"Jaw-dropping" global crash in children being born — just what the ecofascists want
Stupid history-defying predictions below which assume that the influences on human reproduction will remain the same. They will not.
Post-pill, all the non-maternal women are currently being removed from the gene pool by reason of the simple fact that they now rarely have children. Women like them will become rarer and rarer. And their decisions are a big influence behind the current "birth-dearth".
So all the births of the not too distant future will come from maternally-inclined women. And how many children will those women have? As many as they can afford (and then some in some cases).
So the birthrates in advanced nations will recover and the population will start growing again -- albeit off a lower base.
And here's a way-out one: It seems to have become fashionable for celebrity women to have children, multiple children in most cases. You would not think that women who live by their looks would risk their figures by having children, but they are in fact doing it -- the Kardashians, for instance.
Children now seem to have become a sign of affluence. They are the ultimate luxury -- even better than big yachts and Gulfstream jets. And lots of people DO emulate celebrities. Many women in the near future may start having children because it is fashionable or simply because they want to show off. One can imagine the conversations: "I've got three. How many have you got?"
So who knows what the future holds?
The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a "jaw-dropping" impact on societies, say researchers.
Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.
And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.
Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.
What is going on?
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling.
If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.
In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime.
Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.
As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.
"That's a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline," researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.
"I think it's incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganise societies."
Why are fertility rates falling?
It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.
Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.
In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.
Which countries will be most affected?
Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.
Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.
They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve.
"That is jaw-dropping," Prof Christopher Murray told me.
China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years' time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.
The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.
However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.
Why is this a problem?
You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.
"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.
Prof Murray adds: "It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like."
Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?
"We need a soft landing," argues Prof Murray.
Are there any solutions?
Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates.
However, this stops being the answer once nearly every country's population is shrinking.
"We will go from the period where it's a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won't be enough," argues Prof Murray.
Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.
Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the "baby bust" have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.
Prof Murray says: "I find people laugh it off; they can't imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.
"If you can't [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that's a few centuries away."