Country populations: Past, Present & Future

[muppet]

Agreed, our economic systems are like pyramid schemes between crashes (corrections). At some stage there aren't enough people on the planet -at the moment the people paying for our debt on the clock (read: current lifestyles) haven't been born yet. Gen Z is completely fucked too.

[333609543]

I'm a young adult, and the biggest factor in deciding to have kids among myself and my peers is the cost. It is simply too expensive for many people to have more than 1 or 2 children, many are burdened by post secondary educational debt, others are bound by the cost of housing, or the inability to find a decent job in a field they got a degree in. Kids are often an afterthought or an "accident" that they decided to keep.

Until the cost of having children decreases substantially, birth rates will continue to drop around the world.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by muppet

Agreed, our economic systems are like pyramid schemes between crashes (corrections). At some stage there aren't enough people on the planet -at the moment the people paying for our debt on the clock (read: current lifestyles) haven't been born yet. Gen Z is completely fucked too.

The whole world is in trouble. Our economic system will struggle. The worlds really. Just wait until resources becomes an issue, and especially with certain countries. Will make debt look like cake.

Eventually the pursuit of the all mighty dollar or yen or euro will reach the tipping point where the bulk of folks out there will suffer. And at that point, when things get really bad... the whole fabric and way of life... what we do... why we work... will come into question. Bound to happen eventually. Its just not stable our way of life and our economic thinking.

Might seem like that for now... but look at what Corona showed us. What we learned from it. Now imagine millions at risk due to lack of resources or rising waters or other things... the whole system is not designed for this, and weak/fragile. Very easy to break down. Its NOT FUTURE PROOF.

[ssiguy]

A shrinking population also opens up profound urban challenges.

Without exception, all of our cities, rich and poor, have been planned on the premise that the population will continue to grow. Just as we planned our social and physical infrastructure goals to maintain and improve our ever growing urban environments, now we have to do the same for our ever shrinking cities.

We have gotten into this mindset that a shrinking city is a bad and decaying one and such is not the case. Shrinking cities can offer a more vibrant urban core, high quality of life, much lower costs, and less socio-economic stratification. Unfortunately, few of our politicians are willing to have the nerve to say this bluntly to their citizens and plan accordingly. There are a few exception, Toledo Ohio being on of them.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

While the projections for Africa look scary, it should be kept in mind that Africa is a huge continent (never done justice by the Mercator projection, which makes North America and Russia gigantic), and it currently has a relatively low population density at 45 per Km2 (117 people per mi2), vs. Asia at 150 per Km2 (and India at 464 per Km2).



Also:
Which continent has the most arable land? Africa
IF POTENTIAL were edible, Africa would have the best-fed people on earth. The vast continent has 60% of the world's uncultivated arable land, most of it unfarmed.

Problem is that Africa is comprised of 54 countries ranging medium income to extreme poverty many with corrupt and oppressive regimes holding back any form of development. Nigeria crams nearly 200 million in a space the size of British Columbia....which has about 5 million. I think Africa would have to pool their resources (EU style) to propel the continent ahead.

[MolsonExport]

They certainly need some help. After all the European colonial governments carved up Africa like a thanksgiving Turkey, with little to no consideration of ethnic divisions, history, etc., and barely less attention paid to economic factors that may make a place more viable (e.g., sea access).

Most former colonies in South America and Asia were more viable at the outset.

[edale]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A shrinking population also opens up profound urban challenges.

Without exception, all of our cities, rich and poor, have been planned on the premise that the population will continue to grow. Just as we planned our social and physical infrastructure goals to maintain and improve our ever growing urban environments, now we have to do the same for our ever shrinking cities.

We have gotten into this mindset that a shrinking city is a bad and decaying one and such is not the case. Shrinking cities can offer a more vibrant urban core, high quality of life, much lower costs, and less socio-economic stratification. Unfortunately, few of our politicians are willing to have the nerve to say this bluntly to their citizens and plan accordingly. There are a few exception, Toledo Ohio being on of them.

This is why I find the "Rust Belt" such a fascinating and important place to study. They've experienced for years what the rest of the world will almost surely experience in the future. Managing decline, shifting resources, making due with less, finding ways to reinvent, etc.

Places like Pittsburgh, which is still declining in population but has reinvented itself into a hub of eds, meds, and tech, and also revitalized its neighborhoods, should be an inspiration for how decline and loss can be dealt with. Pittsburgh was basically in a complete free fall in the 70s, as all the steel mills closed up and the economic base of the city collapsed. My earliest memories of the city from the 90s are of a city that still very much felt down and out. Flash forward to now, and it's nothing short of incredible what that city has been able to do. Truly remarkable. Cleveland is probably a few years behind Pittsburgh's progress, but it too is a great example of resiliency.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Current World population (November 10 2020, 12:00pm EST): 7,824,515,635 yearly change: 1.05 %

Projected World Population 2050 : 9,735,033,990 yearly change: 0.50 %

World Population 1951: 2,584,034,261 yearly change: 1.88 %

World Population 1000AD: 1000 275,000,000

https://www.worldometers.info/popula...ountries/#past

1950
Past: Most Populous Countries in 1950
# Country Population (1950) World Share 2020
Rank
1 China 554,419,273 21.9 % (1)
2 India 376,325,200 14.8 % (2)
3 United States 158,804,395 6.3 % (3)
4 Russia 102,798,657 4.1 % (9)
5 Japan 82,802,084 3.3 % (11)
6 Germany 69,966,243 2.8 % (19)
7 Indonesia 69,543,316 2.7 % (4)
8 Brazil 53,974,729 2.1 % (6)
9 United Kingdom 50,616,014 2 % (21)
10 Italy 46,598,601 1.8 % (23)
11 France 41,833,882 1.6 % (22)
12 Bangladesh 37,894,681 1.5 % (8)
13 Nigeria 37,859,748 1.5 % (7)
14 Pakistan 37,542,376 1.5 % (5)
15 Ukraine 37,297,648 1.5 % (35)
16 Spain 28,069,735 1.1 % (30)
17 Mexico 27,944,669 1.1 % (10)
18 Poland 24,824,018 1 % (38)
19 Vietnam 24,809,902 1 % (15)
20 Turkey 21,408,399 0.8 % (17)

2020

# Country Population (2020) Yearly Change World Share
1 China 1,439,323,776 0.82 % 18.5 %
2 India 1,380,004,385 2.02 % 17.7 %
3 United States 331,002,651 1.19 % 4.2 %
4 Indonesia 273,523,615 2.19 % 3.5 %
5 Pakistan 220,892,340 4.08 % 2.8 %
6 Brazil 212,559,417 1.48 % 2.7 %
7 Nigeria 206,139,589 5.24 % 2.6 %
8 Bangladesh 164,689,383 2.05 % 2.1 %
9 Russia 145,934,462 0.14 % 1.9 %
10 Mexico 128,932,753 2.17 % 1.7 %
11 Japan 126,476,461 -0.57 % 1.6 %
12 Ethiopia 114,963,588 5.25 % 1.5 %
13 Philippines 109,581,078 2.75 % 1.4 %
14 Egypt 102,334,404 3.97 % 1.3 %
15 Vietnam 97,338,579 1.88 % 1.2 %
16 DR Congo 89,561,403 6.53 % 1.1 %
17 Turkey 84,339,067 2.43 % 1.1 %
18 Iran 83,992,949 2.68 % 1.1 %
19 Germany 83,783,942 0.79 % 1.1 %
20 Thailand 69,799,978 0.54 % 0.9 %

2050
# Country Population (2050) World Share (2020)
1 India 1,639,176,033 16.8 % (2)
2 China 1,402,405,170 14.4 % (1)
3 Nigeria 401,315,000 4.1 % (7)
4 United States 379,419,102 3.9 % (3)
5 Pakistan 338,013,196 3.5 % (5)
6 Indonesia 330,904,664 3.4 % (4)
7 Brazil 228,980,400 2.4 % (6)
8 Ethiopia 205,410,675 2.1 % (12)
9 DR Congo 194,488,658 2 % (16)
10 Bangladesh 192,567,778 2 % (8)
11 Egypt 159,956,808 1.6 % (14)
12 Mexico 155,150,818 1.6 % (10)
13 Philippines 144,488,158 1.5 % (13)
14 Russia 135,824,481 1.4 % (9)
15 Tanzania 129,386,839 1.3 % (24)
16 Vietnam 109,605,011 1.1 % (15)
17 Japan 105,804,027 1.1 % (11)
18 Iran 103,098,075 1.1 % (18)
19 Turkey 97,139,570 1 % (17)
20 Kenya 91,575,089 0.9 % (27)


In 1950 22% of Humanity was Chinese. I doubt we will ever see another country with that high of a proportion.

watch as we increase: https://www.worldometers.info/watch/world-population/

If you need to be depressed: https://www.worldometers.info/

Forgot to mention: for the US that's a very optimistic forecast. Natural growth between 2020-2050 will be negative, so we would be talking about 1.6 million-2 million immigrantion surplus every year to get to 379 million by 2050.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by muppet

1000 AD

1. Song Dynasty China - 75 million (24.19% of global population)
2. Chola Dynasty of SE India - 18 million
3. Byzantine Empire - 12 million
4. Chalukya Empire of SW India - 10-13 million
5. Holy Roman Empire - 11.3 million
6. Fatimid Empire of North Africa and the Levant - 12.5 million
7. Kingdom of France - 7.2 million
8. Japan - 7 million
9. Caliphate of Cordoba (Spain) - 6.9 million
10. Buyid Dynasty (Iran-Iraq) -6.5 million

This has always annoyed me, There was never an empire called byzantium. they were always the Roman Empire, they called themselves romans and were know as romans by their peers (but sometimes also called the greeks by some in western europe as well).
No one ever called it Byzantium until a guy in the 1800s named it that in his book to distinguish it from the western part that fell. there was no time however that the eastern roman empire called itself anything but Roman

[Nite]

Originally Posted by JManc

Problem is that Africa is comprised of 54 countries ranging medium income to extreme poverty many with corrupt and oppressive regimes holding back any form of development. Nigeria crams nearly 200 million in a space the size of British Columbia....which has about 5 million. I think Africa would have to pool their resources (EU style) to propel the continent ahead.

There is maybe 5 to 10, at most, oppressive African government, i would not say many are.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Nite

This has always annoyed me, There was never an empire called byzantium. they were always the Roman Empire, they called themselves romans and were know as romans by their peers (but sometimes also called the greeks by some in western europe as well).
No one ever called it Byzantium until a guy in the 1800s named it that in his book to distinguish it from the western part that fell. there was no time however that the eastern roman empire called itself anything but Roman

for once I completely agree with Nite.

East Rome morphed into something different, but the odds in 530 AD were probably that the empire would eventually be re-constituted, such was the technological advantage of the (east) Romans over the Visigoths, Franks, Vandals etc. Slightly better leadership and luck, and we might be living in a global Roman Empire today.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

for once I completely agree with Nite.

East Rome morphed into something different, but the odds in 530 AD were probably that the empire would eventually be re-constituted, such was the technological advantage of the (east) Romans over the Visigoths, Franks, Vandals etc. Slightly better leadership and luck, and we might be living in a global Roman Empire today.

Let's not forget the Plague of Justinian either. After it was done ravaging the empire, its population (even with Justinian's reconquered territories) was the same as it was before the east moved to take back lost western territories. Almost half of Constantinople died of the disease. This doesn't work well when your tax base and available men for the army are dying en masse.

[ssiguy]

^^^^ Guys, this isn't a history lesson so let's not get off topic.

Yes, shrinking cities are a real issue that we are going to have to confront. We have developed this stupid notion that a growing city is a dynamic one and a shrinking city is a dying one. Our entire urban planning since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been based upon the premise that we must plan ahead for a bigger population. Now this has been turned on it's head.

The most successful, prosperous, and liveable cities are always one's that are well planned but in the future it will be the city's that plan for shrinkage that will excel in these areas and the ones that continue to plan upon the dated notion of unending growth will become the most unlivable and unsustainable.

[MolsonExport]

Here are the fastest-shrinking countries in the world (Business Insider), from publications by the UN and appearing in The Lancet:


20. Italy: The population is projected to drop from 60.5 million in 2020 to 54.4 million in 2050, a 10.1% decline.

19. Cuba: The population is projected to drop from 11.3 million in 2020 to 10.2 million in 2050, a 10.3% decline.

18. North Macedonia: The population is projected to drop from 2.1 million in 2020 to 1.9 million in 2050, a 10.9% decline.

17. Portugal: The population is projected to drop from 10.2 million in 2020 to 9.1 million in 2050, a 10.9% decline.

16. Georgia: The population is projected to drop from 4.0 million in 2020 to 3.5 million in 2050, an 11.8% decline.

15. Poland: The population is projected to drop from 37.8 million in 2020 to 33.3 million in 2050, a 12.0% decline.

14. Hungary: The population is projected to drop from 9.7 million in 2020 to 8.5 million in 2050, a 12.3% decline.

13. Estonia: The population is projected to drop from 1.3 million in 2020 to 1.2 million in 2050, a 12.7% decline.

12. Greece: The population is projected to drop from 10.4 million in 2020 to 9.0 million in 2050, a 13.4% decline.

11. Romania: The population is projected to drop from 19.2 million in 2020 to 16.3 million in 2050, a 15.5% decline.

10. Albania: The population is projected to drop from 2.9 million in 2020 to 2.4 million in 2050, a 15.8% decline.

9. Japan: The population is projected to drop from 126.5 million in 2020 to 105.8 million in 2050, a 16.3% decline.

8. Republic of Moldova: The population is projected to drop from 4.0 million in 2020 to 3.4 million in 2050, a 16.7% decline.

7. Croatia: The population is projected to drop from 4.1 million in 2020 to 3.4 million in 2050, an 18.0% decline.

6. Bosnia and Herzegovina: The population is projected to drop from 3.3 million in 2020 to 2.7 million in 2050, an 18.2% decline.

5. Serbia: The population is projected to drop from 8.7 million in 2020 to 7.1 million in 2050, an 18.9% decline.

4. Ukraine: The population is projected to drop from 43.7 million in 2020 to 35.2 million in 2050, a 19.5% decline.

3. Latvia: The population is projected to drop from 1.9 million in 2020 to 1.5 million in 2050, a 21.6% decline.

2. Lithuania: The population is projected to drop from 2.7 million in 2020 to 2.1 million in 2050, a 22.1% decline.

1. Bulgaria: The population is projected to drop from 6.9 million in 2020 to 5.4 million in 2050, a 22.5% decline.


https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...-101-decline-1

The report predicts that by 2050, 151 of the 195 countries that the researchers looked at will have fertility rates below the 2.1 replacement level.

[PoshSteve]

As interesting as the estimates are, take them with a big grain of salt - even the ones above which are tracking birth rates. Back in the 90s/00s, everyone from the CIA to the UN predicted a total implosion of Russia's population by 2050, anywhere from 120M to 100M (it peaked at 148.5M in 1993). No one then would have predicted Russia's population growing again. But what happened? It's grown. While the rest of Eastern Europe did and continue to freefall, Russian births have increased and deaths have decreased (dramatically). It bottomed out at 142.7M in 2008, and apart from a small decrease between 2018 and 2019, has grown every year, even if Crimea is subtracted. Current Russian population is 146.75M, and I believe current 2050 estimates are in the 140M range.



https://eng.gks.ru/

[Nite]

Originally Posted by PoshSteve

As interesting as the estimates are, take them with a big grain of salt - even the ones above which are tracking birth rates. Back in the 90s/00s, everyone from the CIA to the UN predicted a total implosion of Russia's population by 2050, anywhere from 120M to 100M (it peaked at 148.5M in 1993). No one then would have predicted Russia's population growing again. But what happened? It's grown. While the rest of Eastern Europe did and continue to freefall, Russian births have increased and deaths have decreased (dramatically). It bottomed out at 142.7M in 2008, and apart from a small decrease between 2018 and 2019, has grown every year, even if Crimea is subtracted. Current Russian population is 146.75M, and I believe current 2050 estimates are in the 140M range.



https://eng.gks.ru/

That big jump was from Russian annexing Ukrainian territory and taking in Ukrainian-Russian refugees as well as taking other russian immigrants from the other former soviet union states.
Russians population will still fall massively by 2050..

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by PoshSteve

As interesting as the estimates are, take them with a big grain of salt - even the ones above which are tracking birth rates. Back in the 90s/00s, everyone from the CIA to the UN predicted a total implosion of Russia's population by 2050, anywhere from 120M to 100M (it peaked at 148.5M in 1993). No one then would have predicted Russia's population growing again. But what happened? It's grown. While the rest of Eastern Europe did and continue to freefall, Russian births have increased and deaths have decreased (dramatically). It bottomed out at 142.7M in 2008, and apart from a small decrease between 2018 and 2019, has grown every year, even if Crimea is subtracted. Current Russian population is 146.75M, and I believe current 2050 estimates are in the 140M range.



https://eng.gks.ru/

It seemed promising at the beginning, but it didn't last: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...sia#After_WWII

They are back to red, and by 2019, deeply (natural growth, I mean). I guess 2020 will be far worse.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Here are the fastest-shrinking countries in the world (Business Insider), from publications by the UN and appearing in The Lancet:

(...)

1. Bulgaria: The population is projected to drop from 6.9 million in 2020 to 5.4 million in 2050, a 22.5% decline.


https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...-101-decline-1

The report predicts that by 2050, 151 of the 195 countries that the researchers looked at will have fertility rates below the 2.1 replacement level.

And Bulgaria peaked at 9 million, in 1989. Within 60 years (1990-2050), their population fell by half.

Latvia is also another demographic basketcase. I've read a report from a local university that huge swaths of the country (eastern, centre) will be completely emptied out by 2060. They will only have pockets around Riga and by the coast.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

This is why I find the "Rust Belt" such a fascinating and important place to study. They've experienced for years what the rest of the world will almost surely experience in the future. Managing decline, shifting resources, making due with less, finding ways to reinvent, etc.

Places like Pittsburgh, which is still declining in population but has reinvented itself into a hub of eds, meds, and tech, and also revitalized its neighborhoods, should be an inspiration for how decline and loss can be dealt with. Pittsburgh was basically in a complete free fall in the 70s, as all the steel mills closed up and the economic base of the city collapsed. My earliest memories of the city from the 90s are of a city that still very much felt down and out. Flash forward to now, and it's nothing short of incredible what that city has been able to do. Truly remarkable. Cleveland is probably a few years behind Pittsburgh's progress, but it too is a great example of resiliency.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes, shrinking cities are a real issue that we are going to have to confront. We have developed this stupid notion that a growing city is a dynamic one and a shrinking city is a dying one. Our entire urban planning since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been based upon the premise that we must plan ahead for a bigger population. Now this has been turned on it's head.

The most successful, prosperous, and liveable cities are always one's that are well planned but in the future it will be the city's that plan for shrinkage that will excel in these areas and the ones that continue to plan upon the dated notion of unending growth will become the most unlivable and unsustainable.

Thise are indeed good observations. Thinking of metropolitan areas, Genoa, Buffalo and Pittsburgh are the few ones that are falling since the 1960's and 1970's.

I'm not very familiar with things on the ground, but they seemed to have fared relatively well. Not sure if they've planned right or some specific characteristic made them to have done ok.

Countries might look to those cities to make their downsizing less traumatic or even go unnoticed.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by JManc

Problem is that Africa is comprised of 54 countries ranging medium income to extreme poverty many with corrupt and oppressive regimes holding back any form of development. Nigeria crams nearly 200 million in a space the size of British Columbia....which has about 5 million. I think Africa would have to pool their resources (EU style) to propel the continent ahead.

Another issue is that while they may have a vast amount of arable land available, doing so will be a major loss environmentally. The world has already lost far too much of its grasslands, savannas and jungles to agriculture.

[PoshSteve]

Originally Posted by Nite

That big jump was from Russian annexing Ukrainian territory and taking in Ukrainian-Russian refugees as well as taking other russian immigrants from the other former soviet union states.
Russians population will still fall massively by 2050..

The big jump is primarily Crimea, which is why I mentioned "even if Crimea is subtracted". Match up the dots on either side of the big jump and the total population has been increasing. Most of the ethnic Russians who were going to go to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union have already done so prior to 2010 or so. There were years where millions immigrated to Russia. Now net migration is in the 100-200k range annually, mostly from Central Asia. "Massively" is subjective. Even Rosstat and the Kremlin project the population will decline by 2050. It's not going to be by 45M as was projected previously though, which is my point you seemed to have missed.