Re: Consequences of ageing populations: is it really so bad?
The major issue with lower an ageing population, and more especially the lower fertility rates in the developed world, in general, is that fertility rates are below the rate of replacement (average of about 2.1 children born to each woman during her lifetime). "The ageing population is a direct consequence first and foremost, of falling rates of birth." This means that the rise in the median age of the population is not (primarily) from increased life expectancy, which has a marginal influence on the equation, but because generations being born are much smaller than their parental generations. This leads to a skyrocketing growth of the population which is in older demographic ranges, in the short term, and significant population decline, and a much higher median age, in the long term.
To explain the issue properly it is important to think about the effects that low fertility among the population has upon the population in the long term. "In simple terms, if fertility is half the replacement rate, about one child per woman, the size of the generation being born today, GEN1, is only have the size of the parental generation, GEN0. GEN3, born only 60 years after GEN1, would be one-eighth the size of GEN0." To put it in perspective, if that was the global population fertility rate, we would be experiencing a rate of depopulation at several hundreds of millions of people over the course of about century, if my maths are correct. It continues, "Such a population is on the road to extinction, but before that happened (sic), within just one generation, the impacts of very low fertility on the size and age structure of the future labour supply would be crippling to an economy trying to support its rapidly ageing population."
That being said, I am far from convinced that humanity is at, or is relatively close to, its global carrying capacity, or that it will being so anytime soon. For over 23 centuries have there been always talk of the lack of resources to support the population, and there have been pushes for population control for centuries such as two children policies to limit population growth, while providing replacements for the parental generation, during the 18th and 19th centuries. Each time that humanity is said to be approaching its certain 'suicide by overpopulation' it has proven to not be the case, and this, in my opinion, the case now, and we can support a lot more people to come. In addition, we are just becoming more effective at providing for human existence, while also reducing our environmental impacts. Exponential, or extremely rapid growth may not be realistic, but there is little reason, in my mind, to say that countries, and the global environment, cannot manage with having consistent and healthy population growth.
This leads to perhaps the most daunting challenges facing governments in the next few decades, and especially those within the OECD countries. Governments must act to address low fertility rates through comprehensive social and economic policies, in order to address the general reasons for low fertility among the population, which exists for both social and economic reasons. It will be difficult, since it is not necessarily an area that most governments have gone into with policy. In fact, many in the previous century did just the opposite. It is going to be about finding a proper balance between establishing proper growth, and ensuring that growth does not become overly-rapid, as well as the significant social and economic impacts that present issues to the making of policy in such a topic. I think this is a short-term issue, and that once it is resolved the lessons that we learn from it will carry over to the knowledge, and this sort of issue may be able to be reduced in future.
The major issue with lower an ageing population, and more especially the lower fertility rates in the developed world, in general, is that fertility rates are below the rate of replacement (average of about 2.1 children born to each woman during her lifetime). "The ageing population is a direct consequence first and foremost, of falling rates of birth." This means that the rise in the median age of the population is not (primarily) from increased life expectancy, which has a marginal influence on the equation, but because generations being born are much smaller than their parental generations. This leads to a skyrocketing growth of the population which is in older demographic ranges, in the short term, and significant population decline, and a much higher median age, in the long term.
To explain the issue properly it is important to think about the effects that low fertility among the population has upon the population in the long term. "In simple terms, if fertility is half the replacement rate, about one child per woman, the size of the generation being born today, GEN1, is only have the size of the parental generation, GEN0. GEN3, born only 60 years after GEN1, would be one-eighth the size of GEN0." To put it in perspective, if that was the global population fertility rate, we would be experiencing a rate of depopulation at several hundreds of millions of people over the course of about century, if my maths are correct. It continues, "Such a population is on the road to extinction, but before that happened (sic), within just one generation, the impacts of very low fertility on the size and age structure of the future labour supply would be crippling to an economy trying to support its rapidly ageing population."
That being said, I am far from convinced that humanity is at, or is relatively close to, its global carrying capacity, or that it will being so anytime soon. For over 23 centuries have there been always talk of the lack of resources to support the population, and there have been pushes for population control for centuries such as two children policies to limit population growth, while providing replacements for the parental generation, during the 18th and 19th centuries. Each time that humanity is said to be approaching its certain 'suicide by overpopulation' it has proven to not be the case, and this, in my opinion, the case now, and we can support a lot more people to come. In addition, we are just becoming more effective at providing for human existence, while also reducing our environmental impacts. Exponential, or extremely rapid growth may not be realistic, but there is little reason, in my mind, to say that countries, and the global environment, cannot manage with having consistent and healthy population growth.
This leads to perhaps the most daunting challenges facing governments in the next few decades, and especially those within the OECD countries. Governments must act to address low fertility rates through comprehensive social and economic policies, in order to address the general reasons for low fertility among the population, which exists for both social and economic reasons. It will be difficult, since it is not necessarily an area that most governments have gone into with policy. In fact, many in the previous century did just the opposite. It is going to be about finding a proper balance between establishing proper growth, and ensuring that growth does not become overly-rapid, as well as the significant social and economic impacts that present issues to the making of policy in such a topic. I think this is a short-term issue, and that once it is resolved the lessons that we learn from it will carry over to the knowledge, and this sort of issue may be able to be reduced in future.
*all quotes taken from "Low fertility and Policy", by Peter McDonald of the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
Comment