, urban sprawl and other irritants of modern life leads to the familiar refrain: Too many people, too few resources.

It has been tempting to think that if we could deal with runaway population growth many of our woes would disappear. This notion paints a totally incorrect picture of the situation.

U.S. Census Bureau numbers show the world population growth rate peaked over 40 years ago in 1963 and has been trending downward ever since. Demographers now predict that absolute human population will peak at 9 billion by 2070 and then diminish. This prediction of racing to 9 billion, once forecast to occur 1950, just keeps getting pushed back – and may be so far into the future as to lack relevance.

Long before 2070, many nations will shrink in absolute size. At the same time, the average age of the world’s citizens will shoot up dramatically. For example Mexico is aging five times faster than the United States. By aggressively addressing the dangers of overpopulation, the world may have jumped on the brakes too hard.

Before giving in to the temptation of thinking fewer is better, consider again. Growth is an economy driver. A world with fewer people has fewer people buying cribs, college educations, new cars and new homes. A world with a shrinking population has a tired and sometimes sickly economy.

Demographic shifts
Within 10 years, adults will outnumber children for the first time. The report, “An Aging World: 2008,” forecasts that over the next 30 years the number of people over 65 is expected to almost double, from 506 million in 2008 to 1.3 billion – a leap from 7 percent of the world’s population to 14 percent. No other developed country will see as large a percentage increase in the elder population as the United States because it has the most baby boomers.

China’s approach
Formerly isolationist China and its “one child per family” restrictions have come under increasing world scrutiny.

Combined with a cultural preference for male babies, the policy skewed population gender makeup, which now is 122 male births for every 100 female births. In some rural areas the imbalance has been reported as high as 28 men for every woman. Long-term effects of the policy have generated much discussion.

Followed to its logical extreme, the one-child policy will mean death rates will outstrip birth rates by two to one until the nation’s total population dwindles to a fraction of itself. Under pressure of economic collapse, China might be expected to lift its one-child rule. But the change in culture may prove irreversible by then.

The public policy dilemma
Many expect social programs to be hit hard. Between the rock of a shrinking working population and the hard place of expanding benefits, most countries face a ticking social time bomb. None of the scenarios for avoiding massive problems look promising.

In 1950, Japan was one of the “youngest” countries in the world; it had a median age of 22. Now its median age is 41, and by 2025 it will be approaching 50. The growing imbalance between the producers and non-producers will only put larger pressures on benefit programs.

• Page 1
• Page 2

Last updated on Oct 19, 2009 at 08:23 AM

• Email
• Share