Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a "jaw-dropping" impact on societies, say researchers.

Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.

What is going on?
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling.

If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.

In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime.

Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

"That's a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline," researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.

"I think it's incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganise societies."

Why are fertility rates falling?
It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.

Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.

In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

Which countries will be most affected?
Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.

Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.

They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve.

"That is jaw-dropping," Prof Christopher Murray told me.

China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.

The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.

However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

in developed countries yes.

Fertility rate is very misleading, should be called Reproduction rate, as it has little to do with Fertility.

More to do with the empowerment of women than anything else and before anyone jumps on that statement, there's thing wrong with that.

[Carth]

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

Well if we believe all the expert opinions on global warming, we're going to lose much of our food production areas anyway, so feeding people may become a problem before the lack of people is

Originally Posted by Pierre

in developed countries yes.

Fertility rate is very misleading, should be called Reproduction rate, as it has little to do with Fertility.

More to do with the empowerment of women than anything else and before anyone jumps on that statement, there's thing wrong with that.

However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling.

[tweetiepooh]

Two thoughts - in some place women have lots of kids because of lack of prophylaxis and also to ensure some kids survive to adulthood and can then look after the parents later in life. As healthcare improves the need for lots of kids drops.

Wonder what is going to happen Dec2020 onwards - ie 9 months after lockdown started.?

[Carth]

The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to

Big families, thing of the past to be honest. Advances in many areas have meant we no longer need 6 kids to ensure 2 survive to adulthood.

And then there's the cost, have you seen the price of 'named' trainers

all kids want a phone, TV, laptop/tablet, games console etc etc

Children eh, to be honest, I reckon many families are lucky to afford one

Originally Posted by Carth

The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to

Big families, thing of the past to be honest. Advances in many areas have meant we no longer need 6 kids to ensure 2 survive to adulthood.

And then there's the cost, have you seen the price of 'named' trainers

all kids want a phone, TV, laptop/tablet, games console etc etc

Children eh, to be honest, I reckon many families are lucky to afford one

The shrinking size of families was at one time about reduced need to ensure some survived. But now it’s about child-bearing as just one of a broadening range of things a woman can choose to do with her life. It’s an interesting conundrum because it sets that most prized of Western cultural achievements - freedom of individual choice, especially in the sphere of sex equality - against the sense of obligation to perpetuate the species.

There is a very serious imperative to fix this, as it is the labour and the taxes of the young that cares for the old. But by the time you’re 80 years old, you face the consequences of your generation’s choice not to replace itself at the same time as finding you’re way too old to do anything about it.

Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.

[jfman]

Considering humans are a virus to the ecosystems around us, is it not the R number?

Originally Posted by jfman

Considering humans are a virus to the ecosystems around us, is it not the R number?

You are Agent Smith and I claim my £5

Originally Posted by Chris

Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.

Further measures to reduce the economic impact on women taking time off. That's really all we can really do as far as I can see. I am not sure what those measures would be but more government intervention to support companies putting their staff on parental leave, working from home more is obviously a recent thing that could help, drastically reducing child care costs....

[pip08456]

Nah, the planet would benefit from a reduced population. Don't forget we're soon going to be colonising the moon and later Mars!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

The shrinking size of families was at one time about reduced need to ensure some survived. But now it’s about child-bearing as just one of a broadening range of things a woman can choose to do with her life. It’s an interesting conundrum because it sets that most prized of Western cultural achievements - freedom of individual choice, especially in the sphere of sex equality - against the sense of obligation to perpetuate the species.

There is a very serious imperative to fix this, as it is the labour and the taxes of the young that cares for the old. But by the time you’re 80 years old, you face the consequences of your generation’s choice not to replace itself at the same time as finding you’re way too old to do anything about it.

Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.

IIRC, the news said that Africa would increase (by 2/3?)

As automation increases, there wouldn't be any jobs for the young people that would have been born had things not changed; they would have been an added burden as opposed to helping to keep retired people. As It's imperative that we have to start thinking about the way that we use the Earths resources too, this reduction is a good thing. I think.

Im pretty sure the human species survived 1000's of years with a much lower population, not sure we need to panic just yet.

Nobody is talking about extinction, and talk of overall population number misses the point. It is the age profile of the population that is the problem in this scenario. In a welfare state (or anything close to it) the old are cared for by the young, either directly working in social care roles or indirectly by funding them through tax.

Originally Posted by Chris

Nobody is talking about extinction, and talk of overall population number misses the point. It is the age profile of the population that is the problem in this scenario. In a welfare state (or anything close to it) the old are cared for by the young, either directly working in social care roles or indirectly by funding them through tax.

Yup - as the last line of the linked article states

"The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers."