Completely agree that this is the wrong question. The research suggests a global multi-species fertility collapse. Yes, human fertility is decreasing too, commonly ascribed to lifestyle choice of the parents. But lifestyle choice cannot be the whole answer because birthrates are also collapsing for fish, birds, reptiles, all sorts of species. Fish don't postpone reproduction over lack of confidence. Birds don't think about lifestyle.
If it's helpful, I have collected some of the more notable studies on my climate site https://barrysmiler.com on my Research page and in the fertility/endocrine section of my Scenarios page.
Thank you. Very interesting site you have. Among other things, it highlights the research being conducted about the chemical pollution effects on the human metabolism. Unfortunately, for some reason, mentioning this subject when dealing with demography seems to be absurd and even subversive. Science has becoming impermeable to new ideas.
Yes, I've also noticed that widespread denial. But I think I know what causes it, and I've come to accept that in the end perhaps it's not such an unreasonable defense mechanism.
Above almost anything else, H Sap hates and fears not being in control, and isn't total destruction of species-wide fertility in the next two decades the ultimate loss of control? As I note on my site, "Endocrine disruptors can now be found in even the most remote parts of the globe and are in virtually every animal on the planet, including us. Among many other body processes, hormones control the reproductive system, and the rate of reproductive failure is increasing. Sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973, and the trajectory we are on suggests that both male and female fertility could reach zero by 2045 - or possibly sooner. This is an issue for both human and non-human animals, and is likely to cause major issues long before we reach the actual point of zero fertility."
So of course the general population is in denial about demographics and metabolism. Imagine the instant social breakdown if - when! - they fully understand.
But here we are. With endocrine disruptors currently everywhere and in everyone it's now too late to do anything about it. Yet as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross noted, getting to acceptance is no easy task. So of course people deny it, call it absurd. Easier that way. As they see it, denial is their only option.
My site's audience, and I'm sure yours as well, understand such things. But in general the world does not. It's having a hard enough time with even the basic facts of climate change, not to mention the rest of our predicament. For them, full acceptance of fertility collapse is not even to that distressingly low level. The chaos in just a few years when that fully sinks in will be insane.
For now, I'm fine with preserving what little sanity remains. I used to do my best to evangelically convert people to understand our dire situation and now-inevitable future. These days though, while I'm always glad to connect with people who are open to such ideas, I no longer attempt conversion. Happiness is where you find it. If someone is happy in their life, who am I to ruin what little ease is left?
Still, and regardless of the aforementioned inevitability, I'm grateful for your work and places like your site where I, and many others, can be reminded that we aren't alone. It truly helps. Thanks for what you do, and all the best.
Yep. Agree. In my view, beyond the contamination and socio-psychological impacts, it is the simple fact of a species overrunning its environment’s carrying capacity. Us.
Someone who wanted to gather clicks invented this legend of the real China population being much smaller than reported. Clickbait seems to work better the more absurd the claim is.
I worked on a project in Korea. Near the hotel was a beautiful park. The path went around a lake -- there was even piped music. All around the park were towering apartment blocks. Yet there were very few people in the park. Sometimes I was alone. I kept thinking, "Where is everyone?"
I know that this was not China, but I do wonder about the reported populations for these countries.
It's indeed an over simplified question to answer a much more complex issue.
And all the more so because the issue at hand it's much less about demographic growth than cultural change. Obviously the question could not be framed this way. But it is what is really at stake.
Everywhere in Western European countries, elite and governments decided to address internal demographic challenges by bringing in people from outside the country, with no other consideration than economic factors.
So the question wasn't about asking the government to control population growth. Quite the opposite. It was about asking them to let population degrowth take its natural course by setting a limit on the number of people who would be admitted from outside.
In the end, the Swiss people chose to approve government population growth policies in a peaceful manner, albeit by a narrow margin. Yet the same issues in other parts of Europe (where this kind of referendum would not be allowed to take place at all!) are already turning much more violent.
An interesting question is, how long would you like the human race to be living for; 100 years, 1000 years, 100,000 years?
Humanity will do well to share resources with all living systems because right now, we are killing ourselves. We take and destroy pretty much the whole earth and the human race appears to be destroying our life support system.
With this view, the dropping of the human population to 2 billion will be a good long term target.
Swiss population stands now at 9 mio. This vote was about four problems:
1. Food security: Swiss agriculture can only feed 4 of 9 mio people (and only with heavy input of imported fertilizer and energy). In Europe only Luxembourg or Monaco may have a similar problem.
2. Population density: this seems moderate at 224/m2, but if you take into account that 25 percent of Switzerland is not habitable (alps), it is rather high.
3. Immigration: Every year we have to build one new town to house the immigrants, a process which consumes land and needs more immigrants. Up to 1960 foreign nationals made 10 percent, now they stand at 25 percent. If you add those with recently acquired citizenship 41 percent of the population have a migratory background. Basel has more foreign than Swiss inhabitants. I doubt if you find even nearly similar conditions elsewhere in Europe.
4. Land scarcity: Prices of land and habitation follow the laws of availability and demand and their prices have gone through the roof in several places.
I am not sure if its the wrong question to ask when enough is enough (Finally this was the question the Club of Rome asked 1972). The Swiss people now have decided that its not yet enough but nearly so. We have to take this for an answer.
But it is all about a zeitgeist, not the result. Finally we realize that one can not allow uncontrollable in migration without a serious social Turbulences.
I saw Italy loosing its native populace and to me it became even More appealing. The accumulated capital keeps dissipating.
This is liberalism. People are just seen as consumers. Culture, customs, values are deemed irrevelant. As long as there is more stomacs to fill every year and profit to reap doing so, it doesn't matter who eat the burger.
But living through the consequences, more and more people in Europe are challenging this purely economic approach. Yet, to protect profits, they are silenced in the name of moral principles.
Swiss people are lucky. They see what's going on around them but live in a rich enough country where consequences might not be too dire yet (hence 53/47). And more to the point, they are still allowed to give their opinion.
I fully agree, however do not forget and take into the equation that Switzerland is rich thanks to its exports, and to the income of its investments abroad. If both regress, population will regress forcibly, and we will be back 150 years ago, cutting trees and cultivating rye in the mountains with a few cows around....
Ugo, perhaps their referendums are really a thinly disguised move to set expectations that desperate climate migrants are not welcome now nor as people die by the billions perhaps by 2050s.
Well, for Switzerland, it was not that much about population growth, than about immigration. Remember that the party which threw this stone into the pond are, in majority, xenophobic, fearful, change-haters, they would be happy if Switzerland had remained as in 1950.
If a neighbour comes from Bosnia and is a refugee, they say "Ach, noch mehr von diesen ...ic ".
In percentage, immigration was, in the last years, larger than in neighbouring countries.
This is small stuff when we take into account the whole population: my son's spouse is from China, born 1980. She has 3 siblings. Unofficially, it was about proposing a bribe, unnnoticed, to the right officer.
"Although the Swiss People's Party [SVP/UDC] insisted the population cap was designed to protect Switzerland's public services and its environment, it has a long history of campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform, frequently blaming asylum seekers and minorities for societal problems."
Completely agree that this is the wrong question. The research suggests a global multi-species fertility collapse. Yes, human fertility is decreasing too, commonly ascribed to lifestyle choice of the parents. But lifestyle choice cannot be the whole answer because birthrates are also collapsing for fish, birds, reptiles, all sorts of species. Fish don't postpone reproduction over lack of confidence. Birds don't think about lifestyle.
In species that regulate with hormones, one result of these endocrine disruptors seems to be these multi-species reproduction problems. Here's a recent study: https://phys.org/news/2026-04-invisible-fertility-crisis-chemicals-climate.html
If it's helpful, I have collected some of the more notable studies on my climate site https://barrysmiler.com on my Research page and in the fertility/endocrine section of my Scenarios page.
Thank you. Very interesting site you have. Among other things, it highlights the research being conducted about the chemical pollution effects on the human metabolism. Unfortunately, for some reason, mentioning this subject when dealing with demography seems to be absurd and even subversive. Science has becoming impermeable to new ideas.
Yes, I've also noticed that widespread denial. But I think I know what causes it, and I've come to accept that in the end perhaps it's not such an unreasonable defense mechanism.
Above almost anything else, H Sap hates and fears not being in control, and isn't total destruction of species-wide fertility in the next two decades the ultimate loss of control? As I note on my site, "Endocrine disruptors can now be found in even the most remote parts of the globe and are in virtually every animal on the planet, including us. Among many other body processes, hormones control the reproductive system, and the rate of reproductive failure is increasing. Sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973, and the trajectory we are on suggests that both male and female fertility could reach zero by 2045 - or possibly sooner. This is an issue for both human and non-human animals, and is likely to cause major issues long before we reach the actual point of zero fertility."
So of course the general population is in denial about demographics and metabolism. Imagine the instant social breakdown if - when! - they fully understand.
But here we are. With endocrine disruptors currently everywhere and in everyone it's now too late to do anything about it. Yet as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross noted, getting to acceptance is no easy task. So of course people deny it, call it absurd. Easier that way. As they see it, denial is their only option.
My site's audience, and I'm sure yours as well, understand such things. But in general the world does not. It's having a hard enough time with even the basic facts of climate change, not to mention the rest of our predicament. For them, full acceptance of fertility collapse is not even to that distressingly low level. The chaos in just a few years when that fully sinks in will be insane.
For now, I'm fine with preserving what little sanity remains. I used to do my best to evangelically convert people to understand our dire situation and now-inevitable future. These days though, while I'm always glad to connect with people who are open to such ideas, I no longer attempt conversion. Happiness is where you find it. If someone is happy in their life, who am I to ruin what little ease is left?
Still, and regardless of the aforementioned inevitability, I'm grateful for your work and places like your site where I, and many others, can be reminded that we aren't alone. It truly helps. Thanks for what you do, and all the best.
Yep. Agree. In my view, beyond the contamination and socio-psychological impacts, it is the simple fact of a species overrunning its environment’s carrying capacity. Us.
The population peak could happen as soon as 2030:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437125000640
I read that the official population of China is around 1.4 billion, but informal estimates are half of that. Which is true?
Someone who wanted to gather clicks invented this legend of the real China population being much smaller than reported. Clickbait seems to work better the more absurd the claim is.
I worked on a project in Korea. Near the hotel was a beautiful park. The path went around a lake -- there was even piped music. All around the park were towering apartment blocks. Yet there were very few people in the park. Sometimes I was alone. I kept thinking, "Where is everyone?"
I know that this was not China, but I do wonder about the reported populations for these countries.
Well, I've never been to Korea. But in China, it was easy to see where everybody was. Just visit a subway station during rush hour!!
It's indeed an over simplified question to answer a much more complex issue.
And all the more so because the issue at hand it's much less about demographic growth than cultural change. Obviously the question could not be framed this way. But it is what is really at stake.
Everywhere in Western European countries, elite and governments decided to address internal demographic challenges by bringing in people from outside the country, with no other consideration than economic factors.
So the question wasn't about asking the government to control population growth. Quite the opposite. It was about asking them to let population degrowth take its natural course by setting a limit on the number of people who would be admitted from outside.
In the end, the Swiss people chose to approve government population growth policies in a peaceful manner, albeit by a narrow margin. Yet the same issues in other parts of Europe (where this kind of referendum would not be allowed to take place at all!) are already turning much more violent.
Supposedly ecosystem collapse coming by 2040
Also human fertility dropping even if people want babies
2040 is only 16 years away
But our governments just focused on growth GDP not sustainable living on a finite planet
So a hard landing is inevitable
An interesting question is, how long would you like the human race to be living for; 100 years, 1000 years, 100,000 years?
Humanity will do well to share resources with all living systems because right now, we are killing ourselves. We take and destroy pretty much the whole earth and the human race appears to be destroying our life support system.
With this view, the dropping of the human population to 2 billion will be a good long term target.
Swiss population stands now at 9 mio. This vote was about four problems:
1. Food security: Swiss agriculture can only feed 4 of 9 mio people (and only with heavy input of imported fertilizer and energy). In Europe only Luxembourg or Monaco may have a similar problem.
2. Population density: this seems moderate at 224/m2, but if you take into account that 25 percent of Switzerland is not habitable (alps), it is rather high.
3. Immigration: Every year we have to build one new town to house the immigrants, a process which consumes land and needs more immigrants. Up to 1960 foreign nationals made 10 percent, now they stand at 25 percent. If you add those with recently acquired citizenship 41 percent of the population have a migratory background. Basel has more foreign than Swiss inhabitants. I doubt if you find even nearly similar conditions elsewhere in Europe.
4. Land scarcity: Prices of land and habitation follow the laws of availability and demand and their prices have gone through the roof in several places.
I am not sure if its the wrong question to ask when enough is enough (Finally this was the question the Club of Rome asked 1972). The Swiss people now have decided that its not yet enough but nearly so. We have to take this for an answer.
But it is all about a zeitgeist, not the result. Finally we realize that one can not allow uncontrollable in migration without a serious social Turbulences.
I saw Italy loosing its native populace and to me it became even More appealing. The accumulated capital keeps dissipating.
The mantra of constant growth made me sick.
Barbarians ante portas !
This is liberalism. People are just seen as consumers. Culture, customs, values are deemed irrevelant. As long as there is more stomacs to fill every year and profit to reap doing so, it doesn't matter who eat the burger.
But living through the consequences, more and more people in Europe are challenging this purely economic approach. Yet, to protect profits, they are silenced in the name of moral principles.
Swiss people are lucky. They see what's going on around them but live in a rich enough country where consequences might not be too dire yet (hence 53/47). And more to the point, they are still allowed to give their opinion.
I fully agree, however do not forget and take into the equation that Switzerland is rich thanks to its exports, and to the income of its investments abroad. If both regress, population will regress forcibly, and we will be back 150 years ago, cutting trees and cultivating rye in the mountains with a few cows around....
Ugo, perhaps their referendums are really a thinly disguised move to set expectations that desperate climate migrants are not welcome now nor as people die by the billions perhaps by 2050s.
so most of eu citizen's will die off than if there will not by exccess to migrate in the coming years to switzerland ?
Why stop there? How about ten million for the whole planet?
Well, for Switzerland, it was not that much about population growth, than about immigration. Remember that the party which threw this stone into the pond are, in majority, xenophobic, fearful, change-haters, they would be happy if Switzerland had remained as in 1950.
If a neighbour comes from Bosnia and is a refugee, they say "Ach, noch mehr von diesen ...ic ".
In percentage, immigration was, in the last years, larger than in neighbouring countries.
This is small stuff when we take into account the whole population: my son's spouse is from China, born 1980. She has 3 siblings. Unofficially, it was about proposing a bribe, unnnoticed, to the right officer.
Best regards
"Although the Swiss People's Party [SVP/UDC] insisted the population cap was designed to protect Switzerland's public services and its environment, it has a long history of campaigning on an anti-immigrant platform, frequently blaming asylum seekers and minorities for societal problems."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20ygjem17zo
Yes, and in several countries, like this big one overseas, or across the Channel, right-wing populist parties just point the same scape-goat.