THE END OF THE WORLD: Why People Are Having Fewer Children

Consultant at Jansen Capital Management

THE END OF THE WORLD: Why People Are Having Fewer Children

Photo by Ben Wicks on Unsplash

Scientists are sounding the alarm: a sharp decline in population numbers could have catastrophic consequences for most countries.

AGE AND COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES

here are various demographic models whose purpose is to predict the future size of the world’s population and how it will affect the development of global civilization. According to some estimates, 12 billion people is the maximum load our planet can sustain. By the end of the 21st century, the population will be around 9–10 billion. However, it is вполне possible that we will never reach this demographic limit. This is because in the 2060s, most likely, a turning point will occur — population growth will not only stop but will begin to gradually decline. In such a model, the 20th century in Europe is considered an era of «demographic transition»: from high birth and death rates to low ones.

The wealth of the «civilized West» was created not only by colonial policy and technological superiority. From an economic point of view, the «demographic transition» proved to be extremely beneficial: declining birth rates free up resources that can be invested in the economy and human capital. As a result of these processes, developed European countries have gained a rapidly aging population with good pensions and a high standard of living. However, judging by the statements of European politicians, the resources needed to maintain the high standards of the welfare state in Europe are being exhausted. Moreover, population aging is becoming a global trend.

By the 2050s, about 80% of the world’s elderly population will live in countries that are considered developing. These people will compete for resources both with others within their own generation and with younger people. At the same time, the latter will themselves become a scarce resource. The proportion of young people in the global population will continue to decrease. Their shortage may become another global challenge, no less significant than climate change, epidemics, the problem of clean water, and the nuclear threat. The fact is that for any society to perform vital functions, it requires a certain number of young people who have reached adulthood. The main range of socially important work is carried out by people under the age of 65. Young people are the driving force of development, generating new ideas and implementing various innovations.

THE END OF THE «PROGRESS SOCIETY»?

A society dominated by people well over 70 or 80 years old will no longer be able to remain a «progress society». An imbalance between the young and the elderly will lead to the rapid disintegration of communities around the world. This degradation will not happen all at once; it will be stretched out over time. Gradually, humanity will lose the ability to produce food, maintain healthcare systems, and so on. The shortage of everything that once ensured survival — quality food, water, prescription medicines — will further contribute to global depopulation. However, such a vision of the future has not always existed in global culture.

In the 1960s and 1970s, science fiction writers and futurists were concerned that there would be too many people on Earth. But in the 1980s, everything changed. Perhaps for the first time, a sense of an approaching demographic catastrophe spilled onto the pages of Galápagos by Kurt Vonnegut, published in 1985. It depicts a future in which a global epidemic has rendered all people of reproductive age infertile. Later, literature and cinema offered many different versions of a future in which people, losing the ability to reproduce, sink into total despair. And those who are still capable of having children are stripped of their personal freedom by society. Examples of such bleak dystopias include The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood and The Children of Men by P. D. James.

However, it is not only science fiction writers who speak about the very real threat of human extinction — scientists do as well. After all, thousands of species of animals and humans have already disappeared from the Earth. One can recall the Neanderthals, who appeared about 400,000 years ago and became completely extinct around 40,000 years ago. Homo sapiens, which has existed for at least 200,000 years, is gradually approaching the same temporal threshold that its closest relatives failed to overcome.

THERE ARE NO GOOD STRATEGIES

Recent scientific publications on this topic are sounding the alarm: the decline in birth rates is happening faster than expected, even in countries that were once considered demographically stable. For example, in 1970, the average woman in Mexico had seven children. By 2014, this number had dropped to two. In 2023, it was only 1.6. By the middle of this century, this situation will become the norm for most countries around the world. However, no state has any clear understanding of how to respond to this challenge. Their economies are built on the assumption of sustained population growth. They are simply not prepared for a decline in innovation and productivity, as well as a shortage of working-age people needed to support a growing elderly population.

In countries with low birth rates, an extremely dangerous chain reaction is set in motion: from the weakening of military power and political influence to a reduction in investment in new technologies. At the same time, scientists are forced to admit that no policy aimed at restoring birth rates will be able to reverse the negative trend. They also point out that many of the incentives already used by governments undermine gender equality, as they prioritize population growth over personal choice. These measures restrict access to contraception and abortion, reinforce traditional gender roles, and thus destabilize the value foundations of modern Western civilization, which, in turn, does not contribute to overall stability.

Therefore, scientists recommend focusing not on declining birth rates, but on ensuring resilience: if the rate of decline can be slowed, developed countries will have a chance to adapt to future demographic changes, for example, by encouraging immigration and not overlooking the potential of older people, who are capable of maintaining productivity for a long time. According to data from 41 countries with both developed and developing economies, the average 70-year-old in 2022 had the same cognitive abilities as a 53-year-old in 2000. However, such strategies have a weak point — they will inevitably face social and political resistance.

WHO WILL SUFFER THE MOST

Today, the global average fertility rate — the number of children a woman has over her lifetime — stands at 2.2. However, in some countries it is much lower than average. For example, in South Korea, it declined from 4.5 in 1970 to 0.75 in 2024. The country passed its population peak of 52 million in 2020. China reached its peak of 1.4 billion people in 2022. India, with 1.7 billion, will approach its peak in the early 2060s. The United States, with 370 million, will do so around 2080. The only exception to the global trend will be sub-Saharan Africa. By the end of the 21st century, more than half of all babies in the world will be born there. And by the middle of the century, Nigeria will become the third most populous country in the world.

If we speak about the global population as a whole, its peak will be reached within the next 30–60 years. After that, humanity will face a decline comparable to the one last experienced in the 14th century during the Black Death. Middle-income countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and Turkey will be affected the most, where falling birth rates are compounded by rising emigration to wealthier nations. The gap between large cities and the provinces will also widen, as young people rapidly leave rural areas. Schools, supermarkets, and hospitals will close there, further pushing the young toward migration. Paradoxically, what is commonly seen as social and moral progress is also contributing to declining birth rates.

In the United States, for example, fertility has declined largely due to a reduction in unintended pregnancies and teenage births. A decrease in domestic violence has also played a role. Women who suffer from it give birth roughly twice as often as those in healthy relationships. This was clearly demonstrated by a 2018 study conducted by sociologist Jennifer Barber. Worldwide, access to contraception has helped separate sex from reproduction. As a result, sex has become safer but less compelling as a driver of childbirth.

Sociologist Alice Evans has found that in wealthy countries, young people enter relationships and have sex less frequently, as online entertainment displaces real-life interaction. Feminist movements and women’s emancipation also do not encourage higher birth rates. Women increasingly choose to build careers, becoming more selective and demanding in their expectations of men. In addition, raising children is very expensive. According to data from the United Nations, financial difficulties are the reason for remaining childfree in 39% of cases.

MAYBE IT’S NOT ALL THAT BAD?

However, the apocalyptic scenarios envisioned by scientists may well not come to pass. To understand why, consider that in the mid-20th century, the global average fertility rate stood at 5. This phenomenon became known as the «baby boom». Decades later, in 1968, the book The Population Bomb caused quite a stir. Its authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, argued that overpopulation would lead to famine and environmental catastrophe. Despite this warning, the following decades saw the population double — from 5 to 8 billion — yet no catastrophe has occurred. This can first be attributed to advances in agricultural and medical technologies. Second, population growth has slowed over the past 50 years. Therefore, it is possible that the current decline in birth rates is not yet a death sentence for humanity, but merely a specific phase of a larger demographic cycle.

Original research: