Before the end of this century, the global population is anticipated to plateau. According to analyst Paul Morland, the demographic situation in Europe is dire. He explains why having no children for the benefit of the environment doesn’t make sense in his opinion.
This November, the world’s population will have grown to eight billion people. It is then expected to peak at around 10.4 billion before the end of this century – and shrink again from 2098. These findings emerge from the latest United Nations report on demography.
More than half of the growth in the Earth’s population by 2050 will be attributable to just eight countries: the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Tanzania. India is soon expected to replace China as the world’s most populous country.
Demographic researcher Paul Morland explains what the global trends mean for the future world order, why Europe in particular is in a demographically predicament – and how it can take countermeasures.
A playground in Kano, northern Nigeria: The country has one of the highest birth rates in the world Photo: Mehmet Kaman / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images
SPIEGEL: Mr. Morland, for the first time since 1950, the population recently grew by less than one percent. How can that be explained?
Paul Morland: From Portugal to Singapore, birth rates are falling sharply. This is not a European phenomenon, but a global one. In Europe, Japan, North America, Australia and New Zealand, we have long been below the level of 2.1 births per woman needed to reproduce the population. But birth rates also declined in many countries in Asia and Latin America, and even in sub-Saharan Africa. In India and China, they also declined much faster than expected, although India is still growing.
SPIEGEL: The editor-in-chief of the British medical journal “The Lancet,” Richard Horton, spoke of a revolution in the history of human civilization in view of demographic change. Europe and many Asian countries would lose influence. By the end of the century, we would live in a multipolar world in which India, Nigeria, China and the USA would be the dominant forces. Do you agree with this analysis?
Paul Morland, born in 1964, studied philosophy, economics and international relations at Oxford. Today he is a researcher at Birkbeck College, University of London, specialising in demography. Morland is the author of several books on demographic developments, ethnic conflicts and population management strategies. His third book was published in 2022 and is called “Tomorrow’s People: The Future of Humanity in Ten Numbers”.
Morland: As a demographer, I can only make limited geopolitical predictions. What is clear: India and Nigeria have great potential; population growth creates enormous opportunities. That doesn’t mean they will be exploited. In the case of Nigeria, I’m not sure. But India seems to be converting its demographic advantages well: For all its problems, we see a great economic power and a self-confident society emerging. I see China’s situation as less positive.
SPIEGEL: India is soon to replace the People’s Republic as the world’s most populous country. What does that mean for China?
Morland: Demography isn’t everything, but it looks really bleak for China. The pool of labor is diminishing. A young population once made China’s economic boom possible. But now more people are leaving the labor market than are coming in. Moreover, China is still a relatively poor country – and unattractive to immigrants. What happens in such a situation can be seen in the example of Japan: Japan was considered a country of the future. Then it reached the demographic point that China is now at – and 30 years of economic stagnation followed.
SPIEGEL: What role did the one-child policy play in this development?
Morland: The one-child policy was unnecessary. The birth rate in China had already fallen from six to three in the ten years before it was introduced. Now the country has far too few children. Currently between 1 and 1.5 per woman. This means that the population is aging rapidly and will eventually even shrink.
SPIEGEL: The birth rate in India has also fallen sharply.
Morland: But India is at a different point. There is still a high proportion of young women, so there are still a lot of children being born. So, demographically, India has a good phase ahead of it.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. is also predicted to remain one of the great global powers – even though the birth rate there is low.
Morland: The U.S. has one big advantage: It’s still very attractive to immigrants. Someone once said to me, “The U.S. is like a machine that makes Americans. And that’s true. The U.S. is very good at integrating people into its society, partly because it has been doing that as an immigrant society for well over a century. I think the many migrants from Latin America will also integrate well. That’s why the U.S. is in a much better position demographically than Europe.
A woman on her way to the metro in Paris Photo: Adrien Fillon / NurPhoto / Getty Images
SPIEGEL: How do you see the situation in Europe?
Morland: Europe is a demographic disaster area. There are the countries that are doing badly, like France, Great Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia, and then there are those that are doing miserably: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Balkans. These countries face what I call the demographic trilemma. There are three crucial variables: a dynamic economy, ethnic continuity, and the selfishness to afford small families as a society. You can have two of those three things, but not all three. The Japanese, for example, have chosen to continue to have small families while still striving for ethnic continuity – that is, allowing few immigrants into the country. It is paying for this with economic stagnation. Britain has a vibrant economy despite small families – but relies on mass immigration, which changes the country ethnically. The only example of a highly developed country that has abandoned the luxury of small families is Israel. It has an extremely dynamic economy while maintaining a Jewish majority. But this is only possible because the birth rate is high and the extended family norm.
SPIEGEL: So Europe has to make a choice?
Morland: If people in Europe don’t want children, then they’ll either have to make peace with a shrinking economy, or with the idea of letting many more immigrants from foreign cultures, with other languages, religions and ideas into the country.
SPIEGEL: Which many Europeans have so far rejected.
Morland: What worries me is the talk of the great “population exchange.” Of course, you can talk about changes in the ethnic composition of the population. But nobody is “inventing” that for Europe. This is not a conspiracy of George Soros. It’s the result of the decision not to reproduce itself – but at the same time to expect the economy to boom, someone to drive the bus, collect the garbage or do the heart surgery.
SPIEGEL: After all, unlike China, Europe is attractive to immigrants. So is there at least potentially the possibility of solving demographic problems through immigration?
Children play with soap bubbles in Paris: Due to low birth rates, Europe is considered a demographic disaster area Photo: Pierre Crom / Getty Images
Morland: Europe is popular, but not particularly accessible. It’s much harder for immigrants, say from Africa or the Middle East, to fit into European societies. There are strong cultural and even visual barriers.
SPIEGEL: What do you think a good solution for Europe would look like?
Morland: We should create a modern, progressive natalism, a society in which women want children, men are willing to play their part and companies promote compatibility. People want careers, both men and women, want a modern lifestyle. How can we make that possible if children are to be born at the same time? That includes reinventing motherhood and making it possible.
SPIEGEL: Doesn’t a shrinking world population also have positive sides?
Morland: Old populations are more peaceful and less criminal. In addition, where humans are retreating, there can be more space for nature again.
SPIEGEL: Today, there are young people who want to do without children, partly because of climate change.
SPIEGEL: Fewer people doesn’t necessarily mean fewer emissions. I wouldn’t want to reduce the population because of climate change. I think when young people say they don’t want children because of climate change, but at the same time expect someone to serve them at the supermarket or take care of their parents, they want to consume those services but are too fine to produce them. I take a critical view of this. Instead, we should change our lifestyles – and also rely on technical solutions to combat climate change. The last thing we should sacrifice is potential lives, for me the most valuable thing of all.
