Image copyright
fake pictures
Falling fertility rates could mean that most countries see their populations shrink by the end of the century.
The world will have to begin to reckon with the consequences of a smaller and older population.
1. It could be good news for the poorest countries.
We are seeing very different situations in different parts of the world.
Decreasing fertility rates (according to the official definition, the number of live births per woman) and economic development tend to go hand in hand.
Better education and career opportunities for women, access to contraception and abortion, and lower infant mortality rates mean that women on average have fewer children.
So for low-income countries, a declining birth rate could mean better living standards.
Fewer children each receive a larger slice of the pie, be it health or education.
But in countries where fertility rates have already been falling for years, lowering it further could cause problems.
These countries will have to determine how to care for a growing population, with fewer younger people to work as caregivers and pay the system.
2. People may have more to look forward to in retirement
But they may have to work much longer.
And they may not be as strained for the health system as feared.
Many of the concerns about caring for an aging population mean that everyone will be sick in old age.
But in addition to life expectancy, the world has been making a profit when it comes to “healthy life expectancy.”
In almost every country in the world, with the notable exception of Syria, new babies are expected to spend more years in good health than those born in 2000, five years healthier on average.
In Rwanda, the average baby has gained an additional 22 years of expected life in good health since the start of the millennium.
In high-income countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, healthy life expectancy has increased by one to three years.
“Fears about population aging should be put into perspective,” says Professor Sarah Harper of the Oxford Institute on Population Aging.
“The health of older adults is already much better than it was,” a few decades ago, he says, which means older people can be “active, healthy” and pay a higher proportion of their lives.
And, as Dr. Hannah Ritchie of the Our World in Data team at Oxford University points out: “We don’t even know what the world of work will be like 50 years from now.”
3. Governments may have to open borders
Fertility rates and life expectancy are two parts of the equation when it comes to whether a population is growing or declining. The third is migration.
Countries that end up with much smaller youth populations may want or need to attract youth from elsewhere.
The world could become even more culturally and ethnically mixed, says Dr. Ritchie.
4. Will pay to support parents.
When governments have tried to restrict or increase a country’s birth rate in the past, it has often been coercive.
But there are examples, especially in Scandinavian countries, where birth rates are higher than expected due to incentives like generous maternity leave and childcare.
So in the future, rich countries that choose to introduce generous support systems may see an increase in their fertility rate, according to Dr. Ritchie.
As much as women in low-income countries may have more children than they would ideally choose, some women and men in countries with high costs of living may have fewer children than they would like because they cannot afford more.
Along with this, governments can increase the pension age, possibly even allowing people to take time off to raise a family and then work that extra time later in life, suggests Professor Harper.
5. Caregivers will be “as important as doctors”
That is the opinion of Dr. Tiziana Leone at the London School of Economics.
No matter how large the gains in healthy life expectancy are, the “older elderly” will probably always need care towards the end of their lives.
Dr. Leone cautions that countries with aging populations face a crisis in terms of their health and social care systems.
We need to start now, training the right workforce: “We will need fewer pediatricians and gynecologists,” she says.
6. It will probably be good for the environment.
A decrease in population is “a good thing” for the environment, according to Professor Harper.
But Dr. Ritchie points out that economic growth is a stronger driver of climate change than population growth.
It is extremely difficult to say what will happen to the state of the economy in the long term.
If the world becomes richer and consumes more even as the number of people shrinks, environmental gains are not guaranteed.
Similarly, although wealth and pollution have been linked for the past century, in recent years it is the wealthiest countries that have been able to reduce their CO2 emissions by investing in technology.
And this pattern could continue.
Follow Rachel On twitter
- GREAT BRITAIN CANCER CRISIS: How has cancer care been affected by Covid-19?
- DIET AND IMMUNE SYSTEM How important is a healthy diet?
