I just read something interesting about this in a book called 2048 that predicts some weird stuff for the future. One of the considerations the author is taking is the demographic impact on the social and economical standings of today.
The UN studies I read in the book (from 2010) show that only few countries will actually keep an over 2.1 birth per woman growth - the number needed in order to keep the economy standing and stable. The book shows that USA would probably pass that test due to continues immigration (that could cause other problems) and some other smaller countries that would also pass the test (including Israel \\o/) but countries like China, Russia and europe christian aren't. The UN reports speculate that the Muslim world ,aside from Afghanistan, would also have a troubled growth rate eventually in a few decades (Iran for example, had 7 births per woman in 1950 and only 1.74 in 2010, their drop in Birth rates continue).
Well a year passed sense those UN studies where done and some weren't exactly accurate in predictions for the future. I'm not asking what you guys think controls the birth rates and population growth because that's probably already been debated a million times, I'm asking what you guys think that would happen in the geopolitics and economical balance for the next 20-50 years.
Points I've been thinking about: Would China be unable to keep having the extra man power that runs the global economy? Could USA take China's rule using Latin immigrants? What other countries could keep their growth rate stable? How would that impact their geopolitic status? What kind of radicals could gain ground from such a crisis in their lands? Would countries with too low birth rates try to abuse other countries for the manpower? If so, by occupation or "economic influence"? And what happens if they don't?
Would China be unable to keep having the extra man power that runs the global economy?
A country as big as China would be able to maintain itself. In the global economy it has a big part. It has become more urbanized and will probably continue that trend.
What other countries could keep their growth rate stable?
Growth rates are relatively stable in most industrialized countries. Populations need a specific ratio of births to deaths to keep below carrying capacity. Countries will eventually reach this point and resources will start to become scarce in certain countries which will help stabilize the population by getting rid of the weak. At least this is how it happens with animals. Not sure how humans will deal with this dilemma.
What kind of radicals could gain ground from such a crisis in their lands?
When countries become unstable, such as some of the African countries, certain groups tend to fight for control, and leadership could change hands many times.
You make it sound as if having less people is bad. Truth is, it would make many things much simpler if we had less people. More land per person, less resources used, etc.
You make it sound as if having less people is bad. Truth is, it would make many things much simpler if we had less people. More land per person, less resources used, etc.
Its a common thought and probably right in a way but its wrong when you look at it economically because in an industrialized country you need at least 2.1 births per woman in order to continue manning the factories and taking care of the elderly. In the West today, the average births per woman is around 1.4 .
Growth rates are relatively stable in most industrialized countries. Populations need a specific ratio of births to deaths to keep below carrying capacity. Countries will eventually reach this point and resources will start to become scarce in certain countries which will help stabilize the population by getting rid of the weak. At least this is how it happens with animals. Not sure how humans will deal with this dilemma.
As I mentioned ealier this post, its those industrialized countries that have a way below 2.1 birth rates and that makes then unstable economically. Their percentage of elderly population grows and there are not enough young men to man the factories and take care of the large amounts of elderly unworking people. Its a good point you say about what will society do with the elderly. From Human history we can know people tend to to unimaginable things when pushed to their limits like that.
When countries become unstable, such as some of the African countries, certain groups tend to fight for control, and leadership could change hands many times.
Africa is very unstable in all means but I was more thinking about radicals in political stable places today. When in Britain Muslims make the majority (speculated around 2020), how will the locals react? When more then half of the British population is too old to work how will the young people react? Scary thoughts when you understand this will happen in you're lifetime.
Its a common thought and probably right in a way but its wrong when you look at it economically because in an industrialized country you need at least 2.1 births per woman in order to continue manning the factories and taking care of the elderly. In the West today, the average births per woman is around 1.4 .
Its not as simple as having less people, Its less young people = less factories large number of old people= need a lot of factories.
Heres an article explaining: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm
Who cares?
Demographic decline causes anxiety because it is thought to go hand-in-hand with economic decline.
With fewer, younger workers to pay the health and pension bills of an elderly population, states face an unprecedented fiscal burden.
The dependency ratio of those aged 65 and over to those of working age looks set to double from one-to-four to one-to-two in 2050.
How can Europe, which increasingly sees itself as a counterweight to US hegemony, claim equal status when it is being outpaced by American population growth?
If current forecasts prove correct, then the US - which currently has 160m fewer people than the EU - will have equalled it by 2050.
Another thing shown in the article:
In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages Ireland: 1.99 France: 1.90 Norway: 1.81 Sweden 1.75 UK: 1.74 Netherlands: 1.73 Germany: 1.37 Italy: 1.33 Spain: 1.32 Greece: 1.29 Source: Eurostat - 2004 figures
This is from 2004, today the numbers are a bit lower.
That's what I'm saying, it has a good chance of happening in the near future. If you don't want that then you can bully around other countries to work for you, take in millions of young immigrants every year or just fall in a deep economical decline if you want non of that. Somehow I don't think most countries will like that last option and every country shown in Teal on the map will need to face those choices soon.
