
The Population Bomb Has Been Defused - sethbannon
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation
======
danbruc
_Some of the most spectacularly wrong predictions in history have been made by
those who claim that overpopulation is going to swamp the planet. Thomas
Malthus, a British economist writing in the late 1700s, is the most famous of
these. Extrapolating past trends into the future, he predicted that population
growth would inevitably swamp available food resources, leading to mass
starvation. That didn’t happen - we continued to develop new technologies that
let us stay ahead of the reaper._

Why are people so eager to point out that Malthus was wrong all the time? As
far as I can tell he was not. He said if population growth continued as in the
past, then we would starve, not that we necessarily will. I also think it is
wrong to say we engineered us out of starvation, at best it bought us some
time to get the fertility rate down. As the article admits, exponential
population growth can never be finally solved by technology.

~~~
jccooper
Because he believed that population would be limited only by resources, and
that fertility rate was nearly invariant. These have both proved to be wrong.
The popular imagination of the Mathusian prediction of inevitable mass
starvation (which is not really that mis-characterized) was also wrong. So
classifying him as wrong seems fair.

~~~
Finnucane
Population remains limited by resources. How could it not be? We've been adept
over the years at finding new resources or extending old ones (the expansion
of ranching and farming in the Americas in the 19th century, which greatly
increased the global food supply, or the invention of artificial fertilizer,
for instance), but it is a bit of hubris to say that this is a solved problem
for all time.

~~~
Animats
_Population remains limited by resources._

No, it's not, and that's what's so surprising. As nations become wealthier,
the birth rate goes down, not up. And it goes down by a lot; more than 50%.
All the way down below replacement rate.

The US passed "peak baby" in 2007. Outside of Africa, all the major world
regions are past "peak baby".[1] Population seems likely to level off around
2050.

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-
rate](https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement
> rate.

Some quick systems-level analysis shows that this state of affairs cannot
possibly be stable. Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are
quickly replaced by societies reproducing above replacement rate. What will
happen then?

Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down _that_ far is
fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. It's not a good basis for
predictions of the future.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are quickly replaced by
> societies reproducing above replacement rate.

“Societies” are about memes, not genes, and humans are powerful imitators of
things that visibly are associated with success.

~~~
burfog
Fine, but the future still belongs to those who show up. Evolution need not be
about DNA. Memes (such as religion) will do the job just fine. Those who think
"success" involves low reproduction are taking the evolutionary off-ramp to
extinction. Those who do otherwise are selected for. They have the correct
memes, or genes, or whatever -- the mechanism doesn't matter.

~~~
jxramos
> "the mechanism doesn't matter"

Makes me think about this old article in ForeignPolicy I read. I could
interpret his provocative statements about the success of patriarchy as a sort
of "correct meme" to borrow your terminology. Interesting thought.
[http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-
patriarchy...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/)

------
nostrademons
...if we can get through the next 20-30 years. Peak danger for societies isn't
when there's a bulge in birth rates, or when the population starts to fall.
It's when there's a bulge in the rates of young, unmarried men who don't have
the wherewithal to marry and pass on their genes. That's when you tend to get
an increase in crime, violence, warlike behavior, and other things that tend
to rip a society apart.

~~~
sidyom
"Peak danger for societies ... [is] when there's a bulge in the rates of
young, unmarried men"

Could you provide a source for that? There are more unmarried men per capita
now than almost any time over the last 100 years [1], yet violent crime has
been declining steadily - most people can't seem to agree why, though. [2]

[1] -
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-y...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-
of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-
chart/?utm_term=.eb73afcaa5aa)

[2] - [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-
ca...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-
crime-decline/477408/)

~~~
nostrademons
I've read it in several places, but here are a couple articles with charts and
references to other studies:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/an...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/angry-
young-men-are-making-the-world-less-stable/284364/)

[https://www.economist.com/news/special-
report/21688587-young...](https://www.economist.com/news/special-
report/21688587-young-single-idle-males-are-dangerous-work-and-wedlock-can-
tame-them-men-and-mayhem)

I should also point out that the sort of violence I'm talking about is things
like wars, civil disorder, gangs, terrorism, failed states, anarchy, and other
_group_ forms of violence, not individual crimes like premeditated murder. The
latter has a lot of conflating factors (a sibling comment mentions lead, and
there's also abortion, better policing tactics, economic growth, etc), but to
get a critical mass of people who are so disaffected by their current
situation in life that they want to burn the whole society down, you usually
need some form of major demographic or environmental change.

~~~
sidyom
Seems like "A Clash of Generations" is what the economist is referencing:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2478....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00416.x)

And does focus on political violence in particular (terrorism, rioting, and
one more I couldn't pick out of the abstract). Would be interestig to read the
whole thing, but thanks for following up! I wonder if the amount of young men
in the US that were swayed by Russian influence operations over the last
several years would be in-step with this logic.

------
themgt
Shocker, Noah Smith pens yet another of his "whig history" takes. The reality
is just a few short years ago the UN updated its population estimates for the
end of the century from less than 9 billion to a more likely 11 billion, and
as many as 13 billion people. [1]

Nearly the entirety of that increase is because fertility rates in Africa
_have not fallen_ anywhere near what was expected, so the population there is
set to quadruple from 1->4 billion people over 100 years. The 4 billion figure
_assumes_ fertility will begin to rapidly fall in line with the rest of the
developing world - nearly all of the growth is already "baked in the cake" due
to the extremely young population, and if TFR doesn't drop the population
could well soar significantly higher. The population of Nigeria _alone_ is
expected to be more than the entire population of Europe by 2085.

Whether the fertility rate can actually be brought down is very much an
unsolved question, with a history of optimistic mistakes Noah Smith is smart
enough to be aware of. Combine with climate change, resource depletion, the
utterly dysfunctional nation-states where this is occurring and the the
meteoric rise of neo-fascists after Europe accepted something like 1/100th of
the potential economic migrants/refugees as want to come, and this vapid
"forward march of history" perspective looks at best cherry-picked and facile,
if not disingenuous in the extreme.

[1]
[https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/art...](https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/articles/sa1214Gsci31_web.png)
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-
population-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-population-
will-soar-higher-than-predicted/)

~~~
rukittenme
> The population of Nigeria alone is expected to be more than the entire
> population of Europe by 2085.

Do you think that's realistic? The population of Niger is expected to be 200
million in 2100 (20 million today)[1]. Have you seen Niger? Its a desert with
little natural resources.

1\.
[https://www.populationpyramid.net/niger/2100/](https://www.populationpyramid.net/niger/2100/)

edit: I'm aware Niger and Nigeria are different countries. I'm changing the
subject to Niger intentionally. 10x population growth _in the Sahara desert._

~~~
ccozan
That would be Nigeria, not Niger.

Two different countries.

~~~
rukittenme
I'm aware. I'm changing the subject to a different country.

------
f-
Not long ago, a significant proportion of the scientific establishment - along
with a number of celebrities and policymakers - believed that the "population
bomb" is an inevitable, imminent, and apocalyptic threat. There was talk of
"point of no return", calls for worldwide China-style fertility restrictions,
and so forth.

Instead, what happened over the past several decades is not just a drop in
birth rates, but also dramatic improvements in our ability to grow cheap food
at a scale (something that the article doesn't really talk about).

So it is a very interesting take to claim that the population bomb has been
"defused" \- since this implies it wasn't an episode of pathological science
flirting with mysticism (with frequent allusions to the pristine "natural"
order contrasted with the evils of Man), but just some sound science that
turned out to be a bit off.

(Please don't read into this as a critique of any contemporary scientific
debates; that's not my point, but I think we should be more willing to
recognize our past mistakes.)

~~~
usrusr
> but also dramatic improvements in our ability to grow cheap food at a scale

Are those improvements sustainable? Agriculture that is generating high yields
from converting very fertile natural ecosystems into deserts and then moving
on is almost like eating through fossil resources, only that the timescale for
replenishment is a few orders of magnitude closer to being relevant for
humanity (but still far or of reach). Failure ecosystems that have been farmed
out of existence in antiquity are still as barren as thousand years ago. If
you ignore the yields of unsustainable farming, our ability to feed billions
looks a lot less rosy.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Are those improvements sustainable?"

Available evidence suggests yes.

[http://plantsci.missouri.edu/grains/corn/graphs/USA-corn-
yie...](http://plantsci.missouri.edu/grains/corn/graphs/USA-corn-yield.jpg)

"Agriculture that is generating high yields from converting very fertile
natural ecosystems into deserts"

Iowa didn't look much like a desert the last time I was there.

"Failure ecosystems that have been farmed out of existence in antiquity are
still as barren as thousand years ago"

Yeah, that's why you don't want to rely on "organic" farming. Good thing we
don't do that any more.

~~~
usrusr
> Iowa didn't look much like a desert the last time I was there.

I don't know the specifics of Iowa, but European soil can only keep up with
the rising yields thanks to the dung of a rising headcount of livestock that
is fed with imported feed that is at least in part from slash-and-burn farming
or from depopulating the oceans. If those animals consume more than the local
yields could supply, the farming is still unsustainable despite local soils
not depleting.

I'm not saying that there are no improvements (three certainly are), but that
they might be much smaller than we think.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> slash-and-burn farming

Slash-and-burn farming is a "traditional", "organic" method.

They don't do slash-and-burn in Iowa.

------
retox
The population is so high we need to stop having kids, and the population is
so low we need to import low skilled workers, and the job of the future will
be fully automated.

Modern policy is a cognitive dissonance minefield.

------
ouid
6 billion people burning coal to keep their refrigerators running is not what
I would call defused.

~~~
csallen
And what are the consequences of that? I would guess significantly milder than
the predictions of mass starvation that we managed to avert.

~~~
Leader2light
Nobody knows, the destruction of the entire planet most likely.

The earth is dying, you can see it everywhere you look if you open your eyes.

~~~
irrational
The earth isn't dying. It may become uninhabitable for humans, but that is
quite different than the earth being dead.

~~~
honorarydarwina
Read between the lines. Nobody is that dumb to literally say that the earth is
dying.

------
nyolfen
not in subsaharan africa. nigeria alone is set to hit ~1 billion by the end of
the century, even if current birthrates slow dramatically. if china is the
centerpiece of the 21st century, africa is the stage for the 22nd:

[https://i.imgur.com/9obArWa.png](https://i.imgur.com/9obArWa.png)

~~~
philipwhiuk
140K in 2006, 185K in 2016. 1B in 2100? That seems a big jump.

Africa does need an economic super power however to avoid hundreds of millions
of economic migrants moving to China, the EU and the US.

~~~
nyolfen
i believe those numbers are meant to have an ‘m’ instead of a ‘k’? lagos alone
has over 20m.

the US had a population of ~76m in 1900, and severely restricted immigration
for much of the 20th c

------
RobLach
I feel like all these estimates of "overpopulation" are massively overblown.
These issues are almost entirely political/social.

The capacity for Earth to hold humans is massive.

Currently only a tiny sliver of the surface has people on it and if that
becomes a problem we can build vertically (up and down).

We're barely capturing relatively free energy such as sunlight, wind,
geothermal, and tidal. Think of how much of the Sahara isn't a solar energy
production plant.

If the labor of 1 human can feed at least 2 people you can have a society.
With technology 1 human can work to feed thousands if not millions with
increased automation. Food production can be fully automated with the ambition
to.

The only real bound of food production if you consider vertical hydroponic
farming alongside nuclear and freeish energy, is the amount of nutrients
plants and insects require to produce adequate amounts of human nutrition.
Virtually all plant nutrients have evolved to be highly recyclable through
natural processes, most of which can by accelerated with technology.

~~~
dredmorbius
[https://www.worldcat.org/title/how-many-people-can-the-
earth...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/how-many-people-can-the-earth-
support/oclc/898942239)

~~~
thebigspacefuck
Tldr?

~~~
dredmorbius
He's a, or the, highly definitive source. L. R.

------
pascalxus
As worldwide population increases, resources become increasingly stretched and
per capita income goes down (relative to the cost of living). This, in first
world countries will probably result in a decline in the birthrate.

You only need to look towards CA to see where this is already happening. CA
with it's excessive regulations has decreased the prosperity of it's people to
the point of where it now has x3 times the number of poor people per capita
than the national average (that's living cost adjusted ~ mostly due to housing
cost and excessive energy costs and countless other regulations that increase
living costs). I suspect this has played a roll in the decline of the birth
rate in CA, now at the lowest its ever been since the great depression (it's
been going down for the last 3 decades). As life becomes increasingly harsh,
people have less babies - it's kinda hard to have a kid when your sharing a
room in your parent's house, or live 6 to an apartment.

~~~
horsecaptin
Another reason why California has 3x the homeless people is because it is
friendly to homeless people - weather and services inside big cities.

------
nootropicat
>the ultimate, final victory

Famous last words. What happens evolutionary is that genes that make it more
likely to have children in the industrialized society setting - whatever they
are - are getting an enormous boost.

~~~
danieltillett
We know exactly what those genes are - or more accurately their phenotype.

~~~
dennisgorelik
What is the phenotype of the genes that increase chances of having children in
industrialized society?

------
birksherty
Terrible title. "Population bomb" is not defused, only "birth rate" is
decreasing. There are already too many people on Earth. It's big problem in
developing countries.

~~~
Viliam1234
> "Population bomb" is not defused, only "birth rate" is decreasing.

This is all that needed to be said about the article. The author doesn't (want
to) understand the difference between a number "getting smaller" and the
number "increasing less quickly".

When someone gains 10 kg in January and then gains 9 kg in February, we don't
say that they are losing weight.

------
akshayB
One of the reasons that is not tracked here is the fact that in developing
countries as more and more people get educated. They tend to have 1 or 2
children and they try to ensure their kids have good education and upbringing.
These parents realize that if they have more children they might not have
enough resources and money to push them through higher education.

~~~
paulddraper
There's significantly less randomness now. Less disease, more economic
mobility, higher standard of living, and more safety nets then 150 years ago.

The only way to succeed when the odds are disadvantageous and out of your
control is to make many attempts.

------
natecavanaugh
> eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide
> calories.

Really? When? And how? Because I don't see how a planet that can support at
least a factor of 10 times our population size currently is going to
realistically start running out of calories, short of moronic political
decisions, some of which are perpetuated by statements like that.

Where are these calories going? They're evaporating into the ether, never to
be reclaimed?

Or is it possible that we're losing out on massive amounts of human capital
because, like NIMBY activists that argue against new housing development,
we're trying to maintain a status quo out of fear?

------
MR4D
So, in the next 30 years, we’re adding about 2 billion more people (net) to
the planet.

The odds that it goes smoothly is small. First, 30 years is a long time to not
have a big population event. Second, 2 billion people will strain resources
considerably (its a 25% increase over today).

The impacts on disease, pollution, war, etc., are significant even if food
supply can handle it. And what about climate change, or increasing algae
blooms (due to pesticide use)?

There are so many things that’s ave to work to _not_ have a population event,
that it’s a pretty scary proposition. Sure, the birth rate has declined
dramatically, but Malthus may yet be proven correct.

------
EdgarVerona
It is interesting to contrast the decline in fertility rates in China and
India. Would China have had a similar dropoff if not for the One Child policy?
Will we see the number increase again given enough time after the 2013 easing
of that policy? I'd be curious to see these numbers again ten years from now.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I'm sure I remember reading that fertility rates had already declined
significantly before the one child policy was introduced.

~~~
telotortium
Indeed -- you just need to take a look at the graph in the original article
for further confirmation (the one-child policy was instituted in 1978, and
fertility rate was in definite decline by that point).

------
amriksohata
India had a population of approx 79million in 1000 CE

[https://i.stack.imgur.com/2928N.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2928N.png)

After successive invasions, by the Mughals, Dutch, Portuguese and British it
shot up to over 300 million, a much bigger rise say compared to other
countries. Largely due to the poverty it was left in, people ended up having
more kids to make sure they survived. Anyhow I agree it has been refused as
the poverty levels are now being tackled and mass education programmes in
place.

~~~
rgbrenner
"After successive invasions..."

You draw this clear line between invasions and population growth for India...
but India doesn't look a whole lot different than others (considering it
started off with a higher base than other countries also):
[http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/po...](http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-
content/uploads/popgrowthsince_1500.jpg)

It was the 2nd largest by population even in 1000 CE:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1000)

India, like every other country, was affected by vaccines and other
developments that reduced the death rate and caused population to explode.

~~~
amriksohata
My point is the rate of growth rather than the baseline, were these vaccines
you mention available in 1700? To the general poorer population? Highly
unlikely.

~~~
rgbrenner
India was the worlds 2nd largest population in 1000 (60m), 2nd largest in 1500
(90m), the 2nd largest in 1700 (160m), the 2nd largest in 1900 (330m), and the
2nd largest today.

It had 19% of the population in 1000; 20% in 1500; and 17.5% today.

And you say that last part is someone elses fault. What surprise that the
worlds 2nd largest population for over 1000 years would be the 2nd largest
today... with nearly exactly the same percent of the world population it had
over 1000 years ago. Clearly some outside force has caused India to grow from
2nd largest in the world a 1000 years ago all the way up to 2nd largest today.
What else could explain it? /s

Do you realize that the US from 1900 to today has had a higher growth rate
than India? 428% vs 401%

~~~
amriksohata
You didnt answer the vaccine question, nor the rate of growth topic, look at
the chart again, it looks more exponential than linear:

[https://i.stack.imgur.com/2928N.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2928N.png)

------
dailycrud
The late (and quirky) Julian Simon wrote on this topic, and on the related
notion of ostensibly limited resources. Worth checking out if you are not
already familiar with his viewpoint:

The Ultimate Resource, 1981, Princeton University Press, ISBN 069109389X.

The Ultimate Resource 2, 1996, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691042691.
[http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/](http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/)

------
X6S1x6Okd1st
For anyone that wants a deeper look Charles C Mann's recent publication The
Wizard and the Prophet covers the figures behind over population concerns &
modern environmentalism as well as the figures behind the green revolution
which played a large role in pushing famine and food insecurity down to the
level that exists at today, even with a growing population.

------
21
A few other taboo "bombs": water wars and climate change.

Same basic mistake, assuming nothing will change.

For example, for water wars: desalination using solar power (see Israel)

For climate change: carbon sequestring strategies or market pressures - CO2
credits, reputational risk (being "green"), ...

------
rsuelzer
Has anyone else here made an active decision to not reproduce? Even with low
birth rates in my country and small families being the norm, I still find
myself being pressured to have children, as if my genetic code was critical to
the survival of the species.

~~~
Markoff
good luck finding wife with same attitude

~~~
rsuelzer
Already done.

------
Gys
The article is very happy to point out that the trend changed 50 years ago.
Then shown a graph with a 100 years forecast, based on that changed trend.

Sure, from now on the fertilization will play nicely along.

~~~
macintux
Did you read the supporting arguments for why the rates have historically not
gone back up?

------
thinkloop
I never understood this logic, population growth is 100% dependent on the
amount of resources the system is able to produce, not the other way around.
Resources are the precursor to growth. It is not possible to grow unabated
then one day realize we're 50% short on resources. Population necessarily has
to stabilize at around 100% resource utilization.

~~~
fjsolwmv
And when resources are depleted? That's the bomb.

~~~
thinkloop
What would get depleted?

~~~
dredmorbius
Core strategic resources.

A set of 14: [http://i.imgur.com/L5qWNN9.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/L5qWNN9.jpg)

Rainforests, coral reefs, ag land, coal, oil, gas, aluminium, phosphorus,
tantalum, titanium, copper, silver, indium, antimony.

Sources:

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120618-global-resources-
st...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120618-global-resources-stock-check)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/future/BBCF_infoData_stock_chec...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/future/BBCF_infoData_stock_check.pdf)

A list of six:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six-
natural-resources-population)

Longer general discussion:
[http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01035.pdf](http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01035.pdf)

------
lanewinfield
Here's the non-AMP link, for anyone not viewing on mobile:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-i...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-
in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation)

~~~
dang
Changed to that above.

------
wesleytodd
Better link (non amp version):
[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-i...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-
in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation)

~~~
dang
Changed to that.

