Our population will decline, whether we like it or not. Just like climate change, the trends are already set in motion. So why not start preparing for it?
Probably the single best post I've seen here on substack or anywhere else so far, except, of course, my 2018 book, "Stress R Us", wherein the term "population density stress" is created and explained. We are now 3,000 times more populous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist clans/bands just a few thousand years ago, which have been vanishing in the massive population explosion due to our discovery and development of new energy sources, beginning with sedentary farmed grain crops. We evolved from ancestors long the result of selective pressures on clan/band living, which have been "overshot" by the chaotic diasporas and lifeway disruptions we see today. After a lifetime spent as a psychiatrist/addictionist/physician/stress researcher/recovered alcoholic-addict, I have had the honor (?) of watching the "overshoot" effect on our human psyches and, eventually, sought to distill my observations in an online/PB book, which can be found as a free e-book by Googling "Stress R Us" for the PDF out at Stanford, or forking out $25. for the PB on Amazon.
Many thanks to this author for his/her fine anonymous contribution to "overshoot", with this very well written and illustrated piece. At this very late stage in our species' evolution, the Seneca Curve downslope is well underway, as current political/corporate developments can clearly reveal to anyone willing to look at the truth for what it actually is. Most will/do choose to remain in a mad dash to the edge of and over the edge of the cliff of societal collapse in the midst of an undeniable climate collapse. On that cheery note, this old doc wishes one and all a very HAPPY HOLIDAY!
I liked your final comment, that we probably aren’t going to get round to avoiding a crash landing, and you put the odds at less than one percent … hopeful! We can, indeed, never say never. Miracles *do* happen …
I think your perspective on human population is bias. Human over population, that is also bad for our human nature, is almost the root cause for all misfortune on earth. I am very optimistic that a significant reduction in human population will correct our ways and means. We can learn from this mistake and create a much improved, symbiotic existence. If we don't extinct ourselves and life on earth first.
Thanks, I agree that overpopulation and overconsumption is the underlying issue (overshoot) driving most of the existential issues we are facing, meaning if population drops, it would be a good thing. Not easy, but in the larger scheme of things it would be a positive. That is what I tried to say in the article, perhaps it came off unclear.
With all your population graphs showing a steady drop to zero, could you be suffering from the same reductionist thinking you criticize?
You mention a lot of reasons for the present decline in fecundity, some involving chemical and hormonal pollution, but mostly involving lack of income to raise a family.
That's because in the modern world, children are a hobby and a luxury, whereas throughout some 299,950 years of human history, children have been an economic asset.
I agree that all the curves need to start changing direction. But it's fair to examine what that means for fecundity, as well.
What made children change from an economic asset to a hobby? Well, people switched their occupation from producing their own food to having "jobs" unrelated to their trophic energy needs, except for the pittance that food took up in their income budget; whereas for most of human history, feeding oneself took up a majority of your waking hours!
Now look at those curves about to change direction. This means people won't have as much choice in jobs, and those who do, will certainly enjoy less income, relative to the cost of basic needs, like food and shelter.
Combined with the decline of fossil fuel that currently enables almost all food production, this inevitably points to more human activity going into food production, which means children will stop being a hobby, and will return to the ~300,000-year history of being a slave labour force.
Second, as government revenue declines, what happens to pensions?
For some 299,950 years, "retirement" meant your children took care of you when you got old. How does that fit in with declining birth rates?
Thirdly, the late ecologist Howard Odum taught us that complexity, and thus technology, engineering, and all of industry, was simply a form of embedded energy, or "emergy".
As fossil fuel enters its inevitable, irrevocable decline, do you think birth control will continue to be available? "The Pill" may be the first to go, followed closely by surgical methods. Condoms may be around for some time, at least until intercontinental trade falters, and rubber becomes more dear.
So I view the current decrease in birth rates as just a transient artifact of our current energy high, and as energy becomes more dear, birth rates will regain historical levels.
One other seldom-mentioned consequence of degrowth and inevitable deflation: long-term loans are about to become a horrible burden. Inflation is the friend of debt; it helps make debt "go away". Deflation will prove to be the opposite.
If you have a mortgage, do what you can to get out of it as fast as possible! And start breeding your slave labour force and retirement plan!
Those models predicting near-zero populations are from studies that only track fertility rates over time, so they indeed suffer from reductionist thinking and are not predictions of anything.
I don't think I am suffering from reductionist thinking, at least not too badly.
I still believe we will see a significant population decline this century. Fertility rates will remain low and deaths high, as we go through the unraveling of industrial civilization. In the long run, it largely depends on how bad our climate has become, and what type of lifestyle is still possible. If agriculture is still possible, I think people will have more children. If not, I don’t think people will have children.
You mention birth control not being available in the future, I agree. I would add that healthcare, vaccines, and medicine will also be very limited, if available at all. Meaning expect much higher infant mortality in that scenario. This would keep the population in check.
Looking at what happened before doesn't make sense, in my opinion. We have left the Holocene, and agriculture may not work in the future, certainly not at the same scale as now. People had the skills and climate to grow food, which is a big difference from what we're heading into, and will impact whether people want to have children. If you’re living in a world of violence, starving, and barely finding enough food and water for yourself, will you really want more children?
Yes, kids used to be a retirement plan, and still are in many countries, but how does having slaves help in 2075 if no one can grow food, or at least not enough?
The first 290,000 years of our history were marked by low fertility rates and high infant mortality. Population was kept in check. Fertility rates increased when agriculture took off during the Holocene. That’s over now.
It's very complex, but I don't believe we will see an increase in fertility rates any time soon.
Fair enough! I do agree that we're entering unprecedented waters.
I certainly agree that net population is heading down; I'm just not sure it will be driven by reduced desire to have children, but more likely by a combination of reduced lifespan and increased childhood death, albeit with increased fecundity.
Meanwhile, the US is teetering on their second "peak oil". It looks like fracked oil may soon quickly go away. OPEC nations are in decline, and may soon opt to restrict exports so they'll have enough for their own population. https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
Probably the single best post I've seen here on substack or anywhere else so far, except, of course, my 2018 book, "Stress R Us", wherein the term "population density stress" is created and explained. We are now 3,000 times more populous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist clans/bands just a few thousand years ago, which have been vanishing in the massive population explosion due to our discovery and development of new energy sources, beginning with sedentary farmed grain crops. We evolved from ancestors long the result of selective pressures on clan/band living, which have been "overshot" by the chaotic diasporas and lifeway disruptions we see today. After a lifetime spent as a psychiatrist/addictionist/physician/stress researcher/recovered alcoholic-addict, I have had the honor (?) of watching the "overshoot" effect on our human psyches and, eventually, sought to distill my observations in an online/PB book, which can be found as a free e-book by Googling "Stress R Us" for the PDF out at Stanford, or forking out $25. for the PB on Amazon.
Many thanks to this author for his/her fine anonymous contribution to "overshoot", with this very well written and illustrated piece. At this very late stage in our species' evolution, the Seneca Curve downslope is well underway, as current political/corporate developments can clearly reveal to anyone willing to look at the truth for what it actually is. Most will/do choose to remain in a mad dash to the edge of and over the edge of the cliff of societal collapse in the midst of an undeniable climate collapse. On that cheery note, this old doc wishes one and all a very HAPPY HOLIDAY!
I liked your final comment, that we probably aren’t going to get round to avoiding a crash landing, and you put the odds at less than one percent … hopeful! We can, indeed, never say never. Miracles *do* happen …
I think your perspective on human population is bias. Human over population, that is also bad for our human nature, is almost the root cause for all misfortune on earth. I am very optimistic that a significant reduction in human population will correct our ways and means. We can learn from this mistake and create a much improved, symbiotic existence. If we don't extinct ourselves and life on earth first.
Thanks, I agree that overpopulation and overconsumption is the underlying issue (overshoot) driving most of the existential issues we are facing, meaning if population drops, it would be a good thing. Not easy, but in the larger scheme of things it would be a positive. That is what I tried to say in the article, perhaps it came off unclear.
With all your population graphs showing a steady drop to zero, could you be suffering from the same reductionist thinking you criticize?
You mention a lot of reasons for the present decline in fecundity, some involving chemical and hormonal pollution, but mostly involving lack of income to raise a family.
That's because in the modern world, children are a hobby and a luxury, whereas throughout some 299,950 years of human history, children have been an economic asset.
I agree that all the curves need to start changing direction. But it's fair to examine what that means for fecundity, as well.
What made children change from an economic asset to a hobby? Well, people switched their occupation from producing their own food to having "jobs" unrelated to their trophic energy needs, except for the pittance that food took up in their income budget; whereas for most of human history, feeding oneself took up a majority of your waking hours!
Now look at those curves about to change direction. This means people won't have as much choice in jobs, and those who do, will certainly enjoy less income, relative to the cost of basic needs, like food and shelter.
Combined with the decline of fossil fuel that currently enables almost all food production, this inevitably points to more human activity going into food production, which means children will stop being a hobby, and will return to the ~300,000-year history of being a slave labour force.
Second, as government revenue declines, what happens to pensions?
For some 299,950 years, "retirement" meant your children took care of you when you got old. How does that fit in with declining birth rates?
Thirdly, the late ecologist Howard Odum taught us that complexity, and thus technology, engineering, and all of industry, was simply a form of embedded energy, or "emergy".
As fossil fuel enters its inevitable, irrevocable decline, do you think birth control will continue to be available? "The Pill" may be the first to go, followed closely by surgical methods. Condoms may be around for some time, at least until intercontinental trade falters, and rubber becomes more dear.
So I view the current decrease in birth rates as just a transient artifact of our current energy high, and as energy becomes more dear, birth rates will regain historical levels.
One other seldom-mentioned consequence of degrowth and inevitable deflation: long-term loans are about to become a horrible burden. Inflation is the friend of debt; it helps make debt "go away". Deflation will prove to be the opposite.
If you have a mortgage, do what you can to get out of it as fast as possible! And start breeding your slave labour force and retirement plan!
Hi Jan,
Interesting thoughts.
Those models predicting near-zero populations are from studies that only track fertility rates over time, so they indeed suffer from reductionist thinking and are not predictions of anything.
I don't think I am suffering from reductionist thinking, at least not too badly.
I still believe we will see a significant population decline this century. Fertility rates will remain low and deaths high, as we go through the unraveling of industrial civilization. In the long run, it largely depends on how bad our climate has become, and what type of lifestyle is still possible. If agriculture is still possible, I think people will have more children. If not, I don’t think people will have children.
You mention birth control not being available in the future, I agree. I would add that healthcare, vaccines, and medicine will also be very limited, if available at all. Meaning expect much higher infant mortality in that scenario. This would keep the population in check.
Looking at what happened before doesn't make sense, in my opinion. We have left the Holocene, and agriculture may not work in the future, certainly not at the same scale as now. People had the skills and climate to grow food, which is a big difference from what we're heading into, and will impact whether people want to have children. If you’re living in a world of violence, starving, and barely finding enough food and water for yourself, will you really want more children?
Yes, kids used to be a retirement plan, and still are in many countries, but how does having slaves help in 2075 if no one can grow food, or at least not enough?
The first 290,000 years of our history were marked by low fertility rates and high infant mortality. Population was kept in check. Fertility rates increased when agriculture took off during the Holocene. That’s over now.
It's very complex, but I don't believe we will see an increase in fertility rates any time soon.
Fair enough! I do agree that we're entering unprecedented waters.
I certainly agree that net population is heading down; I'm just not sure it will be driven by reduced desire to have children, but more likely by a combination of reduced lifespan and increased childhood death, albeit with increased fecundity.
Lifespan appears to be a leading indicator. US lifespan peaked in 2014, and has steadily declined since. The US currently leads the entire world in years of poor health before death, at 12.5 years! https://www.iflscience.com/the-us-has-the-worlds-largest-gap-between-lifespan-and-healthspan-77243
Meanwhile, the US is teetering on their second "peak oil". It looks like fracked oil may soon quickly go away. OPEC nations are in decline, and may soon opt to restrict exports so they'll have enough for their own population. https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
Interesting times ahead… Grow food!