Will population decline change everything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercyalways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mercyalways

Guest
From the article: "The great defining event of the twenty-first century—one of the great defining events in human history—will occur in three decades, give or take, when the global population starts to decline. Once that decline begins, it will never end. We do not face the challenge of a population bomb, but of a population bust—a relentless, generation-after-generation culling of the human herd.


“No fewer than 23 leading nations—including Japan, Spain, South Korea, and Italy—will see their population cut in half by 2100. China’s will drop by a stunning 48 percent, knocking it out of contention as the world’s economic super-power. …The missing population will simply never have been born.”

That the world population will suffer a huge decline seems inevitable, but why will it continue?

Across the world, but especially in the west, marriage is in decline. Pew Research says that by the time today’s young adults in the U.S. are 50, 25% will have been single their entire lives. So, we are seeing fewer marriages, later marriages, and marriages with only one or two children, even in the marriages of multimillionaires, who could easily afford fourteen children.

Then there is the problem of populations having large numbers of children whose mother never married, such as France, where some 60% of newborns are illegitimate. Statistics show these children are at high risk for problems with drugs and alcohol, school failure, aggressive and criminal behavior, inability to form relationships in later adulthood, suicide, emotional problems, and so on.

Are we heading for a train wreck?
 
Yes.

However, the specifics are still unclear.
  • When will population hit the inflection point and start collapsing? UN projections figured late 21st Century, but that was before COVID. Now, we don’t know, but it’s likely to be sooner. This cardinal thinks that irreligion (tied to fertility decline) got a 10 year boost as a result of COVID.
  • Whether we will start seeing the effects of the collapse before the population decline actually begins. There is already some evidence of a critical shortage of qualified people in some industries, such as policing.
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/a-crisis-facing-law-enforcement-recruiting-in-the-21st-century/

As concerns the how the decline will affect the Church:
48.png
The church will become small ...She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built [like CAF] Evangelization
The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members… –Pope Benedict XVI
 
Last edited:
Hey, if I can get a work visa and permanent residency, I’ll be glad to move to Italy to help fix the population decline problem there.
 
work visa
Population decline reduces economic demand (fewer needs to be fulfilled) which in turn reduces employment. That might be a problem.

With that said, the idea of starting a Catholic enclave in abandoned rural Italy is a good one. But the capital to support the community has to come from somewhere.
 
I hear they are looking for beach boys along the Cinque Terre. Demand for English speaking indentured servants should only increase as the remaining elites look for viable service options.
 
Thing is, the community has to come first, not the capital/money.

The town of Ave Maria, Florida was built by Tom Monaghan with some of the fortune that he had amassed through Domino’s Pizza. He tried to take an “if you build it, they will come” approach. It has been successful, but it hasn’t attracted huge numbers of Catholics. As Ave Maria University (which is the center of the town) develops, the town has slowly grown. But this shows that it takes time to grow the culture no matter how much money you raise.
 
one of the great defining events in human history—will occur in three decades, give or take, when the global population starts to decline.
Isn’t perpetual growth an unreasonable expectation?
Pew Research says that by the time today’s young adults in the U.S. are 50, 25% will have been single their entire lives.
Add to that less sex (licit and illicit) than previous generation. Perhaps something is broken in the male-female interaction? I seriously think we are approaching a time in which many women will struggle to find suitable boyfriends, let alone husbands.
Are we heading for a train wreck?
I think we’re seeing the affects of population density as urbanization increases. Baby making will pick up once the density decreases. Cities discourage baby making with high costs and plenty of non-baby making activities. Just Look at the rural vs urban TFR.
 
48.png
mercyalways:
Once that decline begins, it will never end.
That’s speculation, not fact. Population could start to increase again if people start having babies again. So…
Agreed. A trend is only the trend until a different trend starts.
China’s will drop by a stunning 48 percent, knocking it out of contention as the world’s economic super-power.
That’s a fascinating claim. I’d be interested to hear more about what went into it, although from the outset I would be skeptical. For example, trends can change. And even if they don’t, why would China lose its superpower ranking if the other superpowers are simultaneously facing similar population declines?

Either way, I don’t expect to still be on this side of the grave in 2100. So it’ll stay speculation throughout my life.
 
Last edited:
Population could start to increase again if people start having babies again.
I wonder if the worry is that too many will prefer not to have kids and have the means or lifestyle to easily avoid.
 
IMO this is not a global issue. Yes the OECD countries’ populations are in decline, but developing countries’ populations keep growing at high rates. Check India, Indonesia, or most African countries.
 
Those countries will see slower growth as the economies develop. At a certain point, economic and lifestyle pressures encourage delaying children or even relationships.
 
I disagree. Both India and China were poor for most of their history and that didn’t stop their population growth. In fact, there is a high correlation between poverty and population growth.
 
Some additional points to consider:

Global warming isn’t so much about air pollution as about the effects of increasing CO2 emissions. The latter is now at 400+ ppm, and given a maximum of around 300, we arrived at the tipping point back in 1975:


Interestingly enough, increasing CO2 emissions minus air pollution might actually lead to accelerated heating, as seen in discussions on global dimming:


Water is actually a major concern, as much of it is polluted:


Food production is maintained given significant fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts needed for mechanized agriculture:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221928655_Fossil_Fuel_and_Food_Security

Of greater concern isn’t extreme or absolute poverty rate trends but the percentage of people who are poor. According to the World Bank, around 71 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 daily:


The death rates due to natural disasters is decreasing but the damage done due to disasters is high. According to some insurers, damage takes up almost a third of what should be global economic growth:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/20/9808

Birth rates are declining but population is still rising because of momentum, i.e., there are lots of young people in developing economies which population-wise make up a significant portion of the world. That’s why it will take until 2064 for the peak to be reached. But here are some points that are not mentioned, especially in light of some of the points raised above:

Oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:


Other energy sources have low returns and quantity. The highest in terms of both is coal:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786

Meanwhile, returns for oil have been dropping since the 1970s.

The goal, then, is to lift 71 pct of the human race out of poverty, but to do so in a global capitalist economy driven by innovation motivated by greed, in a biosphere characterized by limits to growth, and to deal at the same time with ecological damage and the effects of climate change.

And on top of that, do the same thing for a population that will continue growing for at least four more decades.

While avoiding conflict given a multifold increase in arms production and deployment, as well as problems like pandemics driven by increased human activity.
 
IMO this is not a global issue. Yes the OECD countries’ populations are in decline, but developing countries’ populations keep growing at high rates. Check India, Indonesia, or most African countries.
I agree.
It is an interesting hubris that many ignore these countries when they think of the entire world.
 
Population projections over long term have proven to be wildly inaccurate for the past century, in reference to many specific countries.

None of these errors stops, or even slows down, population projectors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top