Sorry for shouting, but title is clickbait.
Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.
So... something you need to be aware of... projections aren't the same as predictions. With a prediction you're saying something like "I think X will be true" whereas with a projection you're saying something like "if Y continues, then expect Z". It's a very important distinction (or, alternatively, a means of abrogating responsibility).
aka actually the article isn't really about slowly population growth either
Which is to say... your conclusion from the article should be something like "if we do nothing, we're fucked". To which the article helpfully points out:
Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.
Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the "baby bust" have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.
i.e. "we don't know what to do"
You'll notice that the particular set of policies (read: changes designed to ensure projections don't come true) mentioned here sound a lot like "how do we convince an intelligent person to have a kid" (no, Idiocracy is still stupid... but very funny). So...
Contraception is theft! Abortion is murder! Octomom 2020! #Catholicsftw
Hopefully you can see why people tend not to propose these kinds of solutions, but in case you don't:
The researchers warn against undoing the progress on women's education and access to contraception.
Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: "Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women's reproductive health or progress on women's rights."
Of course, maybe you disagree but the point I'm making is simply a lot of people agree with Vollset for the reasons Vollset's pointed out. Mind you, there isn't necessarily any reason to imagine those solutions would work, either... look at Ireland.
Anyway... what do you think about the impending extinction of the human race in... "a few centuries" (presumably Global Warming will get us first or maybe antibiotic resistance... projection, not prediction)?
Helpfully my thoughts are encapsulated by the article so I'll just quote it again:
You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.
"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.
[...]
Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?
I have two additional thoughts... firstly, this isn't actually news (which, frankly, makes Endgame a quite mind bogglingly stupid movie) and secondly, when you look at China's aggressive policy of the last few years and compare it to a world where (a) its population might plausibly be smaller than Nigeria's inside 90 years and (b) the existing narrative of "getting old before it gets rich"... well there's a certain "make hay while the sun shines" aspect, I think.
General Talking Points
- is it even a problem?
- potential solutions?
- usefulness of projections vs predictions