One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

The population ‘catch 22’

Date Published:

Abstract: There is a population ‘catch 22’ in that some countries with underlying  population reduction continue to grow their population through immigration because these same countries are most attractive to potential immigrants. This hides the underlying population reduction, and produces an illusion that populations always grow. If you read this, chances are you live in a country that is reversing an underlying population reduction through immigration. The population growth through immigration hides the fact that outside, more and more countries are also moving underlying population reduction, which will in turn turn off the net supply of immigrants, and require a dramatic rethink to managing population numbers.

What countries have an underlying population reduction?

In the examination of the feasibility of achieving population decrease I discussed how many countries have birth rates below level needed to sustain current population levels and currently are only growing if at all through immigration.

There are several sources of data on birth rates, for example the CIA fact-book (was most up to date, but data now in a strange form) and woldbank.org (most comprehensive).  Levels below around 2.1 would see a drop in population if not for other factors such as immigration.

The data here is the underlying growth before immigration.  So this data determine underlying population growth.

Data from locations from all of Europe overall shows levels below the sustain level. For example simply looking at locations and finding figures at random yields: United Kingdom (1.7), France(1.9), Germany(1.43),  Italy(1.42), Spain(1.48), Sweden(1.88).

Note: Figures below for USA and Mexico updated with Feb 2021 data.

In North America, the USA is reducing at 2.01 1.7, as is Canada at 1.59 and while Mexico at 2.29 2.1 is marginally growing in underlying population.  In south America, Brazil is contracting at 1.79 but whether other countries are increasing population is still is open to opinion.  The birth rate data I have says they still should be growing, but I read reports of declining populations.  Emigration? Possibly, so I will leave it as the rest of Latin America still in positive natural growth.

Japan (1.40) and China (1.55) have been at low levels for some time while Indonesia (2.18) and India (2.51) are still growing.

Why do we not have population contraction already?
I have already covered ‘lag’ in the ‘population growth lag’ post, but it takes a life-time of lower birth-rates to result in contraction, which means there could be another 50 years until peak population.  Population contraction first shows in the younger age groups, and we do already have population reductions in younger age groups in key countries.  Well before total population figures reveal the impact, there is already significant reduction. Look at a graph of global population growth, and the now all graphs already reveal the exponential growth has slowed. There are countries where birth rates peaked earlier, and these countries provide a glimpse of the global future.   I will use China and Japan as key examples.

China has had births below replacement rate for 25 years now and very low rates since the mid 90s.  So how come the population is still growing and projected  to keep growing until around 2030?  Japan has had an even lower birth rate, and a low rate since before the 1970s, but was rising in total population until 2005 and relatively was flat until 2010. Only now is the Japan total population falling, and only slightly.

Neither of these countries is a significant destination for immigration.  The discrepancy between birth rate and actual population is all due to lag.

China may still be growing in total, but consider the figures for the 0..14 age group.  From a peak of 356 million in the mid 1970s, to 261 million in 2010.  A drop of over 25%. (Source data and graph).  Japan shows an even more dramatic decline with a 25% drop in the 20 years to 2010 alone. Both Japan and China will see this drop reflected in their total population as this 0-14 group becomes adult.  The drop is already locked in and the decline in Japan born Japanese and China born Chinese in inevitable now.

So there is typically  40 years in advance signal before the overall population starts to fall.  The effect is like a time bomb and every one knows the timing and how to freeze the timer on the bomb.  If you have the means and the desire to freeze the timer on the bomb, there is plenty of time.

The impact of immigration.
The technique to freeze the clock on the bomb is immigration.  Using people ‘prepared earlier’ means that the fix is far quicker than the flow through from low birth rates.  The means even with the natural population growth engine switched off, the population can grow beyond the lag period.   Significant immigration requires a lot of people to want to immigrate.  As there is some correlation between living standards and low birth rates, almost all countries facing low birth rates have the means to delay  population reductions should they wish.

Economically, almost all countries do wish to avoid population reduction at this time, so given almost all have the means as well, expect actual to population reduction to be very rare while immigration is still a viable solution.  Therefore the global population to continue to climb. ‘Catch 22’.

But also expect the sources of immigration run out.  The most significant destinations for immigration, Australia Canada and the USA, have still been gaining most immigrants from counties just now starting to feel the impact of the ‘lag’ period reaching the end of the lag.  And when immigration sources  run out, then the timer on the bomb resumes.  For everyone. So the real ‘Catch 22’ is that the problem is delayed until all face it at the same time and on a massive scale.  If the remaining time is all used focused on slowing the timer, then countries will be unprepared.   The economic shock from the bomb going off will be very significant unless radical steps are taken to adjust.   The world can be a much better place after this adjustment.  I just hope that is how it plays out.

Table of Contents

Categories

Environment: On all paths, disruption is imminent & preparation advisable.

Either we disrupt the economic system of a gradual path to transition from fossil fuels, extreme weather disrupts us, or most likely we deal with a mix of both disruptions.

We are living through many trends that simply cannot continue, and while there is competition for which trend reaching a tipping point will cause the greatest disruption over the next decade, the environment and rising CO2 levels will play a key role by 2030.

While some righteous environmentalists protest for everyone to embrace austerity and simply just stop burning fossil fuels, what is required is replacement infrastructure reliant on fossil fuels. In practice we can’t switch off until positive action replaces the need for fossil fuels, which is progressing too slowly in a failing effort to avoid disrupting economies and the establishment.

Reality is both the extreme weather events that further motivate action and those actions themselves will cause disruption, which will both combine with the disruption from AI and the collapse of economic Ponzi schemes.

Read More »

Population: Our greatest achievement may cause our demise.

Arguably mankind’s greatest achievement, the near eradication of infant mortality, has resulted in a population explosion resulting in overpopulation that we prefer not to mention, even though it may yet kill us. Technically we would not die from overpopulation itself, just as people don’t really die from “old age”, and the real risk is that an already present threat will be exacerbated and become fatal because through our greed we ignore overpopulation.

Unlike old age, the overpopulation risk factor could be avoided or reversed, we may be influenced by economists dependant on Ponzi schemes, the worlds’ largest corporations and billionaires who thrive off the resultant increases in inequality into believing that living conditions required by ever increasing population levels benefit everyone and not just those living in mansions.

Read More »

Cost of coal power vs renewables: China expanding coal while the suckers go green?

If coal fired power can no longer compete on price, then why is China building two new coal power plants per week? Is China somehow able to use coal fired electricity to gain a competitive advantage against western manufacturing which increasingly relies on “clean green” but more expensive energy, with the result that emissions and jobs are simply transferred to China?

The current politics of climate agreements encourage rich countries to offshore some emissions to those countries often forced to be more reliant coal and with higher emissions. Could we fix the problem of China syndrome emissions if there was the political will?

Read More »

Righteous environmentalism: an opium for the people concerned about climate.

There is a real need to protect the environment, and advocacy for the environment is great, but that advocacy can acquire traits of a religion, which at the extreme can even result in far-right eco-terrorism, and more in the mainstream can result in righteous environmentalism and embracing austerity and sacrifices as “an opium”.

The “righteous environmentalists” preach this austerity as necessary life of the future to an audience that just see the rich becoming even richer. This blindly serves an alternate agenda and needlessly alienates and disenfranchises much of the population. The result is do-nothing politicians to get re-elected instead of motivating voters for real action on climate change and electing leaders who will act.

Read More »

Optimum population of humans: Ideally, how many people can, or should, the Earth support?

It can seem like the human population can grow forever, but analysis makes it clear growth must stop eventually. The question becomes at what level should it stop?

Do we go for the maximum possible people before everything collapses, even if average living standards could be far better with a smaller population? Is it like a chicken farm in an egg farm, where having less chickens is seen as preferable if it means chickens get better living conditions? What population strikes the right balance for humans?

Read More »

COP27: Climate change action sabotage?

Reports from COP27 seems indicate the key initiative this year to make wealthy nations cover the cost of the damages poor nations will incur as a result of emissions that have main originated from those wealthy nations.

The proposal as it stands has a missing an essential piece, and trying to cover for that essential piece, appears most to likely to increase emissions, and move COP away from a focus on solving the climate crisis and instead toward just fighting over the cost.

This is a troubled look at the key flaw in what has been put forward and the real solution that should be in place.

Read More »