Changing World Age Demographics

[Tekward]

I was surprised. Have some fun:


Fill in the blank: The % of world population over 65 in 2022 is 10%, in 2100 it will be ___________.
A. 6-10%
B. 10-14%
C. 14-18%
D. 18-22%
E. 22-26%



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-the-worlds-aging-population-1950-to-2100/

 

[marko]

This is good IMO. Longer term, once us boomers exit the pipeline, there'll be a surplus of just about everything. Housing, food, energy, resources.

Ehrlich's "Population Bomb", becomes another catastrophic prophecy that never happens.

 

[audreyh1]

E?

 

[N02L84ER]

My guess is D.

 

[Mark1]

Wow, per the link every country shows declining birth rates from 1950 to present, but yet the population of earth increased from 2.5 billion to 8 billion during that time period.

 

[marko]

Wow, per the link every country shows declining birth rates from 1950 to present, but yet the population of earth increased from 2.5 billion to 8 billion during that time period.

People living longer, not reducing the headcount as quickly.

 

[sengsational]

I was reading a book about how the population trends in China make for a dismal place in the world economy, long term. Fallout from the one child policy. The US got a boost because we tend to grow with legacy plus immigration. Interesting topic (long term prosperity on a world scale) and how existing populations bracket the results.

 

[GrayHare]

One study puts a long-term, planet-sustainable human population at 3 billion. Dropping back to that quantity, without a calamity, seems a long way off.

 

[frayne]

Peter Zeihan has written a number of books as well as you tube videos on the subject of demographics and underlying economic effects. Interesting stuff.

 

[donheff]

Wow, per the link every country shows declining birth rates from 1950 to present, but yet the population of earth increased from 2.5 billion to 8 billion during that time period.

Without looking, the birthrate can decline while the population continues to rise until the decline crosses under the replacement rate, as I believe it already has in many advanced countries. Then to continue to expand our economies we need immigration. I guess once equilibrium is achieved, we will need new approaches to economic growth. Won't matter to me.

 

[Andre1969]

Without looking, the birthrate can decline while the population continues to rise until the decline crosses under the replacement rate, as I believe it already has in many advanced countries. Then to continue to expand our economies we need immigration. I guess once equilibrium is achieved, we will need new approaches to economic growth. Won't matter to me.

To use a simple example, isn't it something akin to having $50 and doubling it, vs having $1M and making 5% on it?

 

[street]

Very interesting article and a lot to take in. Less young (working people) and more older people in the world or just in the USA isn't a good thing the way I see it.

 

[Badger]

The article is only focused on world population and doesn't consider the species survival from other means. 2100 is 76 years from now. That is a long time from now and if history is any indication then we may not see the cooperation needed to prevent population reduction from a number of potential man-made catastrophic events.
If the species is around by then it is going to be a much different world to try and survive. But we will all be compost by then and never know.

Cheers!

Cheers!

 

[braumeister]

The % of world population over 65 in 2022 is 10%

According to the UN, as of 2020 only 2.6% of the world population was born before World War II. Just a couple hundred million, spread very unevenly around the globe, and going fast.

 

[Gumby]

Looks to me like the future will be African.

 

[foxcreek9]

One study puts a long-term, planet-sustainable human population at 3 billion. Dropping back to that quantity, without a calamity, seems a long way off.

"Studies" Yet the world population has more than doubled since the long discredited "Population Bomb" in 1970. The world has never been richer, and food production has soared. The bigger crisis will be population contraction, and China and Europe are show cases.

 

[OldShooter]

Actually, shrinking population is a really big problem for China. It partially stems from the old (abandoned) "one child" policy which per various articles in "The Economist" is still shaping young people's attitudes. IMO we should be glad to see this with China because it will weaken their ability to cause trouble around the world. (Economics observation, not political. )

 

[audreyh1]

The article is only focused on world population and doesn't consider the species survival from other means. 2100 is 76 years from now. That is a long time from now and if history is any indication then we may not see the cooperation needed to prevent population reduction from a number of potential man-made catastrophic events.
If the species is around by then it is going to be a much different world to try and survive. But we will all be compost by then and never know.

Cheers!

Cheers!

I’m still amazed we weren’t all blown up in 1962!

Knocking on wood big time!

 

[foxcreek9]

Actually, shrinking population is a really big problem for China. It partially stems from the old (abandoned) "one child" policy which per various articles in "The Economist" is still shaping young people's attitudes. IMO we should be glad to see this with China because it will weaken their ability to cause trouble around the world. (Economics observation, not political. )

But I think it increases the chances of "causing trouble" in the near future, it is now or never.

 

[ncbill]

But I think it increases the chances of "causing trouble" in the near future, it is now or never.

Yep, both China (and Russia) are dying empires under the control of a single ruler who sees himself as a famous leader from a more glorious past.

History tells us that means they will increasingly be "acting-out."

 

[Koolau]

I was reading a book about how the population trends in China make for a dismal place in the world economy, long term. Fallout from the one child policy. The US got a boost because we tend to grow with legacy plus immigration. Interesting topic (long term prosperity on a world scale) and how existing populations bracket the results.

The issue I always "worried" about with China and the (until recently) one-child policy is that male children were favored (girls more likely aborted or adopted to the West): Where will all those males get mates? What about the issues surrounding millions of males without mates? Makes one wonder. YMMV

 

[DrRoy]

Wow, per the link every country shows declining birth rates from 1950 to present, but yet the population of earth increased from 2.5 billion to 8 billion during that time period.

Yes, but the growth rate has slowed a great deal, and many individual countries are negative, including China.

 

[Surewhitey]

The issue I always "worried" about with China and the (until recently) one-child policy is that male children were favored (girls more likely aborted or adopted to the West): Where will all those males get mates? What about the issues surrounding millions of males without mates? Makes one wonder. YMMV

I read somewhere the imbalance is huge, like 40 million more (population of California). They could start engineering a solution. What could go wrong?

We have friends who lived there for many years and they said a bigger problem is the 1 male has the hope of taking care of the aging parents and they are spoiled rotten to be conditioned to (hopefully) do it. Otherwise the aging parents are up the creek...

 

[Car-Guy]

I’m still amazed we weren’t all blown up in 1962!

Knocking on wood big time!

One of my earliest memories. I think we got pretty close to cashing in.

 

[audreyh1]

One of my earliest memories. I think we got pretty close to cashing in.

I was way too young to remember not quite 3. But I read all about it later and was so shocked. I think we had just located to Germany shortly before that.