America's incredible shrinking economic rivals...

...include Japan, Germany, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan. Conspicuously absent from the list of affluent nations with projected declines in population: the U.S. and Canada. Also the emerging superpowers China and India, the only real threats to continued U.S. hegemony.

But China historically is not an imperial power - it's not in the genes. Ditto India. And both nations are hobbled by smothering bureaucractic strictures and ethnic nationalist tensions.

Elsewhere on the "shrinking" list is just about every country in Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Canada's population is projected by Statscan to jump 39% between now and 2036, rising from today's 34.2 million to 47.7 million.

And a 2008 Pew Research survey, typical of its kind, shows U.S. population growing 41% between now and 2050, from today's 310 million to 438 million.

Why? Anticipated robust immigration growth and above-average fertility rates among Latin and African Americans, who together account for one-quarter of the U.S. population. The U.S. will retain its current ranking as the world's third most-populous nation long into the future.

I've said it before: Never bet against the U.S.

Empty nursery. (Source: Eurostat)

 

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

I keep reading these theories - supported by statistics - that the explosion of the human species will be moderated by the shrinking of the family unit in economically advanced societies. Last model I saw formed the basis of a lecture by a Dutch Professor on the TED website (who used storage boxes to show his model projections).
Trouble is - until we have eliminated poverty all around the world - the population will still explode to 9 billion by the middle of this century - so - want to reduce population growth - reduce poverty! Simple as that!

[dolive]

World population is heading for 10.5 billion by mid-century, I read today. And, yes, one of the oldest rules is that as communities become more affluent, the fertility rate drops. People become more prosperous, they start having fewer children. So, again yes, eradicating poverty is first step to solving the over-population crisis. -David

[Darwin O'Connor]

As people become more prosperous you go through a hump where child mortality drops, but people are still having quite a few children causing a large population increase.

The West is over the hump and Asia seems to be on the tail end of the hump.

Africa still faces the hump. It would be good if we keep their hump as small as possible with aggressive education programs for girls and women. Fortunately we now have the technology, like TV, to educate women even if they never learned to read.

[dolive]

Hi Darwin
I couldn't agree more. Japan is a prime example of the rather frightening population decline in Asia. Turns out, if the Financial Times is correct in recent reports, that China's population is ageing as rapidly as Japan's.
Yes, we do, as a global community, have the means to intervene forcefully to improve living conditions anywhere - education, healthcare, a cessation of pointless ethnic and tribal strife. All we lack is the resolve. It's some kind of crime that more people on the planet die of impure water than of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS combined. A crime because it's so easily preventable. -DO

[Bob]

Why is the population decline frightening? The economy will slow somewhat (though not necessarily on a per-working-adult basis) and housing prices will fall but so will stresses on the natural environment. The number of adults per child will also grow (and it takes a village to raise a child).

[Darwin O'Connor]

"Why is the population decline frightening?"

What's stopping it from eventually reaching 0?