Topic: How will look the world in 2100? - page 3. (Read 640 times)

These demographics are simply based on the fact that the fertility rates in most developed countries have kept falling. Somehow, as people find more and more avenues for self-indulgence, they want to have lesser children. In a lot of societies, this is also being seen as an outcome of the changing role of women. The replacement fertility rate to keep the population from falling is 2.1. In developed societies, the effect that growing up a kid can have is forcing mothers to opt for lesser children. The constant competition ensures that lot of women see this as a trade-off for careers (one which they are expected to take for the family).

The developing countries and mostly African countries are at a level where the main purpose of women is still to give birth to children. Its not uncommon to have families with 4-5 children. India doesn't seem to have that same issue as most families opt for a maximum 2 children. The problem is that a vast majority is still economically weaker and they may still see it has more hands for work.

So, this is possibly bound to happen. We may also see a lot more immigration from African countries once the world passes through the current cycle of xenophobia and majoritarianism. That will also be a time of reckoning for the world to actually find ways to tackle the race issue in a much more dignified manner.

Summer temperatures in the US will keep rising, and much of the western and central US will see a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves. By 2100, extreme heat days that typically happened once every 20 years are projected to occur every few years.



https://i.insider.com/5c990c8c86291350f07f8b35?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

In 2100, Sergeant Dornan will scold recruits for the loss of an expensive set of Mk2 power armor, because after a nuclear war between China, the United States and Russia, only a radioactive wasteland will remain.

You do realize that such forecasts are like fighting the sea? People in the 70s thought about flying cars and life on Mars but only got Tik Tok and children who can't decide at 20 who they want to become.
This makes me sick...

I have a feeling that projection is exaggerated. China just recently lifted its notorious one-child policy, and is now talking about allowing more than two children per family too. I'd give it a few years to see if there is a spike in the birth rate that reverses the trend.

China and Europe have rapidly aging populations. It's hard to say exactly how this will transform things, but the effects will be significant I am sure. Working age people as a percentage of the population will be significantly smaller, which does not bode well for welfare programs.

Demographic resilience is indeed the most crucial factor of national resilience considering its complexity and problems. The demographic transition taking place in the world is the long-term effect of government policies governing birth and death rates. "What is the meaning of a country without people?" which changed to "What is the meaning of a country without people in sufficient numbers in the future?" However, cultural, social and economic evolution made drastic changes in how the world's population views its reproductive function.

Decreasing birth rates will actually be experienced by many countries because the more advanced the technology of providing information and education will be more easily spread. The main factor decreasing the number of births is due to the increasing level of education of women and the more who work to pursue a career as a benchmark of existence, as well as the ease of accessing contraception, so women prefer to have fewer children besides considering financial incapacity to raise children.

Whereas the declining birth rate in China is the long-term effect of birth control policies in 1970, previously one family of one child and legalizing selective abortion. Family successors in China are boys, so there are fewer women in China than men. Although since 2015 the control of one child has been changed to two children because the population of parents in China has been too much than the existing birth. So if the parents die, and the number of children in China is very small, then China will experience regeneration problems that threaten its existence as a big country. The purpose of birth and death control is for the survival of the nation. The population is the economic foundation for both labor and consumers, and the successor to the progress of a country. The economy of developed countries that are already solid will end up as mere pieces of civilization if there are no generations to continue.

Of the top 10 most populous countries in the world, less than half of which made it to the top 10 richest countries. And of the top 10 countries in the world with the highest GDP per Capita, there is not a single country which made it there from the top 10 most populous countries.

And so I conclude that it is not really the demography that primarily determines a country's economy in these modern times. Rich countries with low labor force could easily import the same from populous countries.

It would be a combination of rich natural resources, the advancement of technology, the viability for businesses and investments, and so on and so forth which makes a country rich.


I fervently share this hope with you. We happened to have picked the better circumstances in this existential lottery. I hope that come 2100 there won't be a single person who dies of hunger.

There is actually a significance between the population and the economy of a country, the Chinese utilized the increased population in increasing their productivity and with that they were still able to cope, many of the young one must have learnt how to produce either electronics, fabrics.... But in my country, the increasing population is not having a positive effect on our economy, we spend most time going to school and looking for jobs and add very little to the country's production.

Even today we have a lot of countries that have a fraction of the population of, let's say Russia, while having a much bigger economy than them. Demographics are interesting on their own, but they are just one detail of an economic analysis, and it would be wrong to rely solely on it.

I honestly think that making projections into a such far future isn't really useful, way too many things can change.


This will be a huge factor, if life will become unbearable in certain regions, it will have a huge demographic impact, that might be even felt in other regions due to huge immigration.


Agree completely, we live in some of the most peaceful and prosperous times, it's just that the social and mainstream media dramatize things too much. People need to learn to value what they have.

Nations with small population would still have very slow development and poor economies in the future if they do not fix that now; you take Africa as an example, most of the countries there are not so well populated, with just one country from Africa in the top ten most populous countries, but it's still ranked as the poorest continent in the world, in contrast to countries in Asia, like China and then we have the United States, two of the most populous, but they have the best economies in the world.

The state of the population can play a part in the future in terms of what the government provides going round/getting to almost everyone, but what's paramount is if countries are making progressive plans for the future and putting structures in place for the next half century and beyond, whether so populated or less.

This analyzes starts from the principle educated people (in better financial condition) tend to reproduce less than uneducated poor people.
As chinese population standards are increasing faster they tend to have less children on long run, going through the same way europeans are. This will open a gap for african countries overcome other continents countries in population terms.

Personally I disagree on this, because we can't predict 80 years from now. Many situations can happen anytime futurely that will influence the development of these countries and their populations living standards.

I don't think population growth would continue as projected by those graphs. As more and more people are competing for livable space, the lesser area for food products and other basic necessities would be available. I know that scientists are into GMO products and other synthetic approach to solve the food problem but I think that in itself would be insufficient given that governments' focus does not really cover much for food allocation and resources. The problem is there, and governments know and acknowledge it, but the solutions are still on the drawing board and no one dare touches it to jumpstart whatever the solution is.

See the current problem in pandemics? Scientists were aware at the rise of a new virus that could turn into a full-blown global crisis. No one really bothered to look deeper into it and here we are 12 years later. The thing is, we always have the budget to do things right, but we set our goals on the opposite directions and ask what went wrong. If basic support for citizens that are unable to do shit for a living isn't there, I don't think that the population would even get old enough to do some basic manpower stuff.

Also, if we keep electing power-hungry leaders in the public office, we will most likely see instability in geopolitics that could lead to more tensions and a possibility of a war (which I hope does not happen ever again). It's not just reliant on the capability of the population to reproduce, it's also on the capability of the government to support the growing population and to find solutions to problems related to it. Nations with small populations in the future would likely progress even faster than other countries inhabited by larger numbers, as the necessities and other services would be provided by the government easily, and if the population is contented with how the government runs things, you might even see a workforce that is always motivated to do things in a timely and efficient manner, leading to growth in industries and the economy as well.

The rise in Nigeria and other African nations is likely due to the higher fertility rate in these regions. Most of the economies here are emerging and developing, reflecting in their societies, so there is a slower spread of contraceptive usage as well as family planning education. So while the global rate is declining, some regions are dropping slower than others. Below is a graph of the global fertility rate from 1950-2020;

A lot could happen between now and 80 years, with diseases, natural disasters, birth rate policies, food production rate etc. But if the current path continues most developing countries would be faced with a rapid population increase in the coming years. While developed nations will be faced with a problem of a too low population growth.

I saw this a few days ago.

I jsut disagree. Dictatorships and socialist countries never were able to out passe capitalism societies. India, China, Russia, will not keep growing.

Many economists aroudn the world said URSS would be nubmer #1 by 1970... you can see where it went. 

I thought that the statistics above is for booming of economy but when I read the paragraph, I saw that it projected the most populous countries in the world by 2100. I am not really familiar with demography but I think that earth would be less populated in 2100. Why?

Because as of now, we are encountering already the ff:
- Natural disasters or pandemic
- Laws such as reproductive health bill / family planning
- Inventions of pills/condoms
- Warfare or terrorism
- Pollution / Diseases

What more in 2100? We expect that it would be more intense.

---

The theory of population by Thomas Malthus have been discussed in his Essay on the principle of population, that the population growth potentially exponential while the growth of resources is additional. It means that overpopulation will drain the resources of earth and if it continuously consumes by the people, earth may disrupt.

So, to prevent this disastrous event in the future. Probably, future generations will come up to a strong depopulation or control the exponential growth of mankind. If that statistics above will happen, it will be a big problem for third world countries to solve the issue of overpopulation.

But who knows? By 2100, African countries such as Nigeria becomes 1st world country because of its resources. They might solve famines and poverties by that time. We can`t estimate what may goes on by that period.

The most beautiful and fulfilling things that we can do today is to be happy and contented. By 2100, I know that most of us here are dying or dead. And what will happen to the next generations are not scope of our limitations.

If someone asked you what would happen to the world in some 80 years and what it would look like, you could probably hardly accept that some things (at least according to scientific research) would change dramatically. I am primarily thinking of demographics, which should be the backbone of any economy, because if you do not have able-bodied people, you do not have production that creates added value and provides an adequate tax policy and pension system. If we look at the following infographic and consider that scientists are right (at least to some extent), then the world will really look different in 2100.


China and India should change places, but according to these projections, China should lose almost 400 million people. However, what attracts the most attention is Nigeria, which from the current 200+ million in 80 years should become the third most populous country in the world with over 700+ million people. But it is also very interesting that currently in the top 10 most populous countries we have only one African country, and that 2100 that number will increase to as many as 5 countries.

On the other hand, most European countries will record a drastic decline in their population, which is already visible today when Western Europe attracts people to immigrate and stay permanently in these areas. Consequently, it can be assumed that drastic changes await us in terms of large-scale migration from the African continent to the north.


We should not forget the climate change, which is almost inevitable, which will certainly make the whole situation even more complicated, because due to the increase in temperature, food production will be an increasing challenge, extremely dry summers and strong storms accompanied by hail are a reality today.

I would love for the world to be a much better place in 2100, but from today’s perspective we may consider ourselves lucky to live in somewhat normal circumstances despite the occasional challenges that arise from time to time.

https://citi.io/2020/01/12/in-2100-these-10-countries-will-emerge-as-the-largest/