Scottish-American historian Niall Ferguson, who is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and and a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, has written an article on Bloomberg titled, “Global Population Crash Isn’t Sci-Fi Anymore.” I have to say it’s about as convincing a Doomsday scenario as I’ve ever seen. After identifying the various causes of global fertility decline (the increasing social pursuit of individualistic goals; the empowerment of women, who tend to postpone motherhood in order to achieve career success; the rising cost of raising and educating a child; lower rates of sexual activity among the young as smartphones, economic uncertainties and the stresses of modern life combine to depress people’s sexual appetites; more careful use of contraceptives by young people; declining religiosity due to the rise of secularization; the worldwide failure of government attempts to raise fertility rates; the global trend – America is one of the few outliers – towards easier access to abortion; a 50% fall in global sperm counts over the past 50 years, which is believed to be caused by factors such as “bad food, bad air and bad lifestyle”; increased social tolerance of euthanasia and assisted suicide) and explaining why the rise in international migration will increase the spread of global plagues and stymie attempts to tackle climate change, thereby leading to yet more immigration from exposed countries, Ferguson points out that when it happens, the global decline in population will be precipitous: from around 10 billion in 2100 to less than 2 billion by the year 2400, or a fivefold drop over the space of ten generations. His conclusion is a depressing one:
The appropriate science fiction to read is therefore neither Asimov nor Liu Cixin. Begin, instead, with Mary Shelley’s The Last Man (1826), in which a new Black Death wipes out all but one forlorn specimen of humanity. Then turn to Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake (2003), in which the addled “Snow-man” is one of just a handful of survivors of a world ravaged by global warming, reckless genetic engineering, and a disastrous attempt at population reduction that resulted in a global plague.
For those, like Elon Musk, who still dream of building Asimov’s galactic empire, such visions of human extinction are hard to stomach. He and others swim against the tide, siring five or six times as many offspring as the average male. But the reality is that a sub-2.1 global TFR is a more powerful historical force than even the fecund Mr. Musk. It is coming. And there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Is Ferguson correct? His argument looks pretty good on paper. Nevertheless, I can think of three possible reasons for doubting his conclusions.
My first reason for skepticism is that while birth control (contraception and abortion) has been around since the year dot, access to methods of birth control which are both reliable and safe for women to use is a relatively recent phenomenon, which depends on a vast and complex infrastructure. Putting it simply, someone has to manufacture all those pills, and to do so, they need access to the right chemicals, secure supply networks, reliable distribution networks, a functioning economy – and of course, technical knowhow: in other words, a sufficient number of scientists and technicians who can keep things rolling. In an increasingly unstable world, all of these key elements are highly vulnerable to disruption. (Just think of the damage that the Houthis in Yemen have been able to inflict on international trade, and you’ll see my point.) If any of these key elements are jeopardized, worldwide access to reliable and safe birth control collapses. And if birth control becomes unreliable or unsafe, it is likely that the global population will begin rising again.
Readers may suggest that AI could take over the running of sites that manufacture contraceptives, and automate the supply and distribution chains. But AI is powerless against terrorism, sabotage, and economic collapse, so I can’t see how it would help matters much.
My second reason for doubting Ferguson’s scenario is that as societies undergo a demographic implosion, governments worldwide may respond not by denying people access to safe and reliable birth control, but by rationing it, so that while those who are willing to pay through the nose have access to it, others don’t. (Or perhaps there might even be a birth control lottery.) Initially, of course, such a move will greeted by howls of outrage: “What right does the government have to prevent me from exercising my choice not to reproduce?” But I imagine that in the future, they will be met by an equally firm response: “What right do you have to choose a childfree lifestyle that threatens to destroy the very society that has nurtured you? And even if some people are permitted by the State to remain childfree, why should everyone be permitted to do so?”
My final reason for thinking that we may not all be doomed is that Ferguson’s prediction extends over the long-term future: the next 400 years. And if there is one thing we can be certain of, it is that the long-term future is radically uncertain. To illustrate my point, consider Paul Ehrlich’s bestseller, The Population Bomb, which Ferguson cites in his article. I can vividly recall reading it as a child and being appalled by the prospect of there being standing room only on Earth by the year 2600. As it turned out, Ehrlich’s projection was way off target – as was his alternative projection of mass starvation as civilization collapsed. It took just a few decades for Ehrlich’s dire forecasts to be falsified, and it may take just a few decades more for Ferguson’s gloomy forecast to meet the same fate. But right now, I have to say that things are not looking good for the human race. Assuming that we manage to avoid extinction, a 1984-style scenario appears increasingly likely, as democracies decline and countries move increasingly into authoritarian power blocs in which the flow of information is heavily regulated.
But perhaps I am wrong. Can anyone out there see signs for a more hopeful future?
There are many scenarios, not doomsday ones, in which a reduction in world population would be a good thing. And for your article to focus on manipulating women’s right to not have children is rather frightening.
Hi aleta,
We can have a reasonable discussion about what the ideal number of people is for the planet, but that’s not the point. For argument’s sake, let’s say it’s 2 billion (about a quarter of its present level), although in reality, estimates vary enormously. My question is: suppose we get down to 2 billion, what makes you think the population will bottom out at that level, and stop falling? Based on what we know about demographic trends, all the indications are that it will keep plummeting.
You say you’re frightened about limitations on women’s right not to have children. I should point out that the suggestions contained in my article would apply equally to both sexes: men and women. (Right now, contraceptive pills for men are being trialed in Britain.) You might think that it’s frightening for the government to ration people’s access to birth control, as my article proposes. I think it’s much more frightening for people to be allowed to continue deciding how many children they’ll have, because all the indications suggest that if they are, they’ll simply stop breeding altogether.
I’d invite you to think about another pill that every society on Earth regulates: fentanyl. Why? Because once you give people unfettered access to it, catastrophic social consequences ensue. The long-term consequences of unrestricted access to birth control pills (be they contraceptives or abortifacients) are even more catastrophic: the extinction of the human race.
What I’m suggesting, in other words, is that for certain goods, when people are allowed to make choices regarding how much they want, based on their own interests, they’re prone to choose quantities of those goods which are incompatible with the long-term good of society. Children are one of those goods.
Let me add that rationing access to birth control is not the only way of shifting incentives, so that it becomes economically rational to want more children. The government could, for instance, impose hefty taxes on people who choose to remain childless. I strongly suspect, however, that they would have to be draconian, in order to change people’s reproductive behavior. And the more fundamental problem is that even people who want to have children often say they only want one or two. Across the EU, ideal fertility is 2.28 – barely above replacement level. And that’s the number of children that women would like, in a perfect world. Men’s preferences are only slightly different.
You may suggest that people will start breeding again when women’s lives improve, and when true equality is achieved in the workplace and in the home. My answer is that statistics give the lie to that hope. What’s the fertility rate in egalitarian Sweden? A mere 1.66. OK, how about Norway? A measly 1.48. What about Finland? Even worse: 1.37. But wait, what about the Netherlands? Sorry, it’s just 1.55. Even in France (the most fertile country in Europe), it’s only 1.83. None of these countries are viable in the long term. I put it to you that making society more egalitarian hasn’t significantly altered the fertility rate.
So my question is: given people’s stubborn unwillingness to reproduce, should governments sit on their hands and do nothing about it, allowing their societies to disappear? Or should they take action? What do you think?
One question. Do you really believe this, that people freely choosing how many times to “ breed” is a bad and frightening thing? Personally, if living humans free choice to “ breed “or not , ultimately leads to the end of the human race , I am good with that. Maybe the next divine creation will choose not to eat the apple.
vjt writes, “The long-term consequences of unrestricted access to birth control pills (be they contraceptives or abortifacients) are even more catastrophic: the extinction of the human race.”
That is way over the top and unrealistic, in my opinion. People want to have children: the natural desire is very deeply embedded in human nature. I don’t have any more to say about this, other than to reiterate that I find your perspective about thiis subject very disconcerting. That’s all from me.
Hi aleta,
I may be wrong in my opinion that unfettered access to birth control will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but I cannot see anything which would stop it from doing so. Most people do indeed want to have children, but the stresses of modern life and the costs of raising a family have dissuaded many of these people from doing what they want to do. Governments could relieve some of these stresses and make childrearing less burdensome, but only at the cost of heavily taxing either corporations or individuals who choose to remain childfree. Both moves are likely to be defeated at the ballot box. The only thing I can see that might arrest our downward demographic spiral is the end of cheap and universal access to birth control. In short: I believe governments should allow as many people as possible to regulate their own fertility, while making sure the fertility rate does not dip to dangerously unsustainable levels.
Hi Newton,
You ask: “Do you really believe this, that people freely choosing how many times to “breed” is a bad and frightening thing?” My answer: I’m perfectly fine with it, in a society (such as Israel – or for that matter, Palestine) where the fertility rate is at (or at least, near) a sustainable level – say, 1.8 or above. When it dips below that level, we need to ask: do people have the right to impose an impossible burden on their descendants – e.g. by requiring one grandchild to support two parents and four grandparents? I think not. The government of a society experiencing an unsustainable downward demographic spiral has the right to do whatever it needs to do, to escape that spiral.
You also write: “Personally, if living humans free choice to “breed“ or not , ultimately leads to the end of the human race , I am good with that.” You’re honestly happy with the future annihilation of the only beings (as far as we know) in the entire universe who are capable of asking, “Whence came we? What are we? Whither go we?”, and giving the planet over to creatures who exhibit a bovine lack of curiosity about such matters? Or even worse, to silicon contraptions that can spit out responses on ChatGPT but cannot enjoy a sunset?
vjt … Did you mean to say this ?
I think it’s much more frightening for people to be allowed to continue deciding how many children they’ll have
The alternative being: people are not allowed to decide ?
My personal view is that intelligent life is inherently unstable, that as soon as it appears, it must self destruct. Its a complicated relationship between evolution, the appearance of intelligence, and timing. Sort of a long story.
The quicker we are removed from the scene, the better for the remaining (unintelligent) life.
VJ,
Have you researched what population can the earth sustain if we use its resources fairly?
As someone with a usual attention to details, I assume you had researched what the population the earth can support? Right?
DNA_Jock,
Are you ready for the totally new disease called “X? If you are not, it’s coming and you may be the one to be hired to do the specific calculations, right? Get ready,! It is going to be 20 times more deadly than covid-19…which means what exactly?
In Canada, the ICU admission stats have been reluctantly published by the government. It is surprising that there are more ICU admission now or since 2023 than during the greatest pandemic ever seen in Canada during convict-19. The government of Canada responded to this questions by saying that the mRNA therapies, now called vaccines due to the name change for no particular reason, have nothing to do with the excess deaths in Canada and worldwide… They are safe and effective but nobody can explain what it means…
Here is one good attempt at explaining what’s happening:
https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/ICU_Report_EN.pdf
However, this detailed report makes no mention of mRNA. What is your source for a question to the Canadian government, and the response? Where is your source claiming stats have been published “reluctantly” rather than routinely?
The pattern of population growth and decline across species is pretty consistent: where resources are readily available, populations grow fairly rapidly (the human population was a mere 1 billion around 1800, so it took 300,000 years to reach one billion, and about 200 to go from 1 to 8 billion). When resource limits are reached, populations tend to implode.
Human demographics don’t seem to follow this pattern. So we see impoverished people breeding at rates beyond sustainability, while affluent people choose to have fewer children. Also, agrarian populations tend to have larger families than urban/industrialized populations. I would suspect the reasons for choosing smaller families (or none – I have never had children) are more social than biological. While it can be argued that the human population today exceeds earth’s carrying capacity, there’s no question total global population growth has slowed.
As your article implies, there are too many factors at work to make coherent projections. It’s quite possible that population reduction won’t be so much a matter of individual choice as a matter of misuse of resources. Wealthier Western nations may be experiencing population decline (not counting immigration), but nonetheless are responsible for consuming critical resources like energy and fresh water all out of proportion to their populations. So I think Malthus was a bit too simplistic.
As usual, you are full of massive blind spots in your analysis. Worries over costs of raising a child apply in the cultured urban environment. But far from all people are urban or cultured.
Right now Western cities prosper and the countryside is comparatively withering, but let’s suppose a doomsday arrives that destroys the urban civilisation. This instantly boosts the countryside. In rural hands-in-the-ground way of life every additional pair of hands is welcome. Children are not a burden in the country. Children’s employment input outweighs the costs of raising them.
A doomsday that leaves some people alive will more likely turn into a cycle of new growth, not into a total annihilation of mankind. Nothing short of a worldwide nuclear war or enormous asteroid collision would annihilate mankind.
In a doomsday scenario, also the government becomes weaker, not stronger. There will be large territories outside of control of government, where elections, taxation and government benefits or other policies will not matter. People will behave as per rules of wildlife and anarchy. It can be observed in general that humans as a species breed like rats: In a major crisis, breeding goes up, not down. In a crisis, people would die massively, but at the same time they also tend to breed massively — not as a rational effort to outweigh the loss, but rather it’s just some instinctive reaction that happens in the collective behaviour of the species.
Human population’s ecological footprint is mostly due to the egregious waste produced by the urban civilisation and big industry. With a more modest lifestyle the impact on ecology would be far more moderate, and the earth would be able to carry a far bigger population.
I don’t think any government can impose a more modest lifestyle on people. What passes for “green” and “ecological” right now is a sad joke of mostly no consequence, and occasionally of adverse consequence. Any lifestyle change aided and abetted by the government has always ever fomented craving for more expensive luxury (expensive both in monetary and ecological terms). A lifestyle change in the opposite direction can only happen in a doomsday scenario. Humans simply cannot help themselves.
Hi J-Mac,
I actually referenced estimates of Earth’s carrying capacity in my first response to aleta. Here are some references:
How many people can Earth actually support?
One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity by UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS)
Cohen, J. E. (1995a). Population Growth and Earth’s Human Carrying Capacity Population growth and earth’s human carrying capacity. Science, 269(5222), 341-346. doi: 10.1126/science.7618100.
As you can see from the articles cited, estimates vary widely, from 500 million [Paul Ehrlich] to more than 1 trillion. I deliberately chose a low-end figure of 2 billion, because I’ve seen that number cited by ecologists before – for example, by Cornell University ecology and agriculture professor David Pimentel. Of course, when asking what Earth’s carrying capacity is, we need to specify the kind of lifestyle we want for Earth’s citizens.
My question, however, was: assuming we reach some ecologically sustainable number, what is there to prevent the population from falling further? So far, I haven’t seen any satisfactory answers.
Hi Erik,
Good point. That’s why any government attempt to deal with the problem of our declining fertility rate had better be made sooner, rather than later. If we wait until after 2100 to tackle the problem, it will be too late.
What Flint writes is at variance with what you say:
So. who’s right? I might also mention that rats don’t use contraceptives.
I will point out that governments that had the means and the will to limit population growth now regret it. E.g., China.
Countries that experienced voluntary population decline (USA) are now clamoring for immigration.
Robots are not yet replacing human laborers.
I grew up in a semi-rural environment and am uncomfortable in cities. I have always thought that population decline would be a good thing. But politicians and economists do not agree, even if they give lip service to limits.
I freely admit to not understanding the dynamics of this. Why is stability or gradual decline to sustainable numbers so difficult to manage, particularly if it is voluntary?
No clamor here in Texas or anywhere else in Trumpworld for immigrants. What is more popular is the Great Replacement Theory. Only the “right folks”having more babies.
Or those folks , having only one child , have more resources , and do not require financial support , and in fact might be able to pass resources down to another generation. I think a better argument might be whether an only child is hampered by lack of siblings.
Yikes.
First, theoretical spiral. And second, you sure you want to open that can of worms ,endorsing a government’s right to do whatever it needs to do for a possible greater good? Pretty wide brush.
I’ve had eighteen kids for Germany. [downward hand motion] Such a great year to be a girl.</Rebel Wilson>
Hi newton,
First, the downward spiral is all too real. Of the world’s 195 sovereign states and 14 dependent territories, 104 already have a fertility rate below the population replacement level of 2.1, six have a fertility rate at population replacement level, and 99 have a fertility rate above that level, with just 62 at 3.0 or above, 32 at 4.0 or above, and 11 at 5.0 or above, according to the Population Reference Bureau (2023 figures).
Even among the countries whose fertility rates are high, there are clear and unmistakable signs of a downward trend. Kenya is an instructive example: according to Macrotrends, in 1968, its fertility rate was 8.110; in 2024, it’s 3.214, and by 2067, it’s projected to fall to 2.087 (which is below the replacement level of 2.1). By 2100, it’ll be 1.795. Even a country like Nigeria (whose fertility rate is currently 5.009), is projected to have a fertility rate of 2.228 by 2100. Of course, the population of these countries will continue growing for a while even after 2100, but once it stops growing, the downward spiral appears inevitable.
Second, you accused me of “endorsing a government’s right to do whatever it needs to do for a possible greater good?” Not so. My endorsement is far narrower: I believe in a government’s right to do whatever it needs to do to counter a clear and present threat to society’s very existence. The downward population spiral is already a fact of life in many countries, and it’s spreading to more countries, year by year. You don’t need to be a psychic to read the writing on the wall.
Third, let me be clear about what I’m not proposing. I’m not proposing that governments force people to multiply, or ban birth control. Rather, what I’m arguing is that either the supply of cheap and easily accessible birth control should be limited to the extent necessary to prevent a socially unsustainable downward demographic spiral, or that birth control be priced (in other words, taxed) at a level which factors in its negative social consequences and deters a sufficient number of people from having families that are too small.
Forth, it strikes me as bizarre that people who already support the government being able to control people’s bodies for the sake of public health (e.g. vaccine mandates, lockdowns) should balk when it comes to governments imposing either a quota or tariff on over-the-counter birth control, in those cases where its ready availability threatens the very existence of a society. That’s what I call straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Cheers.
Someone should do some math and figure out how long it takes to reduce the population with a fertility rate of, say, 1.7.
I’m documented as math challenged, but I’m betting a long time to cut the population in half.
VJT: “ Second, you accused me of “endorsing a government’s right to do whatever it needs to do for a possible greater good?” Not so. My endorsement is far narrower: I believe in a government’s right to do whatever it needs to do to counter a clear and present threat to society’s very existence,
Sorry if it felt accusatory. Not my intent. Call me crazy , but I am just wary of solution that requires allowing a government the right to do whatever it needs to do to solve it. I live in Texas , that thought chills me to the bone. To clarify, is the human race equivalent to society?
VJT”The downward population spiral is already a fact of life in many countries, and it’s spreading to more countries, year by year. You don’t need to be a psychic to read the writing on the wall.”
Maybe because that reduction of birth rate correlates to higher economic outlook for a country.
This is not new. For many decades it has been obvious that birthrate declines as income rises.
The reasons are not entirely clear. I speak only for myself, but I stopped at two because children are expensive.
But children can be raised by people having much lower incomes, so it’s complicated. It’s related to expectations for achieving some level of comfort and success.
Places with higher death rates seem to have higher birth rates.
For example, life expectancy in Africa ranges from 52 years to 76 years. Unfortunately I found no simple chart showing birth rates and life expectancy together.
Petrushka: “ But children can be raised by people having much lower incomes, so it’s complicated. It’s related to expectations for achieving some level of comfort and success.”.
And safety.