I am not sure everyone would agree declining population is a problem. Today’s France versus any of the most densely populated countries? Many would think becoming France a good outcome.
The number of people on this planet is a very important topic. Well done.
But, it is important to conclude that a declining world people population is an excellent trend, not a negative trend. Nearly all commentators say a declining population is bad but it is not.
Why?
This planet has a life support system. Without it humanity dies. Humanity destroys all life forms except itself resulting in destruction of the life support system.
It is clearly so obvious the world population should fall dramatically if we want humanity to continue living for thousands of years as I do and I assume you do too.
Congratulations Peter to giving Guillaume Blanc's paper coverage - as you say it is a groundbreaking paper and I expect in time will be regarded as quite instrumental in the rethinking of the Malthusian orthodoxy currently under way through several different lens (eg Acemoglu and Johnson's book Power and Progress). Another recent must-read is Claudia Goldin's "Babies and the Macroeconomy" (NBER WP33311) which seeks to explain the especially dramatic collapse of TFRs in those countries which have modernised in economic terms so quickly as due to beliefs and values changing more slowly.
I’m curious, though, as to how French women (& men?) controlled their fertility so significantly. Yes, marrying later might help but even marriage at, say, 30 would still allow a couple 5 - 10 children. Spacing children further apart - yes, but how? Were French men more easily ‘controlled’ or diverted? In a catholic country, it seems unlikely the population as a whole agreed to practice partial abstinence… Hmm - the findings of why the birthrate dropped may be sound, but *how* it was achieved remains, it seems to me, still ‘something to think about’. Great piece though - thank you.
Peter, as always thank you. Enlightening indeed. But two thoughts: 1, in my lifetime (admittedly long!), the global population has tripled! Tripled! When, in nature, populations of animals exceed a sustainable growth rate, events take over to prevent this from continuing. As you have written, some human societies have collapsed; others have become afflicted by disease. Isn't nature now limiting humanity's growth - more subtly at present? Humanity does not see it or believe it. But neither did the Mayans, the Easter Islanders or many others. Just a thought....
Very interesting. And suggests that modern immigration isn’t really a problem, it’s an answer to the problem you describe.
I am not sure everyone would agree declining population is a problem. Today’s France versus any of the most densely populated countries? Many would think becoming France a good outcome.
🎯🎯🎯
Peter,
The number of people on this planet is a very important topic. Well done.
But, it is important to conclude that a declining world people population is an excellent trend, not a negative trend. Nearly all commentators say a declining population is bad but it is not.
Why?
This planet has a life support system. Without it humanity dies. Humanity destroys all life forms except itself resulting in destruction of the life support system.
It is clearly so obvious the world population should fall dramatically if we want humanity to continue living for thousands of years as I do and I assume you do too.
Congratulations Peter to giving Guillaume Blanc's paper coverage - as you say it is a groundbreaking paper and I expect in time will be regarded as quite instrumental in the rethinking of the Malthusian orthodoxy currently under way through several different lens (eg Acemoglu and Johnson's book Power and Progress). Another recent must-read is Claudia Goldin's "Babies and the Macroeconomy" (NBER WP33311) which seeks to explain the especially dramatic collapse of TFRs in those countries which have modernised in economic terms so quickly as due to beliefs and values changing more slowly.
I’m curious, though, as to how French women (& men?) controlled their fertility so significantly. Yes, marrying later might help but even marriage at, say, 30 would still allow a couple 5 - 10 children. Spacing children further apart - yes, but how? Were French men more easily ‘controlled’ or diverted? In a catholic country, it seems unlikely the population as a whole agreed to practice partial abstinence… Hmm - the findings of why the birthrate dropped may be sound, but *how* it was achieved remains, it seems to me, still ‘something to think about’. Great piece though - thank you.
Peter, as always thank you. Enlightening indeed. But two thoughts: 1, in my lifetime (admittedly long!), the global population has tripled! Tripled! When, in nature, populations of animals exceed a sustainable growth rate, events take over to prevent this from continuing. As you have written, some human societies have collapsed; others have become afflicted by disease. Isn't nature now limiting humanity's growth - more subtly at present? Humanity does not see it or believe it. But neither did the Mayans, the Easter Islanders or many others. Just a thought....