Humanity is about to turn a major population corner, a new estimate showed. A recent article in The Lancet predicts that by 2030, we would no longer be reproducing fast enough to replace ourselves.
We are not about to go extinct, but this is an unexpected trajectory. As recently as 2017, the UN predicted human numbers would not peak until 2100, when we would reach more than 11 billion people. However, the new estimate shows our numbers could rise from 8.1 billion to a maximum of just 9.5 billion before declining by the early 2060s.
While a catastrophic population explosion used to seem inevitable, women’s increasing levels of education and reproductive freedom have staved off some of the worst predictions of the 20th century. That is actually something to celebrate: We are not about to suffer a population overshoot and run out of food, as sometimes happens to animals in the wild — and as was predicted in the 1968 book The Population Bomb.
Illustration: Yusha
However, the relative number of older people would skyrocket around the world, causing anxiety among some economists, and some political leaders want more people to have more kids. On the other side, some environmentalists argue for pushing population to drop faster to slow global warming, and loss of habitat for other species and ultimately for us humans. At the core of the debate are big, unanswered questions: Is 9.5 billion too many people? Would the population subsequently fall to a number that is too low? Is there a right number of humans?
Maybe instead of focusing on the number of children people are having, policymakers should focus on the fact that too many children worldwide are not getting adequate nutrition, education or medical care. Even now, although humans grow enough food to feed everyone, roughly one person in 10 is chronically undernourished — that is scientific jargon for “hungry all the time” — and more than one child in five is stunted (too short) because of chronic hunger and infections.
After all, as demographer and mathematician Joel Cohen explains, the “right number of people” question depends on yet more questions, among them: What would be the accepted standard of material wealth? How much inequality would be acceptable? Would it be okay to build cities in areas prone to catastrophic flooding and earthquakes? Do people prefer parking lots or parks?
The new Lancet estimate is credible, Cohen said.
“This is really the most serious piece of work in the business about what has happened and what to expect,” he said. “There are lots of connections to climate, religion, economics, politics — but the fact is that fertility has been going down and is likely to continue to go down.”
Fertility is usually measured by looking at the number of children born each year to women of each age, from 15 to 55. However, the Lancet model follows cohorts of women born each year — counting the babies born to women who turned 15 in 1950, then 16 in 1950 and so on — up until the time they turn 50.
“Cohort fertility is a much better summary of the real experience of real women,” Cohen said. The new projection also factored in the estimated effects on education and access to contraception, both of which have a big effect on reducing fertility.
Attempts by some governments to encourage parenthood with economic incentives or abortion restrictions are failing, Cohen said. He pointed to a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that in the US, rates of voluntary sterilization rose after the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision revoked national abortion rights.
Although cause and effect are not proven, he said it is possible that restrictive abortion laws are “pushing people out of reproduction … which I don’t think is the intended effect.”
It is impossible to know all the unintended consequences of trying to engineer the population to grow or shrink, but there is no downside to taking better care of the children we already have.
The focus of future policy should be to help people have the number of kids they want, when they want, with whom they want.
In her book Sex and the Planet, University of Utah bioethicist Margaret Pabst Battin starts with a thought experiment: What would happen if everyone had access to reliable, safe, free, foolproof long-term contraception, so that getting pregnant would only happen if a woman or couple opted in?
Right now, 45 percent of pregnancies worldwide (and a higher proportion in the US) are unplanned, and some of those lead to the 73 million abortions that take place every year. With reliable long-term birth control, the rates of abortion would plummet, as would the rates of teen pregnancy. Birthrates in many regions would go down, which would prevent rapid population growth. People would not need to resort to permanent sterilization.
Gloom and doom sells, of course, which is why population trends always tend to be framed as impending disasters — whether they are baby booms or baby busts. If we cannot agree whether we are facing too many or too few people, perhaps it is a good time to help people have the number of children they think is right for them.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
RSS