Africa has a fertility rate that is similar to the world fertility rate in 1963. Most of the rest of the world has dropped below replacement level.
On average, women in 1963 were having 5.3 children in their lifetime and by 2021, that had more than halved to 2.3. During the same period, the global population rose by around 150 percent from 3.2 billion to 7.9 billion. The fact that populations kept (and keep) growing despite falling global fertility is tied to longer life expectancy and lower childhood mortality. The UN expects global fertility to reach the minimum replacement level of 2.1 by the middle of the century while global population is expected to start falling towards the end of it.
You will find more infographics at StatistaThis has implications for the end of the century. Population wise, Africa will have replaced Europe of the 1950s. The USA, a constant across time, will be the only representative of the Americas.
While in 2020, five out of the ten most populous countries in the world were located in Asia, the picture will look different in 2100, when five African countries – Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – will be among the world’s ten largest.
You will find more infographics at Statista
SUMMARIES BELOW FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF RELIGION DATA ARCHIVES
NIGERIA has an area of 356,700 square miles and a population of 144 million. While some groups estimate the population to be 50 percent Muslim, 40 percent Christian, and 10 percent traditional indigenous, it is generally assumed that the proportion of citizens who practice Islam or Christianity are roughly equal and include a substantial number who practice traditional indigenous religious beliefs alongside Christianity or Islam. Catholic (12%) Protestant (30%) Independent Christian (14%)
THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO has an area of 905,000 square miles and a population of 66.5 million. Approximately 55 percent of the population is Roman Catholic, 30 percent is main line Protestant, and less than 5 percent each is Kimbanguiste or Muslim. The remainder generally practices traditional indigenous religious beliefs. Other religious groups include Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and Orthodox Christians.
ETHIOPIA has an area of 472,000 square miles, and a population of 77 million. An estimated 40 to 45 percent of the population belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (EOC), which is predominant in the northern regions of Tigray and Amhara.
Approximately 45 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim, of which the overwhelming majority is Sufi. Islam is most prevalent in the eastern Somali and Afar regions, as well as in many parts of Oromiya.
Christian evangelical and Pentecostal groups constitute an estimated 10 percent of the population.
ZANZIBAR has an area of 364,900 square miles and a population of 40 million, of which 38 million live on the mainland and 2 million on the Zanzibar archipelago, which has a semi autonomous political structure separate from the mainland political system. Current statistics on religious demography are unavailable because religious surveys were eliminated from government census reports after 1967. Religious leaders and sociologists estimate that the Christian and Muslim communities are equal in size, each accounting for 30 to 40 percent of the population, with the remainder consisting of practitioners of other faiths and traditional indigenous religions. However, 99 percent of the population on the Zanzibar archipelago is Muslim. Half the Christians are Catholic; the other half are Protestant.
EGYPT has an area of 370,308 square miles and a population of 79 million, of whom almost 90 percent are Sunni Muslims. Shi'a Muslims constitute less than 1 percent of the population. Estimates of the percentage of Christians ranged from 8 to 12 percent, (6 to 10 million), the majority of whom belonged to the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Looks like you've been having fun with Statista, Jack!
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see which countries will fall out of the top 10 most populous by 2100: The reliably Catholic Mexico and Brazil, though evangelicals in the American tradition are making big inroads there. And in Muslim countries with increasing population, Christian evangelization is illegal, so Catholics won't be able to make up the difference by trying to convert there. China's a wild card.
I wonder if the Vatican is following these trends. Pope Francis tends to take a global view of the Church.
But American Catholics might be American Catholicism's worst enemy. American Catholics are increasingly clinging to strict orthodoxy as numbers dwindle. Conservative JP2 priests are making it increasingly harder for the fallen away to come back. The way some parishes and dioceses are running RCIA makes it increasingly onerous for new people to join up. Add to that the fact that most married American Catholics are using artificial contraception; the Church cannot rely on Catholics popping out 4 kids or more, and even if they do, there's no guarantee the kids won't disappear after Confirmation.
Finally, birth rates may not be the most significant predictor of actual population by 2100 given catastrophic climate events and rising maternal death rates in some areas.
Sorry if the above sounds kind of random maybe. Mostly musing on what these numbers mean for the RCC worldwide and in the US.
DeleteWhile I am no longer interested in fully reconciling with the Church, I still consider myself Catholic-friendly. I think the RCC in the U.S. has always provided an important Christian example that contrasts with the nuttier brand of evangelicalism and preoccupation with Hell on one hand and the comfy churches for rich people in mainline Protestant denominations on the other.
Dwindling birthrates will further erode the number of American Catholics and the Church's social influence unless the Church can figure out ways to a) keep the kids born into the faith and b) welcome people who just walk in off the street and don't have any familial connection with the RCC.
I think it is a mistake in articles about population statistics to view rising populations in one place as "replacing" those in other places that are falling. Everyone exists, they can't be replaced, at least not in a theological sense. Everyone is here because God wanted them to be.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably better for populations to achieve a kind of stasis, rather than sharp rises or falls, such as the bubonic plague in medieval Europe where population basically fell off a cliff.
"Everyone is here because God wanted them to be." I'll buy that. But I confess that I don't think God wanted them to be pushing the political-theocratic agendas some of them are.
DeleteThe idea that Ethiopians and Congolese would "replace" Mexicans or Brazilians makes sense from a labor market standpoint. Or not unrelated, an immigration standpoint.
DeletePublic "entitlements" like Social Security are constructed on an actuarial model of a growing population. (And economy. And tax receipts.). By the time I start drawing Social Security, which would be in the early 2030s if I can stay employed until then (which definitely can't be counted upon), Social Security is expected to reach the point that the federal government won't be able to meet 100% of its monthly distribution commitments. Too bad for my generation, and all who come after us.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent this is a blameworthy development, I have tended to put the chief blame on contraception. I still think that is part of the story, but I can glimpse other, perhaps deeper root causes. I think Ross Douthat would point to a crisis of faith, of which religious family be only one type among several (or even many).
That should read "...religious faith...", not "...religious family..."
DeleteOh, I think there is some other blame/ responsibility to pass around if social security does reach the point where it can't fund itself. Things like bad fiscal policy on the part of government, in which they pursue short-term political gain at the expense of sound planning. And robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course a lot of conservative pundits would say to just raise the age of retirement. To what, 75? 80? A lot of us don't think that is a good solution! They are reluctant to raise taxes, even though politicians like to pursue tax cuts in the service of making their base happy.
DeleteThat approach to childbearing strikes me as strictly utilitarian and immoral. People should only have children if they want them, not because they are needed to pay for some older generations social security. Contraception has been a gift that gives people more choice when deciding on having children - or not.
Delete"That approach to childbearing strikes me as strictly utilitarian and immoral. People should only have children if they want them, not because they are needed to pay for some older generations social security."
DeleteRight, we're talking here about the confluence of family decisions and public policy. Individual adults and couples may perceive that it's not in their individual/couple interest to have children (or more children than they already do). But from a public policy perspective, it seems obvious that a broader base of contributing workers would shore up the financial risks to Medicare and Social Security. That's just simple math - and really, it just follows from the very design of those programs.
Those programs were designed before the pill became a mass-produced product. Before the pill and other forms of birth control, families didn't have to be urged by their governments to have more children; it just happened naturally. It was a happy accident: family trends worked in favor of public policy goods. Now the trends are in tension with one another. As noted somewhere here, China has discontinued its one-child policy. But less authoritarian governments also are trying to incentivize families to have more children. It is true, as someone pointed out, that taxes can be raised; for years, I've supported lifting the ceiling on FICA contributions, as the ceiling results in a somewhat regressive tax.
Regarding morality: the Catholic view on having children - regardless of contraception - is that, while the having of children can be "spaced", the bias should be in favor of having children. This strikes me as good advice for couples, and simultaneously as supportive of good public policy.
Jim Pauwels: "To the extent this is a blameworthy development, I have tended to put the chief blame on contraception."
ReplyDeleteI don't quite understand. Are you saying contraception is a bad thing because lowering birth rates make Social Security as it's now administered unsustainable? Social Security was set up in 1935, and there have been a lot of changes (demographic and otherwise) since then. And although declining birth rates have affected Social Security, the increased birth rate known as the "Baby Boom" had a negative impact on Social Security as well.
I am not sure the demographics of the world tell us anything at all about religious faith. And is people's use of contraception a sign that their faith is in crisis? Would the world really be a better place if Catholics had embraced Humanae Vitae?
Whether or not Catholics embrace Humanae Vitae is Catholic insider baseball. Doesn't really have a lot to do with the 75-80% of Americans who are not Catholic. I doubt if it did, or could, influence the general demographic trend in the US. As David said, Social Security was set up in 1935. At which time there was a birth dirth from the Great Depression, and later from WWII . When the soldiers came home and started families, the baby boom came about. Likely a one time event (unless we get involved in another world war in which.most of the men from 18-35 are drafted. I hope that is unlikely.)
DeleteI see that I spelled dearth wrong.
DeleteDavid Nickol: Sorry for the topic switch. I think you recommended The Wager on a previous thread. Just came in on interlibrary loan with The Madness at the End of the World. Looking forward to a couple of polar disaster reads this month!
DeleteDavid - yes, I think birth control is at least part of the reason - perhaps even the chief reason - that the number of children per family has dropped from levels that would lead to a growth in population - the constant experience in the US until 1980s - to where we have been since 1980 or so: levels that would, sans immigration, lead to a shrinking population.
DeleteI agree that there are other social and demographic changes that can explain fluctuations in the number of children. For example: couples marry later in life; women start bearing children later in life; marriage rates have declined; divorce is more prevalent than was the case a few generations ago; and so on. But I don't assume that artificial birth control's wide acceptance happened independently of these other social changes. Birth control surely is one of the causes of most or all of these changes.
Jim, the problem I am having here is that "birth control" in and of itself doesn't cause anything. People have decide they want fewer children than they would otherwise have, or they want no children at all. Then they have to decide how they are going to control the number of children they will have. Of course as the twentieth century progressed, contraception became easier and easier in developed countries. (Also, in the United States, abortion became legal in 1973.) So people who were informed enough and/or affluent enough could more easily choose to limit the number of children that they would have. But it doesn't seem to me that the method they use to control their fertility tells us anything much of interest. According to a couple of sources I checked, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Ukraine, Italy, and Spain all have very low birth rates. I am guessing (without doing any research) that in each, "birth control is one of the causes." But I don't think saying that is particularly interesting or insightful. What is really interesting (to me, anyway) is why heterosexuals in Poland, the United States, Italy, Spain, Japan, and so on, use fertility-control technology the way they do. I am sure there are similarities and differences when comparing any two countries with low birth rates. The fact that they may all be using similar technology is of little interest.
DeleteJean, I am sure you will enjoy The Wager and will agree with me that surely one of the most miserable places to have lived out one's life was on an 18th-century British warship.
DeleteThese projections are interesting but they can change rapidly if climate change and ensuing wars kick in. Will food production keep up? Will extreme heat events, droughts, floods and storms affect food production while killing off people? We just don't know how fast these things will happen although we can count on it eventually. I don't know if Africa is going to be as habitable as it is now or any equatorial regions. In the nuclear era, we spoke of megadeath. In the era of climate change, gigadeath is not out of the question.
ReplyDeleteSome young people want to have children but won't because the system is failing and they sense it. That is not freedom of choice. They will have freedom to use birth control, but not freedom to not use birth control.
Question: will we save social security or at least postpone its collapse if we abandon projecting our power all over the world militarily and economically?
My answer: not with these two parties and this set of politicians.
Yes, I think these projections always assume that nothing else will change. Our local yokels at the CBS affiliate station in Lansing are running a series on how climate change will affect Michigan. The Great Lakes protect us from the mega storms, but it's going to get warmer and wetter, and we will deal with more bug-bourne illnesses. We've also done little to deal with farm run-off, and we'll likely see more algae blooms and compromised municipal water systems. We may get a big influx of residents escaping climate change. High fecal coliform counts due to over development routinely shuts down many beaches here for periods in the summer, and a big increase in permanent populations around the lakeshore would increase that problem. There are also any number of invasive flora and fauna that can survive climate extremes--everything from Asian carp to kudzu.
DeleteBut Trump was here yesterday telling us our biggest problem is illegal immigration. I think a lot of people latch onto that because all's you have to do is build a wall. Simple solution. The complexity of climate change just makes them feel scared and impotent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEdited for typos: If a major concern here is floating Social Security by making more Americans, we need look no further than our southern border and various immigrant holding facilities. Some of these folks have skills we need right now, but there doesn't seem to be any effort being made to take a skills census and fast-track them to green cards. Because, of course, we have a major party candidate for prez telling everybody that immigrants are all disease-ridden criminals.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan once said that he was rich and didn't need SSI. He seemed to be suggesting that if you retired with $X assets, the benefit should be withheld. Given that the rich use all kinds of tactics to weasel out of taxes, I like the idea of withholding SSI unless the wealthy become as broke as the rest of us.
Fertility rates fall as economies grow and expand. Many countries in Asia and Latin America that were officially poor 40 years ago are no longer poor. The birth rates fell, from Mexico, to Argentina, to Singapore, etc. now that chinas economy has become strong, and they can feed their people, they dropped the one child policy.They had been the exception among poor countries, limiting births, and are now encouraging them. In Africa the same trend can be seen as some countries develop their economies. Child mortality rates dropped dramatically. The move away from subsistence farming and herding meant fewer children were needed as family labor. If the governments created some kind of old age security nets the families were no longer on their own to support the old. Educational opportunities expand and more women have access to them, and to paid careers. And to modern birth control. And they choose to have fewer children as a result.
ReplyDelete