In the fall of 1980, I took a class entitled “Human Population and Natural Resources.” It satisfied a science requirement, without forcing me to engage in either the scientific method or lab work – important for this fledgling English major. It also got me thinking, in a way I never had, about the carrying capacity of our planet.
We have been taught that the Earth has finite resources, that we can only produce so much food.[1] And at some level, it’s probably true, although the world’s population has been growing as if it isn’t — from 1 billion people in 1800, to 2 billion (1927), to 4 billion (1974), to over 7 billion today. The United Nations projects a population of 10-11 billion by 2100. That’s a lot of people, who will all need food and water every single day, along with other necessities and a few luxuries.
Not to worry (about that) say Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson, the authors of Empty Planet,[2] because we are facing an even worse problem than too few resources: too few people. They attribute this primarily to urbanization and educated women. The world is now over 50% urban, which leads to fewer births because children are no longer treated as farm assets. When women become educated, they have more options, exercise autonomy, and inevitably have fewer children.
One of my favorite (small) takeaways from this book is a definition for extreme poverty. A person lives in extreme poverty when it is a daily challenge to feed his or her family. I doubt anyone reading this post has ever lived in extreme poverty, but in 1800, 85% of the world did. Today only 14% of the world does. “Only,” in this case, means about a billion people.
The main thesis of the book is that the birth rate across the planet is plummeting, it is already below replacement level (2.1 live births per woman) in most countries. Italy’s birth rate is 1.4, which resulted in fewer babies being born in 2015 (population 60 million) than in any year since 1861 (when the population was 25 million). In the US, the birth rate is 1.7, which led to fewer babies being born in 2017 (population 325 million) than in 1953 (when the population was 160 million). Most other countries have seen birth rates dip below replacement level, including Brazil (1.8), China (1.6), and Thailand (1.5). South America and the Caribbean are at 2.1, but dropping, down from 5.9 in 1960. Africa is the only continent whose birth rate remains above replacement level, but even there, the birth rate is falling.
Current projections indicate that Bulgaria will decline from 9 million people today to 5 million in 2050. South Korea’s population could drop by a third over the next 50 years, its birth rate is already below 1.0.[3] You might be thinking – this is great, fewer people will reduce the demand for resources. But think again, who is going to buy your house or the product or service you sell.
Fewer people means fewer consumers, which means less (or worse, no) economic growth. Japan has been grappling with this problem for decades – without success. It now has the highest debt level in the world (250% of GDP) and is the oldest nation, with 64 people of non-working age (retirees and kids) for every 100 of working age. That is not sustainable. For comparison purposes, the US is pretty high too, 52; China is 39.
The authors provide an easy solution to the problem of low birth rates and the subsequent declining population.[4] It’s rather obvious and it is one that has benefitted the US throughout its history, even when we had a high birth rate. Unfortunately, the obvious answer is not currently politically palatable. The answer, as most of you probably already guessed, is immigration.
One nation has embraced this solution. As Europe, Japan, and other countries deal with the consequences of a declining population, Canada has committed to welcoming immigrants—though not without limits. Canada has determined that it can assimilate immigrants at 1% (of its population) per year.[5] This is good for immigrants, who are seeking better opportunities, and Canada, which would otherwise have a declining population.
The authors paint a compelling narrative centered around immigration. Countries must either embrace it or lose population, which will lead to lower economic growth, productive capacity, etc. For those who imagine a future where birth rates trend hight, don’t get your hopes up. In Sweden, where women are allowed up to 480 days of paid leave (at 80% of income) when they have a child, the birth rate has ticked up, but remains below replacement level. And, of course, that policy is rather expensive.
We must either allow immigration[6] or we will inevitably suffer a population decline and concomitant economic decline. Professor Austan Goolsbee estimates that immigration at 200,000 per year (last year’s level) instead of a more usual 1,000,000 per year will result in GDP being $1 trillion lower over the course of a decade.[7]
There might be a plus side for those of you worried
about climate change, the authors believe that a declining population is one of
the surest ways to address it. I
recommend Empty Planet, reading it might change the way you think about the
present and the future.
[1] Proto-economist Thomas Malthus posited that human population increases geometrically and that food production increases arithmetically leading inexorably to an inability to feed all the people. This prediction caused Thomas Carlyle to dub economics the “dismal science.”
[2] Most of the factual references in this post come from this book.
[3] https://www.yahoo.com/news/forget-north-korea-south-koreas-160000907.html
[4] This solution will not work for the world, only for certain countries.
[5] According to the authors, the less nationalist a country, the more easily it can absorb immigrants.
[6] Neither the authors nor I advocate uncontrolled or illegal immigration.
[7] New York Times, October 13, 2019. The professor also noted that immigrants (or their children) started almost half of the current Fortune 500 companies.