Winter is coming – and it is DEMOGRAPHIC !!!

For most of their existence, hominids lived much like other animals. Over hundreds of thousands of years, their numbers were shaped by natural selection, with high birth rates matched by equally high death rates.

A decisive shift came with the emergence of Homo sapiens. We spread across the Earth, built the first permanent settlements, and learned to domesticate plants and animals. By the beginning of the Common Era, the world’s population is estimated to have been around 250 million.

It took nearly 1,600 years for our numbers to double to 500 million, a process further slowed by catastrophes such as the Black Death in the fourteenth century. After this, the pace of growth began to quicken. By 1804, our population reached one billion for the first time, reflecting the transformative effects of industrialisation, improved agriculture, and medical advances.

In 1798, the English economist Thomas Malthus presented his Essay on the principle of population. In it, he popularized the idea of the Malthusian trap (or Malthusian catastrophe), according to which he predicted that the population would continue to grow exponentially, doubling every 25 years, while resources would only grow arithmetically. This decoupling, according to Malthus’ theory, would cause continuous impoverishment of citizens, leading to the extinction of humanity by 1880.

Extinction did not occur in 1880; however, the human population continued to expand at an unusually rapid pace. In 1927, the population reached 2 billion, and in 1975, it reached 4 billion. Gladly, technological advances continued to improve food production, and medicine made it possible to effectively combat diseases that were previously incurable. However, the fear of overpopulation remained latent in society, and many organisations continued to warn of the great threat and its consequences.

The demographic transition: 

After analysing demographic changes in several countries following industrialisation, scientists such as Warren Thompson and Adolphe Landry began to propose a series of demographic theories that would eventually be formalised in the 1940s by Frank W. Notestein. This model is known as the theory of demographic transition.

This model is based on a premise that can be verified with historical data: pre-industrial societies had very low growth rates, with very high birth and death rates. With industrialisation, societies moved from this paradigm to one of zero growth, in which both birth and death rates plummeted to record lows. The most interesting part of the model is how this transition occurs. The decline in mortality and birth rates occurs at different rates, allowing natural population growth (more births than deaths) to skyrocket during this period.

This model, which was initially created to explain industrialisation in the 19th and early 20th centuries, proved to be quite effective in modelling demographic changes throughout the 20th century. Industrialising societies experienced excessive growth, while those that had been industrialised for longer gradually stabilised their natural growth, bringing it closer to the equilibrium predicted by Notestein.

However, at the end of the 20th century, something began to happen that the model did not anticipate. There were countries whose natural growth did not remain at zero, but fell below the replacement rate.

The onset of demographic winter:

Although there are already many countries, mainly in Europe, with negative natural growth, where deaths outnumber births, there are still more countries where the opposite is true. Africa’s great engine continues to drive growth, but fertility rates continue to decline worldwide, at a much faster pace than expected.

r/overpopulation - World map of fertility rates by country; 1970 vs 2014
This comparative map shows how most of Africa had a fertility rate above 6 children in 1970, while in 2014 only Somalia, Mali, and Niger still met this criterion. In the Maghreb region, the figure has fallen below 3 in all countries in just half a century.

The UN has been revising its global population growth forecasts downwards for several years. In 2017, the estimate was that the global population would peak in 2100, with a total of 11.2 billion inhabitants. A couple of years ago, in 2022, this was revised downwards, with an estimated peak of 10.4 billion in 2084. Global population growth is declining, and zero growth will not be the end point of this demographic trend.

We are already seeing how negative population growth in many countries is being offset by migration flows, but this solution may have significant long-term consequences. Few countries currently function as magnets for migrants, but this number will grow.

China is already losing inhabitants, and fertility rates suggest that this decline will be very pronounced in the coming decades.

It will become increasingly common for countries in demographic decline to start competing for migrants from the few countries with positive natural growth.

From this perspective, demographic winter appears to be a plausible long-term outcome for humanity. While future medical, technological, or social transformations could fundamentally alter current trends, existing evidence makes it difficult to envisage a radically different trajectory.

Receive Daily Updates

Stay updated with current events, tests, material and UPSC related news

Recent Posts

    2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.

    [wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

    Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.

    Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.

    Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.

    The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.

    Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.

    The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.

    India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.

    Here are a few things we must do:

    One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.

    Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.

    Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.

    Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.

    Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.

    Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.