What I find amazing is who will become the third most populous? Looks like Indonesia is fast catching up on the US, but longer term predictions are showing Nigeria moving to the third spot by 2050.
And indeed, the ski slope is already well started: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nigeria+fertility
2006 estimate for Nigeria was about 240M, and the 2019 estimate puts them at about 199M, or +59M in 13 years. For Indonesia there is a census count from 2010, ~238M, and a 2016 estimate of 261M, or +23M in 6 years.
Now for the United States: the 2010 census put the US at about 309M, and the 2018 estimate at about 327M or +18M over 8 years.
I think no matter who takes the #3 spot, the United States will be at #5 and maybe lower in my lifetime.
This sentence doesn’t make sense even if you move the numbers around.
Western GDP depends on body count growth, but GDP per capita does not.
Japan will lead the way in figuring out how fewer people can hopefully avoid deflationary debt-spirals.
I think notion that growth is dependent on body count is very dangerous, and totally unsustainable, among other things.
We need to look at growth, migration, and fertility as separate issues, each with a different set of consequences.
Upping the fertility rate a little bit, normalization migration (by 'normal' I mean the kinds of migration that exist between equal countries, not mass migration), reconfiguring our dysfunctional social security systems (at least they are dysfunctional in terms of how they are paid for by future generations), changing what retirement means, addressing massive costs of later life healthcare, and changing some of our economic targets.
This problem is as big as climate change in the sense that it affects everything and will require a re-think of some issues we haven't had to think about before.
Japan has to face the issues head-on before the rest of us, thank god they are smart because I think we'll inevitably end up following their example on a bunch of these things. At least they'll be providing us the data points.
The current globalist population redistribution policy, promoted by the UN, literally referred to as 'replacement migration' is going to be a staggeringly impossible thing to implement. [1]
As for India: hopefully there's light at the end of the tunnel.
As for Pakistan and Nigeria: it will get much worse before it gets better, they have serious problems.
[1] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publicatio...
I thought this statement was a little outrageous so I clicked the link and read a few segments of the report.
I didn't see any section promoting specific global migration policy.
The report appears to just be a "what-if" paper modeling different levels of migration to countries projected to shrink, and how it would impact population size, age distribution, retirement age and working age/dependent ratios through 2050. Levels modeled included no migration, an extrapolation of 90's migration trends, and levels needed to maintain varying working age population ratios.
No surprises or policy plans there.
It's a popular concept among some groups, and has some very controversial 'anti colonialist' elements.
This strategy did not make it's way into the most recent UN compact on migration (I believe because it would be untenable under current populist conditions) but it's definitely a perennial subject among those types of officials.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of conspiratorial elements out there concerning this, but there is a basis in reality for this agenda.
Also, some nations citizens produce/consume much more than others, for example.
China could handle some more people. Pakistan and Nigeria cannot.
There is already more consumption than our current technology can sustain.
Population growth is the lazy, unsustainable way to get gdp growth.
This is a man made conundrum not a law of physics.
If energy becomes expensive, as it most likely will, then population growth will stop.
Some of the projections appear unrealistic. For example, Mali is projected to grow from about 20 million to 80 million by 2100. Given Mali's geography, this seems unlikely.
The heat poses other problems that affect survival rates, like tropical diseases, but the energy cost of fighting those is far less than heating homes.
The same observation applies to the agricultural sectors of those countries, which can be incredibly productive due to growing regions with consistently warm weather. It's how China and India can support such massive populations (both are largely food self sufficient). And it's also why Brazil can produce sugar cane based ethanol far more efficiently than the US can produce corn based ethanol.
Once this major difference is accounted for, however, change in energy consumption over time is a reasonable proxy for change in standard of living.
But absolute differences in per capita energy consumption fail to capture variations due to things like country size, transportation/energy infrastructure, and socioeconomic structure i.e Russia has a much higher per capita energy consumption than Germany, but a lower standard of living.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_...
That will relegate the US to the 5th place within 20-25 years. And actually, even Pakistan could overtake the US. And if you count the EU as one country, which is increasingly true, then the US could easily be the 7th largest country in 2-3 decades:
India China EU Indonesia Nigeria Pakistan US
And including the EU, which is still catching up with regards to it’s Eastern and Southern European population, all of those places are poised to get much richer in the coming decades.
I guess you read different news than I do.
Most interesting to me is Japan's projected population of 85 million in 2100, compared to 125 million today.