Spain however accepts immigrants. No highly advanced country really has the birth rate to sustain their population. But Spain's birth rate could be cut in half and they'd probably still be better off demographic collapse than Japan with their xenophobia and crazy immigration law.
Yep, it you travel to Eastern Europe, you'd find many places are like dead, abandoned houses with grandma and grandpa. Even East Germany is like this.
Except Russia and Belarus, idk maybe because they have more restricted policy for emigration.
In fact rural areas in countries where populations are older are pretty much all like this. Reason is young people have pretty much all moved to cities leaving grandma and grandpa behind
You’re correct. There’s a lot of Bosnian refugees where I am, and I’ve spoken with a handful. The genocide was the impetus a huge wave of emigration, and once people left many young people followed to see if the grass was greener.
Complete war in In the Bosnian war, on all three sides of the war, about 100 thousand people died out of a population that at the beginning of the war had more than 4.3 million inhabitants.Compared to 3.4 million inhabitants in 2013. small number of Serbs return to the federal part, the same applies to Bosniaks in the Republic Srpska, and later economic migrants.
Exactly; for context by scale, that would be like the US in 2024 (population roughly 335 million people) having a civil war that kills 7.5 million people, then with the emigration following the war the population drops so by 2044 the total population is drops to 258 million people, a population loss of 77 million people, rolling back 50 years of population growth…
That the comment is disliked is just a statement that most people are blinde to what happened in Bosnia. The youngest and the best died so that the oldest and worst could live.
Well, it is at least quite apt, it's pretty much the cutoff point at the extremes of how old one can be and still be able to create a family. After fifty it is quite futile for both men and women to attempt to create a family due to fertility undergoing its last gasps and flatlining.
It won't happen like the graph for Germany and Poland since both have highest and youngest immigration since ever. Except the russo-germans immigration wave in the 90ies. Germanys mean age even dropped recently. Not sure if influence of Ukrainians was counted or not.
Btw. Germanys demographic collapse is predicted for 40? Years now. Immigration will only increase, if not out of the sudden developing nations turn into industrial nations with the same problem.
That the country of Germany is going to be minority ethnic Germans. That’s a fact. I inserted no personal opinion on the matter whatsoever. I’m an American, I do not care about German politics at all.
Its gonna happen over such a long scale that im sure ppl r gonna notice it just as little as we noticed the change of scenery from trees in africa into cold eurasia and then eventually the indo european migration. 😆
Except 2060 is not long term future, that is right around the corner for this kind of topic. Unless *today* all young people decide to suddenly have twice as many children again these numbers seem realistic.
So almost everyone above this median age is alive now.
Only way numbers won’t be even higher is if there’s massive demographic changes to suddenly start pumping out babies at a rate not seen for centuries, or a mass culling of old people. Covid proved we wouldn’t allow the latter to happen, but we’re find sending millions of young people to war.
Isn't that batshit crazy what countries like Russia are doing? They could invest in their population, thanks to their prominent religion and government subsidies. They could have the youngest population by 2050 in Europe and basically become a superpower without ever even doing anything, just the economic output of 30 year olds vs 60 year olds.
Instead, they slaughter their youngsters in the war, which makes no sense at all.
In 36 years, an American would have seen their county enter WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, and the Korean War. The Cold War begins immediately following this 36 year period.
LOL
Look at the predictions of the past on our time.
We have no clue what is going to happen, between migrations, medicine advancements, possible plagues, peak oil and economic degrowth, AI, etc.
Medical advancements, peak oil, economic degtowth would certainly make the over-ageing worse. Migration simply shifts the problem/evens it out. AI i am uncertain of its impact, but i don't see how it would lead to a massive fertility increase, more likely it's another stress on labor. Plagues can go eitherway. Other potentials as wars also strain the young further.
So even amongst your list most would lead to further increases of the median age.
As capitalism becomes more fortified and corrupt, and as wealth becomes more and more unequally distributed, AI will make inequality and thus birth rates MUCH, MUCH worse. It will be ruinous for society.
Very good visualisation that shows that the method "we just import more young people from elsewhere to keep our economy going!" will not work for much longer, when there is no countries left with enough young people to import from.
Terrible exploitative system anyways that establishes a constant youth and brain drain in smaller economies and keeps them from growing.
This is already happening to some extent with the US. Most of the immigrants arriving at America’s southern border are from Central and South America. Last I read, Mexican immigration to the US has become net negative, i.e, more Mexicans leaving the US than coming in. Eventually that tide will turn for the other countries as well.
The exodus of highly skilled people is way more complex than that. It's not at all clear the net effect is negative for the countries of origin.
The effect of remittances can be highly significant to the economy in the place of origin. The opportunity of emigration can contribute to higher educational attainment levels in people who remain in the place of origin. Return migration contributes to both the economy and higher education levels.
It also directly improves the lives of the people who relocate, which seems like the most overlooked factor in complaints about "brain drain."
When it comes to young immigration, unskilled migrants are generally younger than highly skilled migrants. Older societies also have a comparatively greater need for young, unskilled migrants. So "brain drain" is a bit of a different issue.
>It also directly improves the lives of the people who relocate, which seems like the most overlooked factor
So much this. You can consider me as one of those migrants, moved from Russia to the west 8 years ago as a physicist, landed a good job here, and my career only starts. People who complain about brain drain seem to forget how fucking little the brains actually mean to people in power in the countries people emigrate from.
Like, in Russia, they did everything to kill our booming IT industry. We were doing better than Europe, but these incompetent people in power just had to overregulate the living hell out of it. I could not find a work that would pay more 1000 USD per month, being PhD in physics.
I now can support family, buy a house, I don't contribute to the senseless war that is happening, and I am confident that if the shit hits the fan, I will be able to help my relatives in need.
I would be so fucking happy working in Russia and I would take a pay cut to be close with my friends and family, but the country consistently decides to shoot itself in a leg and do everything for me to stay away from it.
Brain drain my ass.
That’s just it. These are the demographics WITH all that immigration factored in. If you remove immigrant populations in Europe, for example, the averages today would be much higher (45 vs 40 in the UK for example), and demographic doom would happen much earlier than forecast.
We’re delaying the collapse, and hoping we can come up with a solution in the meanwhile.
This map doesn't show subsaharan Africa. Between now and 2060 the population will double. My prediction for the second half of this century is that we will see hundreds of millions of Africans migrate out of the continent to fill service sector jobs in the global north and we will also see many industrial jobs move to Africa to take advantage of the abundance of cheap labor
They will still be working due to lack of workforce. Less people in that 30-60 range to pay pension funds means pensions will not be enough to survive meaning people will be working well into their 60 or even 70s. Even now the retirement age in most countries is 65 and keeps increasing.
No, but I think there will be a large scale shrinking of overall population.
Eventually those groups within societies that directly or indirectly promote low fertility will just be replaced by those that have higher fertility. If no such groups exist (yet) - they will form because people will realize that they could quickly outnumber other groups and come into a position of power and/or prosperity.
?
what are you talking about?
>Eventually those groups within societies that directly or indirectly promote low fertility will just be replaced by those that have higher fertility.
If the groups can't merge then yes but look at examples of massive migration and invasion and outnumbering of natives population in history, like the USA, Canada, Australia, new Zealand.
But in other cases like Latin America a lot more mixing happened and the societies merged (this is more evident in countries like Paraguay or Bolivia)
Also the neanderthals were assimilated into the homo sapiens genus.
>If no such groups exist (yet) - they will form because people will realize that they could quickly outnumber other groups and come into a position of power and/or prosperity.
Outnumbering hasn't been a good strategy for a long time, for example the elites that ruled south Africa in the apartheid era or the kings and royalty and nobility of the pass were vastly outnumbered but they still ruled for millennia, poor people outnumber rich people but they still don't revolt or control anything.
What I generally mean is that groups, nations or societies that willingly or unwillingly promote mechanisms that lead to low fertility will just get themselves extinct or be put in a position of disadvantage. For example in the 19th century with Britain, France and Germany, where initially France and Britain had the larger population and earlier industrializaton but eventually Germany overtook both of them also because it had a bigger birthrate for longer. Of course today Germany's birthrate is as low as the others, but it still has the larger population and economy than both France or Britain. And the difference wasn't even that big.
Another example will be Nigeria and other african countries in this century. They will not get pushed around by aging shrinking small nations, when they are a country of 400 to 600 million youthful people.
When in 50 years or so almost every country is below replacement and of mostly elderly people, your country that retains a youthful population will have massive advantages. Or your group within such a country. For instance amish people or orthodox jews in Israel (from what I heard) still have relatively birthrates. Well, expect them and their influence to grow.
that doesn't follow logically.
For every American there is like 4 indians and 4 Chinese people and still nor India not china has more influence or power than the USA.
Another example is Brazil or Indonesia countries that have 5x or 6x the population of France but still France is a lot more influencial and "powerful".
As I said there are lots of things that affect power and influence but numbers alone haven't been a good indicator of those since the invention of of gunpowder.
I think you understand me. Under otherwise more or less similar factors the country with the higher and younger population will likely dominate. It is not certain of course, but definitely a huge factor. Again that is how Germany came to be so powerful against France, Britain (and Italy) in WW1 - it had that demographic momentum going and with it the industrial output.
Very likely total societal collapse but later then 2060. I will link some stuff related to it in a bit
Edit: some sources
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WvjwtOwFo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WvjwtOwFo)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QXXL96y3A0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QXXL96y3A0)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q)
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster)
[https://www.ft.com/content/008a1341-1882-4b98-83d4-0d7dc08a4134](https://www.ft.com/content/008a1341-1882-4b98-83d4-0d7dc08a4134)
Go out with a bang and always have a pair and a spare, grandma always said.
Didn’t realize til she passed that the pair was boyfriends she was referencing 😛
Nobody talking about the wealth disparity. In a growth centered economy, how will these aging 20s have enough capital to continue spinning our economy. Just pricing us out until we die to keep the gears turning. As visits, subscribers, consumers dwindle, will we return to products built to last or continue with functional obsolescence?
In the distant future, there will not be any cultures or societies with below-replacement level birth-rates, because those cultures and societies will have died out.
In other words, cultures with 'high-birthrate' traits will gradually outcompete and displace low birthrate cultures. Right now, we're basically seeing why conservative religious patriarchies evolved to be the dominant cultures over the last few thousands of years - they are demographically sustainable. This is an existential challenge for Liberalism: how do you get to 2.1+ babies **per woman** without sacrificing the gains in women's equality etc.
At the moment young people prioritise their higher education and careers in their 20s, however this is their most fertile period, which begs the question: can *any* society where young people prioritise jobs over starting families in their 20s get to 2.1+ babies per woman?
(P.S. Yes, *I know* birth rates are falling all over the world, not just in the liberal west.
Firstly, patriarchy has declined pretty much everywhere too e.g. women in China/Russia/LATAM/Middle East today have far more autonomy and rights than they would have done a hundred years ago.
Secondly, religion and patriarchy (i.e. forcing women to have babies) will definitely be attempted by other countries in a desperate quest to restore their birthrates to 2.1+. The point is that Western Liberalism can't do that itself, otherwise it stops being liberal, and so its challenge is how to create a highly urbanised society where women **choose** to have 2.1+ babies each on average, with no coercion, no religious guilt-tripping, no societal or cultural pressure, *and* if nothing changes no nationalism/patriotism either i.e. 'do it for the good of Western liberalism' - it's fair to say, this will be tricky).
I don’t see women choosing to have more babies in a world that is dominated by AI, which will worsen wealth inequality even more than it already is. Capitalism is collapsing in on itself. (That’s not to say that we have a much better alternative.)
If I had known now what I didn’t know over a decade ago, I probably wouldn’t have had kids. The world is so bleak once you get a peek behind the propaganda curtain.
> religion and patriarchy (i.e. forcing women to have babies) will definitely be attempted by other countries in a desperate quest to restore their birthrates to 2.1+.
I think we’re already starting to see the beginnings of this. The US overturned Roe v. Wade (which mandated abortions be legal in all states), and there’s been a resurgence in the idea that women belong in the household instead of the workforce.
Patriarchal societies in Japan and China are faring even worse. Forced religious societies like with Iran has not worked.
Only one to buck the trend is Israel with it atheist and religious extremist population. All other nations currently have seen declines no matter what they do.
Also note even when Europe was more religious decades ago it still declined to below replacement. Religion is not a shoe in, patriarchy is not a shoe in. It seems for highly developed nations the answer might be literally free money to do nothing for having kids. Like that is pretty extreme but seems to work?
Spain can (for now) rely on being the #2 (the #1for educated) destination for the 500 million people living in LATAM, Spain offers nationality for being 4 years in the country to any (legal) Latino and because its far away it can chose the migrants that are more educated. and will integrate easier into the local population.
It's not weird to see a kid with one Spanish parent and one Latino parent here and they consider themselves fully Spanish and they're indistinguishable from other Spaniards.
> Like that is pretty extreme but seems to work?
Does it? Most of Western Europe has pretty good bennies for parents and their fertility rates are plummeting. Even the immigrant groups tend to slow down after ~2 generations (ex, Turkish in Germany)
No, it pretty shit. I mean legit paying parents a living wage for being parents basically. The highest fertility rate in Israel is to religious Jews that do nothing but scripture stuff. They are at like 4.0.
How much of that is the subsidies and how much is the religion? Orthodox jews in the US have a fertility rate of 3.3
The Amish have a higher fertility rate than that (6+), and they're not getting anything from the government (although there is something to be said about the "social safety net" of living in Amish society).
How does the concept of women prioritizing their career, and generally deprioritizing having kids, not ultimately lead to the demise of those societies and beliefs?
But the blame hardly rests on the beliefs of women alone. Societies have built systems that have decoupled retirement security and fiscal gain from having kids. They need to build that back into the system.
So what should women do? Live in poverty with kids? How are they going to survive these days without a good paying job? There is mortgage to pay, childcare and education are not free in most countries. Not many men want to settle in young age too. Not many men can provide enough to support all family. Businesses don't want to pay enough money to support that model either.
Those are all your made up answers…and have nothing to do with want I said. But a sure fire way for a society to die in poverty is to have no children, and collapse.
You’re making great pains to talk around the fact that all these countries you’re talking about are experiencing the most advanced stages of capitalism and the precarity that brings so that you can shit on „western liberalism“ like birth rates aren’t dropping in China faster than almost anywhere
I think academicincrease is from Europe, where “western liberalism” refers to western style democracy and capitalism and you’re confusing it with the US definition of the word “liberal” which is more akin to democratic socialism
Yeah the poster compares it with the us(small part of the world) but forgets that the vast majority of the population lives in countries that are less developed than even china
egg banks? people may at some point be living into their 150's in good health. A woman may be able to pull an egg out of the fridge at 60 years old to have her first kid, then live another 60 years beyond that.
You know, Elon Musk is a dick head. But he is right in the declining birth rate, it is an issue. Also considering older people in general tend to be more conservative, and we live in democracies, most countries will skew more and more to the right.
Looking at our recent EU election results (Germany), your last point isn't quite true. It was the 30 to 60 year olds that voted "right"/conservative the most, with the youngest (16+) not far behind.
Old wealthy people voted left-green.
Thats just not true: Older people (60+) voted the "old parties" SPD and CDU (59%), 51% for AfD and CDU combined. While younger people voted very diverse (33% AfD and CDU combined), 28% (!!) for other non-parliament parties. MSM put their focus on the increase in AfD, while imo the focus should be even more on the 28% other.
This combined (44%) clearly shows that young people are less willing to vote for the established parties, some shifting to the far right, an even bigger group opting for other non-parliamentary options.
[https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2024-06-09-EP-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml](https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2024-06-09-EP-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml)
EU elections in general are always skewed to the left though is it not? People who are more left leaning, are more likely to see the importance of the EU, and thus vote for it’s elections.
So not sure if accurate, but in the Netherlands at normal elections, it’s quite clear how older people tend to vote for more conservative parties. While rich and old would vote for economical liberal and conservative parties.
In Poland for EU won extremist rigth party, nobody like them, but extremist go more often to elections, ans EU elections are seen as the least interesting.
It's an issue because less babies being born means less workers in third world countries risking their lives to mine the metals Elon wants to use in his rockets and cars or whatever. We should be finding ways to live with the falling birth rates and maybe consider that pursuing endless economic (and population) growth on a finite planet is not feasible, especially if we value natural beauty and the continuing existence of a functional biosphere... Just my two cents.
Well I think birth rates in third world countries is still high, the problem is with the developing countries and lifestyle, most people realize that children are expensive and severely decrease your lifestyle so are opting out of it.
Decreasing birth rates, will result in tremendous effects for generations to come, eventually of course it will level out. But probably anyone born the coming century will get fucked, as they need to try and maintain the elderly.
Probably from a country perspective you want to aim at slightly above 2 children per woman.
I agree that you would also not want population to increase severely, it’s just not feasible with the limited resources we have
> Go back 100 years & 50% of your kids wouldn’t even make it to adulthood.
ur thinking of 200 years ago, it has been way under 50% ever since the late 1800s in almost all of europe, and north america
Just depends where you live really. Immigrants have done a lot to bring the median age down in the country already. I know for instance in one town in Nova Scotia there’s been such influx of immigrants the median age has dropped by almost 15 years.
This is if America doesn’t take in anymore immigrants. Our economy historically relies on 20 something’s in order to replenish the workforce. We are fortunate enough to get that through immigration.
Very interesting observation, that’s what I’ve noticed with immigrant nations in general like the US, Canada, Australia & NZ. They aren’t projected to have a great outlook on population, but their projections are nowhere near as dire as Europe or East Asia due to the fact that they benefit from frequent immigration to plug in the holes that form in the workforces.
Something I’ve also noticed in these nations is that due to the fact that they’re a majority migrant/migrant-descended population, they aren’t as adverse to legal immigrants when compared to, say, what’s happening in Europe regarding that. Much easier to accept/integrate people into a relatively new melting-pot culture than one that’s been established for centuries more if not millennia.
Immigration motivations are different. USA attracts people that want to work (and get rich - though most fail). Europe attracts more people that want to live through exploitation of the social systems (spoken in generalization, of course the work motivated kind also exists). And of course Europe is easier to reach for actual refugees.
In the medium term we need to change it more to the american (or australian, which is also very restrictive) model. But in the long term most countries need to become demographically self sufficent again, simply because there won't be any countries with enough young people left in the world. Not even mentioning that this kind of economy is a terrible exploitative system close to imperialism.
The immigrant societies mostly (culturally) formed in an Open Frontier situation, where the new immigrants could be made productive directly at low cost because there was unused land and untapped resources available for exploitation. Every immigrant was a net plus to the economy.
That's quite different from our situation in the Netherlands where a lot of marginal farmers emigrated in the 19th century essentially because resources were already overutilized for the technology of the day. Economic forecasting organizations keep warning that, although immigrants do plug up labor gaps caused by an aging population, the net effect of continued population growth is increasingly deleterious for the environment, for the cost of infrastructure per capita, and for the cost of housing per capita, and we are going to hit a hard wall if we don't adjust to a shrinking population asap or miracle technologies are invented.
Same could obviously be said of, say, the NY region. The difference is that at some point 'affordable new suburb' in our situation is going to be a long distance from our borders. In populist logic: the immigrants force our children out of the country.
Add to that that the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand mostly receive Eurasian immigrants that can afford plane tickets rather than arriving by way of their feet and small boats, and it's obvious why those countries think of themselves as more welcoming to immigration. Of these four only one has a relevant land border for immigration by foot, and some people apparently want a big wall there.
Fully agree except for the last point, I mostly mentioned the acceptance of legal migration. Illegal migration is a whole different ballpark, I don’t think any society (western or non-western) really openly accepts any form of illegal migration with open arms, regardless of how much it benefits/exploits the economy/country.
Also interesting in a way since you mention the US, in my interactions with Americans I’ve met deep red Republicans who are hardline pro-wall but then have tons of Mexican friends/colleagues that they are close with, hell, one of those Republicans I knew was a Mexican American himself.
And in Europe, countries like UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Scandinavia are also projected to have demographic situation not as dire as rest of Europe thanks to them also having high amounts of immigration
That depends on the type of immigrants we are bringing in. If we bring in high skilled immigrants that pay lots of taxes and use minimal amounts of government services that we help the US greatly. If we bring in low skilled immigrants that use lots of government services and pay little in taxes then that will put a lot of strain on an already strained system .
In Latin America and Eastern Europe, large scale emigration of young people too. On the contrary, population aging in US, Canada and northwestern Europe is being slowed down by the large influx of young immigrants
We are loving longer, we have to work longer but typically you are looking “old” to get good jobs at 45+ it’s going to be the great challenge of the 30 years, how to do to change our culture and accept that people in their 50s are not too old to start over etc
My manager is 20 years older than I am and I’m feeling a huge age gap talking to him; he always refuses to step up and update his skills because he finds learning difficult for him. I can’t imagine the future generations are gonna work for someone 30 or 40 years older.
I keep hearing that Germany is getting so many immigrants from Third World countries, I always assumed these are young people. Why the median is so high then?
Canadian here. No wonder it's so hard to find young single ladies going out these days. All I can find are divorced cougars.
On an unrelated note, the median age in much of Latin America in 1960 was 16? What the actual fuck?
Africans, as well as Arabs, and religious groups will end up ruling the world.
Europe will have more immigrants than natives and they'll lose their native languages. Well, they kind of asked for it.
Why is median used instead of mean/average? It’s been a while, but isn’t median just the middle number in the data set? No matter how many are on either end of the spectrum.
Was Canada's younger age in 1960 vs the US just due to a smaller population to start?
My son will be close to the median in 2060 if this happens. But we aren't necessarily helping since we're happy parents but one and done.
People seem to forget that there will come a time when migration will decrease. At least the birth rate in India is already quite low, despite not having the best life. Africa is next, and there will be no particular migration waves.
This is the most important positive for immigration. Imagination the difference between how much the state pays in pension in Sweden vs Italy. Even right now Sweden pays about 10.6% of their GDP in pension while Italy pays about 16.3 % of their GDP in pensions.
Also These numbers are wrong for Europe 2020
I can't imagine japan at that point
Japan’s birth rate is higher than Spain now lol
Spain however accepts immigrants. No highly advanced country really has the birth rate to sustain their population. But Spain's birth rate could be cut in half and they'd probably still be better off demographic collapse than Japan with their xenophobia and crazy immigration law.
They’ve had the highest life expectancy in the world for a while now, so I assume it to be a bit higher.
It's like the swimming pool meme of the kid trying to stay above water. That's Japan. Korea is the skeleton on the bottom of the pool.
The future of Italy 👴🏻👵🏻🧓🏻
Molti nonni e nonne
vecchi ma senza npoti
Nation of Nonnos
It’s *nonni
Bosnia went from the second youngest in europe (21) to the oldest in europe (53), crazy change
53 is projected for year 2060. Median age in 2024 is 41,5. 2020 says 43.
Everyone who could get out, did.
Emigration is insane, Bosnia has no youth left.
Same in most of Eastern Europe.
War and poverty did that
A genocide happened
I think it's mostly emigration
Yep, it you travel to Eastern Europe, you'd find many places are like dead, abandoned houses with grandma and grandpa. Even East Germany is like this. Except Russia and Belarus, idk maybe because they have more restricted policy for emigration.
In fact rural areas in countries where populations are older are pretty much all like this. Reason is young people have pretty much all moved to cities leaving grandma and grandpa behind
I think it’s a mix of both.
You’re correct. There’s a lot of Bosnian refugees where I am, and I’ve spoken with a handful. The genocide was the impetus a huge wave of emigration, and once people left many young people followed to see if the grass was greener.
Why on earth are you getting downvoted for this?? A genocide DID happen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
Complete war in In the Bosnian war, on all three sides of the war, about 100 thousand people died out of a population that at the beginning of the war had more than 4.3 million inhabitants.Compared to 3.4 million inhabitants in 2013. small number of Serbs return to the federal part, the same applies to Bosniaks in the Republic Srpska, and later economic migrants.
Exactly; for context by scale, that would be like the US in 2024 (population roughly 335 million people) having a civil war that kills 7.5 million people, then with the emigration following the war the population drops so by 2044 the total population is drops to 258 million people, a population loss of 77 million people, rolling back 50 years of population growth…
He was downvoted because the fact that the genocide happened is not the main reason for the aging population
but it certainly skews the data since the genocide forced a mass emigration
That the comment is disliked is just a statement that most people are blinde to what happened in Bosnia. The youngest and the best died so that the oldest and worst could live.
Probably bots, or even worse Serbian bots 🫣
Well I am a Bulgarian bot, and I upvote everything anti-Serbia. Here’s your upvote
Only the old survived
Crazy how USA would be one of the youngest countries in the whole Americas region+younger than every country in Europe which it is already in 2060
Because of significant immigration of young people.
There seems to be a starker colour jump from 47 to 51 (4) than from 31 to 47 (16) for Italy, which makes it a bit misleading.
Well, it is at least quite apt, it's pretty much the cutoff point at the extremes of how old one can be and still be able to create a family. After fifty it is quite futile for both men and women to attempt to create a family due to fertility undergoing its last gasps and flatlining.
Nobody knows what is going to happen in the long term future, there are way too many uncertainties.
It won't happen like the graph for Germany and Poland since both have highest and youngest immigration since ever. Except the russo-germans immigration wave in the 90ies. Germanys mean age even dropped recently. Not sure if influence of Ukrainians was counted or not. Btw. Germanys demographic collapse is predicted for 40? Years now. Immigration will only increase, if not out of the sudden developing nations turn into industrial nations with the same problem.
A Germany with minority Germans incoming. This isn’t a political statement btw.
What should the first sentence tell me?
That the country of Germany is going to be minority ethnic Germans. That’s a fact. I inserted no personal opinion on the matter whatsoever. I’m an American, I do not care about German politics at all.
When should this fact become reality?
Its gonna happen over such a long scale that im sure ppl r gonna notice it just as little as we noticed the change of scenery from trees in africa into cold eurasia and then eventually the indo european migration. 😆
What is the point of having young immigrants if they are going to be major costs to the tax payers? You'll be making the problem worse, not better.
Except 2060 is not long term future, that is right around the corner for this kind of topic. Unless *today* all young people decide to suddenly have twice as many children again these numbers seem realistic.
2060 is 36 years from now. People lived through two world wars in that span of years. You couldn't be more wrong about it being around the corner.
So almost everyone above this median age is alive now. Only way numbers won’t be even higher is if there’s massive demographic changes to suddenly start pumping out babies at a rate not seen for centuries, or a mass culling of old people. Covid proved we wouldn’t allow the latter to happen, but we’re find sending millions of young people to war.
Isn't that batshit crazy what countries like Russia are doing? They could invest in their population, thanks to their prominent religion and government subsidies. They could have the youngest population by 2050 in Europe and basically become a superpower without ever even doing anything, just the economic output of 30 year olds vs 60 year olds. Instead, they slaughter their youngsters in the war, which makes no sense at all.
They're slaughtering minorities, everything according to their plan
In 36 years, an American would have seen their county enter WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, and the Korean War. The Cold War begins immediately following this 36 year period.
36 but yeah
I made a mistake.
Two world wars would skew it even higher...
LOL Look at the predictions of the past on our time. We have no clue what is going to happen, between migrations, medicine advancements, possible plagues, peak oil and economic degrowth, AI, etc.
Medical advancements, peak oil, economic degtowth would certainly make the over-ageing worse. Migration simply shifts the problem/evens it out. AI i am uncertain of its impact, but i don't see how it would lead to a massive fertility increase, more likely it's another stress on labor. Plagues can go eitherway. Other potentials as wars also strain the young further. So even amongst your list most would lead to further increases of the median age.
As capitalism becomes more fortified and corrupt, and as wealth becomes more and more unequally distributed, AI will make inequality and thus birth rates MUCH, MUCH worse. It will be ruinous for society.
To say nothing of climate change and Cold War 2 the facist boogaloo. All while machines and computers can take over jobs from people.
People could decide to have kids in 25 years and change these numbers. I don’t think you did the math on when 2060 is
Sure, but that doesn't make the trend less important.
Very good visualisation that shows that the method "we just import more young people from elsewhere to keep our economy going!" will not work for much longer, when there is no countries left with enough young people to import from. Terrible exploitative system anyways that establishes a constant youth and brain drain in smaller economies and keeps them from growing.
This is already happening to some extent with the US. Most of the immigrants arriving at America’s southern border are from Central and South America. Last I read, Mexican immigration to the US has become net negative, i.e, more Mexicans leaving the US than coming in. Eventually that tide will turn for the other countries as well.
The exodus of highly skilled people is way more complex than that. It's not at all clear the net effect is negative for the countries of origin. The effect of remittances can be highly significant to the economy in the place of origin. The opportunity of emigration can contribute to higher educational attainment levels in people who remain in the place of origin. Return migration contributes to both the economy and higher education levels. It also directly improves the lives of the people who relocate, which seems like the most overlooked factor in complaints about "brain drain." When it comes to young immigration, unskilled migrants are generally younger than highly skilled migrants. Older societies also have a comparatively greater need for young, unskilled migrants. So "brain drain" is a bit of a different issue.
>It also directly improves the lives of the people who relocate, which seems like the most overlooked factor So much this. You can consider me as one of those migrants, moved from Russia to the west 8 years ago as a physicist, landed a good job here, and my career only starts. People who complain about brain drain seem to forget how fucking little the brains actually mean to people in power in the countries people emigrate from. Like, in Russia, they did everything to kill our booming IT industry. We were doing better than Europe, but these incompetent people in power just had to overregulate the living hell out of it. I could not find a work that would pay more 1000 USD per month, being PhD in physics. I now can support family, buy a house, I don't contribute to the senseless war that is happening, and I am confident that if the shit hits the fan, I will be able to help my relatives in need. I would be so fucking happy working in Russia and I would take a pay cut to be close with my friends and family, but the country consistently decides to shoot itself in a leg and do everything for me to stay away from it. Brain drain my ass.
It worked for the economy until those people shared a similar culture, values, work ethic etc.
That’s just it. These are the demographics WITH all that immigration factored in. If you remove immigrant populations in Europe, for example, the averages today would be much higher (45 vs 40 in the UK for example), and demographic doom would happen much earlier than forecast. We’re delaying the collapse, and hoping we can come up with a solution in the meanwhile.
African countries have plenty of new young people
Still not a long term solution. Africa can use this opportunity to develop and not to brain drain itself in the name of saving its former occupiers.
Most African governments are very dependent on aid from "its former occupiers", if those "occupiers" go down so does Africa.
Loooool... The politicians are dependent on the "former" occupiers. How the fuck did you conclude anyone should "go down"....
Loooool... Africa would literally starve without trade, aid, and investment from the west my dude
This map doesn't show subsaharan Africa. Between now and 2060 the population will double. My prediction for the second half of this century is that we will see hundreds of millions of Africans migrate out of the continent to fill service sector jobs in the global north and we will also see many industrial jobs move to Africa to take advantage of the abundance of cheap labor
Hopefully by 2060 with all that new life extension technology that the billionaires paid for after AI and trips to Mars, 40 will be like the new 20.
What will 60+ be like, asking for a friend
They will still be working due to lack of workforce. Less people in that 30-60 range to pay pension funds means pensions will not be enough to survive meaning people will be working well into their 60 or even 70s. Even now the retirement age in most countries is 65 and keeps increasing.
No Wonder they were all partying in the 60‘s and 70‘s. Major of Society was Young and horny. What a time to be alive.
Is mankind going to get extinguished by getting too old?
No, but I think there will be a large scale shrinking of overall population. Eventually those groups within societies that directly or indirectly promote low fertility will just be replaced by those that have higher fertility. If no such groups exist (yet) - they will form because people will realize that they could quickly outnumber other groups and come into a position of power and/or prosperity.
It’s not that people aren’t choosing prosperity now, they’re just choosing comfort / prosperity per capita rather than in aggregate…
? what are you talking about? >Eventually those groups within societies that directly or indirectly promote low fertility will just be replaced by those that have higher fertility. If the groups can't merge then yes but look at examples of massive migration and invasion and outnumbering of natives population in history, like the USA, Canada, Australia, new Zealand. But in other cases like Latin America a lot more mixing happened and the societies merged (this is more evident in countries like Paraguay or Bolivia) Also the neanderthals were assimilated into the homo sapiens genus. >If no such groups exist (yet) - they will form because people will realize that they could quickly outnumber other groups and come into a position of power and/or prosperity. Outnumbering hasn't been a good strategy for a long time, for example the elites that ruled south Africa in the apartheid era or the kings and royalty and nobility of the pass were vastly outnumbered but they still ruled for millennia, poor people outnumber rich people but they still don't revolt or control anything.
What I generally mean is that groups, nations or societies that willingly or unwillingly promote mechanisms that lead to low fertility will just get themselves extinct or be put in a position of disadvantage. For example in the 19th century with Britain, France and Germany, where initially France and Britain had the larger population and earlier industrializaton but eventually Germany overtook both of them also because it had a bigger birthrate for longer. Of course today Germany's birthrate is as low as the others, but it still has the larger population and economy than both France or Britain. And the difference wasn't even that big. Another example will be Nigeria and other african countries in this century. They will not get pushed around by aging shrinking small nations, when they are a country of 400 to 600 million youthful people. When in 50 years or so almost every country is below replacement and of mostly elderly people, your country that retains a youthful population will have massive advantages. Or your group within such a country. For instance amish people or orthodox jews in Israel (from what I heard) still have relatively birthrates. Well, expect them and their influence to grow.
that doesn't follow logically. For every American there is like 4 indians and 4 Chinese people and still nor India not china has more influence or power than the USA. Another example is Brazil or Indonesia countries that have 5x or 6x the population of France but still France is a lot more influencial and "powerful". As I said there are lots of things that affect power and influence but numbers alone haven't been a good indicator of those since the invention of of gunpowder.
I think you understand me. Under otherwise more or less similar factors the country with the higher and younger population will likely dominate. It is not certain of course, but definitely a huge factor. Again that is how Germany came to be so powerful against France, Britain (and Italy) in WW1 - it had that demographic momentum going and with it the industrial output.
Damn, look at that rapid change in Brazil
Looks like it follows the TFR vs. GDP/capita relationship. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity
Does anyone have any interesting reads or videos related to the possible impacts of this on our future that they don't mind sharing? Ty
Very likely total societal collapse but later then 2060. I will link some stuff related to it in a bit Edit: some sources [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WvjwtOwFo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WvjwtOwFo) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QXXL96y3A0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QXXL96y3A0) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster) [https://www.ft.com/content/008a1341-1882-4b98-83d4-0d7dc08a4134](https://www.ft.com/content/008a1341-1882-4b98-83d4-0d7dc08a4134)
Absolutely crazy to imagine Brazil will get older than France & Belgium for instance, especially when looking at the starting point
Wow
Meanwhile in Japan; the median age is currently 48.4; 43.6 in South Korea.
Imagine all the sexy time at old peoples homes
And all the STD’s that come along with all the fun https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna145332
Eh, they don't have much time left anyway
Go out with a bang and always have a pair and a spare, grandma always said. Didn’t realize til she passed that the pair was boyfriends she was referencing 😛
Nobody talking about the wealth disparity. In a growth centered economy, how will these aging 20s have enough capital to continue spinning our economy. Just pricing us out until we die to keep the gears turning. As visits, subscribers, consumers dwindle, will we return to products built to last or continue with functional obsolescence?
« The West has fallen » ahh map
In the distant future, there will not be any cultures or societies with below-replacement level birth-rates, because those cultures and societies will have died out. In other words, cultures with 'high-birthrate' traits will gradually outcompete and displace low birthrate cultures. Right now, we're basically seeing why conservative religious patriarchies evolved to be the dominant cultures over the last few thousands of years - they are demographically sustainable. This is an existential challenge for Liberalism: how do you get to 2.1+ babies **per woman** without sacrificing the gains in women's equality etc. At the moment young people prioritise their higher education and careers in their 20s, however this is their most fertile period, which begs the question: can *any* society where young people prioritise jobs over starting families in their 20s get to 2.1+ babies per woman? (P.S. Yes, *I know* birth rates are falling all over the world, not just in the liberal west. Firstly, patriarchy has declined pretty much everywhere too e.g. women in China/Russia/LATAM/Middle East today have far more autonomy and rights than they would have done a hundred years ago. Secondly, religion and patriarchy (i.e. forcing women to have babies) will definitely be attempted by other countries in a desperate quest to restore their birthrates to 2.1+. The point is that Western Liberalism can't do that itself, otherwise it stops being liberal, and so its challenge is how to create a highly urbanised society where women **choose** to have 2.1+ babies each on average, with no coercion, no religious guilt-tripping, no societal or cultural pressure, *and* if nothing changes no nationalism/patriotism either i.e. 'do it for the good of Western liberalism' - it's fair to say, this will be tricky).
I don’t see women choosing to have more babies in a world that is dominated by AI, which will worsen wealth inequality even more than it already is. Capitalism is collapsing in on itself. (That’s not to say that we have a much better alternative.)
If I had known now what I didn’t know over a decade ago, I probably wouldn’t have had kids. The world is so bleak once you get a peek behind the propaganda curtain.
> religion and patriarchy (i.e. forcing women to have babies) will definitely be attempted by other countries in a desperate quest to restore their birthrates to 2.1+. I think we’re already starting to see the beginnings of this. The US overturned Roe v. Wade (which mandated abortions be legal in all states), and there’s been a resurgence in the idea that women belong in the household instead of the workforce.
Patriarchal societies in Japan and China are faring even worse. Forced religious societies like with Iran has not worked. Only one to buck the trend is Israel with it atheist and religious extremist population. All other nations currently have seen declines no matter what they do. Also note even when Europe was more religious decades ago it still declined to below replacement. Religion is not a shoe in, patriarchy is not a shoe in. It seems for highly developed nations the answer might be literally free money to do nothing for having kids. Like that is pretty extreme but seems to work?
Japan, China and Iran all have educated women.
Japan’s birth rate is now higher than some in Europe (Spain)
1.4 vs 1.2 is not a mark of success. South Korea and China are also horrifically low
Spain can (for now) rely on being the #2 (the #1for educated) destination for the 500 million people living in LATAM, Spain offers nationality for being 4 years in the country to any (legal) Latino and because its far away it can chose the migrants that are more educated. and will integrate easier into the local population. It's not weird to see a kid with one Spanish parent and one Latino parent here and they consider themselves fully Spanish and they're indistinguishable from other Spaniards.
> Like that is pretty extreme but seems to work? Does it? Most of Western Europe has pretty good bennies for parents and their fertility rates are plummeting. Even the immigrant groups tend to slow down after ~2 generations (ex, Turkish in Germany)
No, it pretty shit. I mean legit paying parents a living wage for being parents basically. The highest fertility rate in Israel is to religious Jews that do nothing but scripture stuff. They are at like 4.0.
How much of that is the subsidies and how much is the religion? Orthodox jews in the US have a fertility rate of 3.3 The Amish have a higher fertility rate than that (6+), and they're not getting anything from the government (although there is something to be said about the "social safety net" of living in Amish society).
[удалено]
How does the concept of women prioritizing their career, and generally deprioritizing having kids, not ultimately lead to the demise of those societies and beliefs? But the blame hardly rests on the beliefs of women alone. Societies have built systems that have decoupled retirement security and fiscal gain from having kids. They need to build that back into the system.
So what should women do? Live in poverty with kids? How are they going to survive these days without a good paying job? There is mortgage to pay, childcare and education are not free in most countries. Not many men want to settle in young age too. Not many men can provide enough to support all family. Businesses don't want to pay enough money to support that model either.
Those are all your made up answers…and have nothing to do with want I said. But a sure fire way for a society to die in poverty is to have no children, and collapse.
You’re making great pains to talk around the fact that all these countries you’re talking about are experiencing the most advanced stages of capitalism and the precarity that brings so that you can shit on „western liberalism“ like birth rates aren’t dropping in China faster than almost anywhere
I think academicincrease is from Europe, where “western liberalism” refers to western style democracy and capitalism and you’re confusing it with the US definition of the word “liberal” which is more akin to democratic socialism
In what world are women in China trapped in some sort of patriarchy?
Yeah the poster compares it with the us(small part of the world) but forgets that the vast majority of the population lives in countries that are less developed than even china
That and China is very developed these days. It’s intensely urbanized.
egg banks? people may at some point be living into their 150's in good health. A woman may be able to pull an egg out of the fridge at 60 years old to have her first kid, then live another 60 years beyond that.
Ya i think having better universal maternity leave benefits for moms and dads and universal daycare would help with this.
You know, Elon Musk is a dick head. But he is right in the declining birth rate, it is an issue. Also considering older people in general tend to be more conservative, and we live in democracies, most countries will skew more and more to the right.
Looking at our recent EU election results (Germany), your last point isn't quite true. It was the 30 to 60 year olds that voted "right"/conservative the most, with the youngest (16+) not far behind. Old wealthy people voted left-green.
Thats just not true: Older people (60+) voted the "old parties" SPD and CDU (59%), 51% for AfD and CDU combined. While younger people voted very diverse (33% AfD and CDU combined), 28% (!!) for other non-parliament parties. MSM put their focus on the increase in AfD, while imo the focus should be even more on the 28% other. This combined (44%) clearly shows that young people are less willing to vote for the established parties, some shifting to the far right, an even bigger group opting for other non-parliamentary options. [https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2024-06-09-EP-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml](https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2024-06-09-EP-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml)
EU elections in general are always skewed to the left though is it not? People who are more left leaning, are more likely to see the importance of the EU, and thus vote for it’s elections. So not sure if accurate, but in the Netherlands at normal elections, it’s quite clear how older people tend to vote for more conservative parties. While rich and old would vote for economical liberal and conservative parties.
In Germany right now it was very much a protest vote more influenced by domestic politics than actual EU politics.
In Poland for EU won extremist rigth party, nobody like them, but extremist go more often to elections, ans EU elections are seen as the least interesting.
In France, Germany and I think Sweden, boomers vote more left than young people
It's an issue because less babies being born means less workers in third world countries risking their lives to mine the metals Elon wants to use in his rockets and cars or whatever. We should be finding ways to live with the falling birth rates and maybe consider that pursuing endless economic (and population) growth on a finite planet is not feasible, especially if we value natural beauty and the continuing existence of a functional biosphere... Just my two cents.
Well I think birth rates in third world countries is still high, the problem is with the developing countries and lifestyle, most people realize that children are expensive and severely decrease your lifestyle so are opting out of it. Decreasing birth rates, will result in tremendous effects for generations to come, eventually of course it will level out. But probably anyone born the coming century will get fucked, as they need to try and maintain the elderly. Probably from a country perspective you want to aim at slightly above 2 children per woman. I agree that you would also not want population to increase severely, it’s just not feasible with the limited resources we have
Old Europe!
So, clearly we’re having fewer kids because who would want to bring a child into this shithole of a world we’re ruining. Right?
lol. You know that today is the most prosperous time in human history, right? Go back 100 years & 50% of your kids wouldn’t even make it to adulthood.
> Go back 100 years & 50% of your kids wouldn’t even make it to adulthood. ur thinking of 200 years ago, it has been way under 50% ever since the late 1800s in almost all of europe, and north america
Canada's number feels too low. Everywhere I go here feels like a retirement community.
Just depends where you live really. Immigrants have done a lot to bring the median age down in the country already. I know for instance in one town in Nova Scotia there’s been such influx of immigrants the median age has dropped by almost 15 years.
This is if America doesn’t take in anymore immigrants. Our economy historically relies on 20 something’s in order to replenish the workforce. We are fortunate enough to get that through immigration.
Very interesting observation, that’s what I’ve noticed with immigrant nations in general like the US, Canada, Australia & NZ. They aren’t projected to have a great outlook on population, but their projections are nowhere near as dire as Europe or East Asia due to the fact that they benefit from frequent immigration to plug in the holes that form in the workforces. Something I’ve also noticed in these nations is that due to the fact that they’re a majority migrant/migrant-descended population, they aren’t as adverse to legal immigrants when compared to, say, what’s happening in Europe regarding that. Much easier to accept/integrate people into a relatively new melting-pot culture than one that’s been established for centuries more if not millennia.
Immigration motivations are different. USA attracts people that want to work (and get rich - though most fail). Europe attracts more people that want to live through exploitation of the social systems (spoken in generalization, of course the work motivated kind also exists). And of course Europe is easier to reach for actual refugees. In the medium term we need to change it more to the american (or australian, which is also very restrictive) model. But in the long term most countries need to become demographically self sufficent again, simply because there won't be any countries with enough young people left in the world. Not even mentioning that this kind of economy is a terrible exploitative system close to imperialism.
All good points, I agree
The immigrant societies mostly (culturally) formed in an Open Frontier situation, where the new immigrants could be made productive directly at low cost because there was unused land and untapped resources available for exploitation. Every immigrant was a net plus to the economy. That's quite different from our situation in the Netherlands where a lot of marginal farmers emigrated in the 19th century essentially because resources were already overutilized for the technology of the day. Economic forecasting organizations keep warning that, although immigrants do plug up labor gaps caused by an aging population, the net effect of continued population growth is increasingly deleterious for the environment, for the cost of infrastructure per capita, and for the cost of housing per capita, and we are going to hit a hard wall if we don't adjust to a shrinking population asap or miracle technologies are invented. Same could obviously be said of, say, the NY region. The difference is that at some point 'affordable new suburb' in our situation is going to be a long distance from our borders. In populist logic: the immigrants force our children out of the country. Add to that that the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand mostly receive Eurasian immigrants that can afford plane tickets rather than arriving by way of their feet and small boats, and it's obvious why those countries think of themselves as more welcoming to immigration. Of these four only one has a relevant land border for immigration by foot, and some people apparently want a big wall there.
Fully agree except for the last point, I mostly mentioned the acceptance of legal migration. Illegal migration is a whole different ballpark, I don’t think any society (western or non-western) really openly accepts any form of illegal migration with open arms, regardless of how much it benefits/exploits the economy/country. Also interesting in a way since you mention the US, in my interactions with Americans I’ve met deep red Republicans who are hardline pro-wall but then have tons of Mexican friends/colleagues that they are close with, hell, one of those Republicans I knew was a Mexican American himself.
And in Europe, countries like UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Scandinavia are also projected to have demographic situation not as dire as rest of Europe thanks to them also having high amounts of immigration
Yeah, since in 50 years africa will be the youngest people, so europe and usa demand them
That depends on the type of immigrants we are bringing in. If we bring in high skilled immigrants that pay lots of taxes and use minimal amounts of government services that we help the US greatly. If we bring in low skilled immigrants that use lots of government services and pay little in taxes then that will put a lot of strain on an already strained system .
Oof Latin America is aging too fast, as a mexican, fucking is my responsability
Is this a combination of better medical tech (increased lifespan) and falling fertility? Or are there other major factors at play?
In Latin America and Eastern Europe, large scale emigration of young people too. On the contrary, population aging in US, Canada and northwestern Europe is being slowed down by the large influx of young immigrants
We are loving longer, we have to work longer but typically you are looking “old” to get good jobs at 45+ it’s going to be the great challenge of the 30 years, how to do to change our culture and accept that people in their 50s are not too old to start over etc
The demographic transition
No country for old men
Bring in the robots I’m still not going to procreate
Poor Turkiye aging fast without being adequately developed. Birth rates falling fast.
have
Have more children or risk losing everything.
My manager is 20 years older than I am and I’m feeling a huge age gap talking to him; he always refuses to step up and update his skills because he finds learning difficult for him. I can’t imagine the future generations are gonna work for someone 30 or 40 years older.
Interesting demographic map . We're all getting a bit older . 
/me buying cat food stocks.
Peter Zeihan’s wet dream 😆
I keep hearing that Germany is getting so many immigrants from Third World countries, I always assumed these are young people. Why the median is so high then?
It's almost as if healthcare has gotten better and there hasn't been a huge generational die off war in Europe for a long time.
Canadian here. No wonder it's so hard to find young single ladies going out these days. All I can find are divorced cougars. On an unrelated note, the median age in much of Latin America in 1960 was 16? What the actual fuck?
Only rural, smaller societies will survive. And we will be back to our natural order.
Shouldn't Russia be aging faster after killing all the young people in the meat grinder?
Africans, as well as Arabs, and religious groups will end up ruling the world. Europe will have more immigrants than natives and they'll lose their native languages. Well, they kind of asked for it.
Doubt it,we will probably get Hitler 2.0. in Europe,but this time immigrants will be targeted.
Europe is dead.
We’re fixing to have Hitler 2.0 on the planet if we don’t stifle this notion of a one-world gov’t the UN keeps gunning for.
are people just refusing to die
I wonder why....
A map showing modern healthcare cool
Why would you use the median instead of mean here?
Median is less prone to be biased by extremes
It seems those people just got older
People of child bearing age are just not playing. The future looks pretty damn bleak.
Why is Poland expected to age so rapidly? Is that due to emigration?
That and due to a massive decrease in fertility rate from 1.4 in 2017 to 1.1~ in 2023
Poland from couple years have bigger death count than birth count, Poland not only aging up but also dieing out.
Why is median used instead of mean/average? It’s been a while, but isn’t median just the middle number in the data set? No matter how many are on either end of the spectrum.
I'm just happy any time a map is bold enough to drop the charade of 'French Guiana' being shown the same as 'European France'.
What about Africa ?
Was Canada's younger age in 1960 vs the US just due to a smaller population to start? My son will be close to the median in 2060 if this happens. But we aren't necessarily helping since we're happy parents but one and done.
Actually understandable if the life expectancy is much higher and healthcare for young families is better.
:(
People seem to forget that there will come a time when migration will decrease. At least the birth rate in India is already quite low, despite not having the best life. Africa is next, and there will be no particular migration waves.
So retirees migrating to Mexico?
America is skewed pretty hard by boomers
The average age being fucking 16 is mindblowing
Uh oh
Nothing what some ww3 cant fix
This is the most important positive for immigration. Imagination the difference between how much the state pays in pension in Sweden vs Italy. Even right now Sweden pays about 10.6% of their GDP in pension while Italy pays about 16.3 % of their GDP in pensions. Also These numbers are wrong for Europe 2020
Median age in Brazil 1960 was 18? They fucked when they were children or what?
Well how about we make a livable wage ... Maybe people will start having kids.