Topic: How will look the world in 2100? (Read 674 times)

How will the world look like 80 years from now? Well, a lot of thoughts came up in mind that words wouldn't be enough to express. But one thing is for sure, the world is getting much older and natural disasters became more intense because of the people abusing the natural resources in some places. And as the world gets older, it became more high technology driven because of higher intelligence of people that leads health risks due to radiation. A lot where already mentioned here like intense pollutions, severe diseases and terrorism.And I agree with that.
Upon analizing the graph with the most populous countries on that said year, I don't think it would be just like that, (though im really not an experts in reading graphs)because a lot of things that we cannot control might happen. Again, as the world gets older, the people become more wiser that causes trouble with their intellectual beliefs and may tend to create something unusual that may harm or destroy the world's economy and the people just for their greedy intensions to be on top 😠😷
So, for me, I would just be happy having reach this year being alive amidst of this Pandemic. We cannot predict everything in this world. And we do not know yet, what the future holds for us. Stay safe 💕

what do we think? The fact is that there are a lot of thoughts and you cannot convey all of them in one message. For example, I will say this: I live in Ukraine and 20 years ago we had every winter with a sufficient amount of snow and frost, and recently, every year there is practically no snow, only rains and freezing temperatures. And in summer there is a continuous drought. A lot of fruits that were imported into the country from abroad can already be grown here. the climate is changing very quickly and the disaster is very close. the forecast up to 2100 can only be made negative. it is a pity that we will leave our children and grandchildren a ruined planet.

an unreasonable thing I don't know about the future, because I am not a human being of the future.
I guess the earth to reach 2100 will not know but the conclusions of the earth is old. And now it has reached 4.5 M is not very short right? the earth is already full of burdens and is starting to get out of balance with the contents of the devastated population - the severe damage that humans make for business.energy sources are starting to disappear..
what do you think?

scientists are not God so many of their predictions are missed but the predictions they make are that we (humans) have to anticipate things that are likely to happen in the future..  I still remember what a great philanthropist said "we should not underestimate the slightest prediction"..

corruption will continue even though this "PANDEMIC" does not exist.  before our outdated transaction system is updated, corruption will continue to run rampant and difficult to stop.  greedy people who are hungry for power, money, and position will certainly increasingly use this "PANDEMIC" moment to enrich themselves..

Isn't that too far away? If the world we know it will even exist by then.
I think that we could have learned from this pandemic how easily things can change and that sometimes big plans for the future make no sense.
Usually I'm an optimist but having in mind current situation and how human race behaves towards this world and each other I don't think that we have a bright future and in 2100 could be much, much worse if this planet makes to survive.

Maybe it won't exist? Maybe people who are born right now would live in another planet? Who could know that. I mean right now we are doing a lot of space related inventions and spaceX is doing the heavy lifting yet other parties are doing something as well and we are talking about Mars a lot more these days.

There used to be water there and something went wrong, who knows when we go there and actually have people there maybe one day we will realize that there was a civilization there deeply buried in it because let's face it the universe is billions of years old and even if there was a small civilization that is probably buried deep deep inside of mars so it takes a lot more than a robot taking pictures to realize that.

Basically what I am saying is in 2100 world might not be our world, it could be mars that we all live in (well I would be dead obviously).

I also think that the picture was all about the economy also. I ignore writings above the picture then I wonder why India was the leading country.
Well 2100 is very far from today. I really hope I am still alive during that year. Future depends today, if we people kept doing not a friendly thing so let us expect that there will be heavy natural calamities, this kind of pandemic is also possible to happen again. Still, prevention is better than cure

It's way to far to predict, we might not alive by that time. There are too many things that can happen and there are too many discoveries that might discover. Cryptocurrency can be more useful than they are now and many believes in it that they do now. Blockchain can play a big role in the next generations but that will only possible if many will still continue to develop and accept it now. No one imagined having coronavirus it, are we going to live this virus until 2100? There are many questions but we're all unsure until things happen.

What is that opinion based on?


We're getting sidetracked here. I'm not particularly concerned about a "gray goo" type scenario where robots take over the world.

My concern is that AI might progress enough to displace white collar and professional workers (not to mention the effects of automation on unskilled workers) en masse. This presents the problem of an inadequate labor market that can't meet the economic needs of society.

I don't really care what Elon Musk says anyway. I'm more interested in whether Tesla is cooking their books than what his thoughts on AI are.

AI domination is just a myth. Elon Musk himself said if AI starts speaking their own language then we humans will always have an option to shut them down since we hold the main power switch with us.

Let us not get tingling thoughts from the movies (Terminator etc.) since they are far too stretched. We do have one of the example where AI went rogue and we simply turned them off! The Facebook Chatbot! Which created their own language to communicate with each other. I guess we had it under control without any trouble.

So, AI will only overcome the world if we start implanting the chips in human brains! Since human can't be trusted. 

schools will turn into senior care facilities. There will be more senior and little to no kids by 2100

I suppose people will overpopulate the planet and we'll have to move onto some other planet and colonize it.
I don't think earth will look pretty by any means in the next 80 years.
I hope we'll still be alive and humanity won't extinct

In the world generally, people are now giving birth to children they can feed. Nobody wants to have children more than their budget nowadays.
The economic meltdown of the world, more especially in African, Nigeria precisely, is making the youths not to marry when they suppose to, due to the level of unemployment rate in the country. Those that are married are not having more than four children.
By 2100, Nigeria population won't increase tremendously as claimed, rather it will decline

Yes things will change for better once the pandemic is controlled but there is a bigger challenge named corruption which is worst than COVID as you see what's happening in most of the African nations as well as once prosperous nations like Libya and Lebanon as corruption has taken over the who nation and they are controlled by few elites who controls the entire economy of nation and led it to choas for their own greed. People need to wake up and realise that corruption needs to stop.

Yes, in the end, we hope that everything returns to normal as it was, but no one knows how long this will take, what I meant is that these studies are completely inaccurate due to the emergency disasters that occur between the period and the other and no one can expect.
Of course, this does not mean that scientists stop researching and studying and comparing the past to the present to plan for the future because this is their duty towards humanity because through these future studies governments can plan for what they need or face challenges in the future.

I think the world in 2100 will become less populated because of a huge number of death now caused by the pandemic. The economy of every country will recover slowly and those country in your graph may not be followed because US nation will do everything to recover and sustain their economy at the top among other countries. It is not depends on the number of population but on how to manage the economy after the pandemic.

the predictions that are issued are definitely not haphazard, scientists must make comparisons from the past and present then consult with anthropologists to decide what changes will occur in humans in the future..  apart from the chaos that is happening right now (war and disease outbreaks), in the end, everything will return to normal, for example this "Pandemic" which is happening right now, will definitely end until the best treatment is found, the world will return to passionate and life will return to normal as usual in each area..

I don't think that addresses the fundamental issue. Regarding the labor market, the cream will always rise to the top. That doesn't mean huge chunks of society won't be left behind by automation.

Optimists mock these worries with comparisons to the Luddites. Like Keynesians, they think our economies are guaranteed to have perpetual growth that will always create enough jobs to compensate for automation.

To those people, I'd say first, read this article: Luddites have been getting a bad rap for 200 years. But, turns out, they were right

I think AI presents a more dangerous threat than the Luddites ever knew. We're not just talking about replacing some low-skilled manual laborers anymore. It's possible that large chunks of professionals, white collar workers, creatives, etc. will become redundant as well.

I just don't know if this situation is sustainable without serious and deep market interventions.

The data that you use right now will not be compatible with the future because there will be so many things that can happen in the future, which is not relevant. The data will be the data without we know what will happen in the future. If you say that will be a way to prevent the worst thing that might happen in the future, I think we can do something from now, so we can avoid that. For example, if we don't want to have another worst experience like Covid-19, we must take care of our health from now on, we must have a healthy life and consume healthy food.

The population will continue to grow and I have to agree that China and India will place on top considering their land area and their current population. This assumption can happen, but no one knows what's the future of humanity after this pandemic and after all the tragedy we're experiencing right now.

I'm more curious about our future in the next 5 years and how the affected countries will rise again considering that we are on a major recession. I'm still optimistic that the future of my family and children will not be in danger because I know people learned a lot from this pandemic and hoping as well that we start living good and protect the nature at all cost.

People live in hope This year the virus has caused a lot of damage in the world By 2021, people will have to go through many difficult challenges There is a danger of running out of oil gas and drinking water With natural disasters. But hopefully people will get an improved vaccine at this time People can have unexpected success in dealing with the disease The average life expectancy of a person can increase to around 60 years The infant mortality rate will be greatly reduced.

Artificial intelligence technology will be in the hands of people by 2021. Researchers believe that the development of artificial intelligence will be able to completely change the nature of human civilization.

Nice study, but I think it is largely theoretical and unrealistic, because there are a lot of unexpected things that can happen and change everything, for example the Corona virus that is circulating in the world now no one expected to happen and has led to major human and economic changes .
Another issue that has not been taken into consideration is wars and forced migration that occur due to wars, as happened in Syria, for example, and which led to a large mass migration to Europe and the world.
One last thing, though, is that no one can predict it, but it can happen and can change everything, which is the emergence of a third world war, which many people warn of and if it happens it will lead to major changes in the economy, climate, population and even politics.

We can only make presumption on things that are going to happen in the future based on what we are experiencing now.
But, the truth still remains that we can’t predict the future, though it’s good that we don’t neglect the things that are happening around us now, because in some ways the data we have can help us make the right decisions.

It’s just like this pandemic, if last year or two years anyone was told that there is going to be a pandemic that will come out and start killing people, nobody would have believed that. Well, here we are and that’s what’s happening today.

Some people are saying the highly populated nations will build their economy stronger whereas some others are speculating possible collapse just because dense population. China is world second largest country in area hence they are good with largest population whereas India is world only 8th largest country in area and when it becomes highly populated then its economy may not grow like China.

There are other emerging technologies which are leveraging on blockchain and hoping to be at the top level with blockchain, electrical cars and other safer technology to reduce the impact of social pollution and help boost the human immune system and expand lifespan further. If human beings live more and age more; the adoption of blockchain is a sure way of expanding its growth across all sectors of the human economy.


In the case of biodiversity and conservation ecosystem would be safer for the organisms that produce needed nutrients for food production and starvation would defeated to a minimal extent. My predictions, actually.

Don't get me wrong guys, I also think that AI domination would be possible but happening only for the next 80 years? Hmmm, I highly doubt. I still do believe that our world will run mainly by manpower at least in the near future. I don't know if I'm the only one feeling this but I think the pace of technological changes are not so fast. How ironic that smartphone and other gadgets are updating its specs every couple of months but problems on public transportation on many countries seems never ending (like here). That is just only one of the examples we can think of. IMHO what's happening is that men are really crazy on improving the leisure part of living but slow on fulfilling the basic needs. Unlike Japan which is now living in the year 2030 lmao (just kidding).

My own insight regarding this topic is this.. The rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. Money is power. If you don't have it, you lose .

It could be said that labor-intensive industries are no longer relevant in the industrial revolution 4.0. unfortunately, many countries are too late to anticipate this transition. In the future, repetitive jobs are easily replaced by robots and affected by automation. So the nature of technology 4.0 is a disruptive technology.

Only a few countries have technology-based basic education. To face competition with robots, education is needed that focuses on developing emotional intelligence, not only sharpening intelligence quotient. We will lose if competing IQ with robots. Jobs and memorizing knowledge can be replaced by AI. Human skills that are not easily replaced by empathy, creativity, and analytical expertise on complex problems. We must be able to educate humans who are not only memorizing, doing manual work but who are able to do analytical work, creativity, a complex problem solving, this can be done by humans through brain and heart interaction.


In the world of capitalism, if you want to survive, job seekers and opportunity seekers must be able to read what the market wants. The closest to the job provider criteria, which will survive.

This process has already begun, and unfortunately for people it will not stop because making a profit is always in the first place. Take Hungary for example, their economy grew by about 5% last year and their industry lost 23 000 jobs. Predictions say that due to the robotization of production, the country will lose about 200 000 jobs in the next 10 years.

I know of many examples where production systems in factories are 90% automated, and owners are thrilled because robots are very profitable in the long run, do not go on vacation, sick leave or seek an increase in their labor rights. I think that the automation of production facilities will greatly affect not only the poor, but also the entire pension system, which is already in crisis if we see that people are being forced to work longer - that is, trying to implement policies from work to the cemetery.

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/robots-replace-human-workers-in-eastern-europe/5328102.html

Under the current economic paradigm, yes.

The rationale for capitalism as an acceptable system hinges on it sustaining the working population. If it can't even do that, political momentum will build behind something else. If you don't feed the people, they will riot.

The peaceful route is a system like UBI, where a stipend would provide for basic necessities, funded for by corporate taxes. The other route is a revolution of sorts.

Before 2100 we must have had many changes in our economy and blockchain technology will be adopted in all faces of life. I seeing this technology ruling many generations as the world may not have best technology than it. It is most secure, reliable ways of safe, transmit and using information.

That's really what I hate in a concept where robots will dominate our purposes here in this world. In 2100, if we engaged in super futuristic technologies, probably humans will have a hard time to live for themselves. We are lucky enough to live in this year 2020 even though there's a pandemic that we are experiencing, at least, we can still work for ourselves. Imagine those people who would live in year 2100, that's a huge struggle for them. AI takeover can soon happen once we don't give importance to a human labor in that year. There are a lot of possibilities so that we should become more mindful about our inventions. We should focus on a human importance so that people will not have a hard time working for their own survival.

No one knows. This is the simple answer. Honestly, no one can predict how the world will look like tomorrow which is why these predictions and statistics are pointless based on a wide array of assumptions and observations.

Our planet could get get screwed completely thanks to meteors or global warming or multiple pandemics etc which is why thinking about 2100 is out of the question.

The present matters the most if you ask me. The past and future do matter a lot obviously, but the present should be our primary focus. The proper question should be 'How is the world today?'.

Actually, this is one of the scarier possibilities to me. You can think of job automation as a way of fixing labor shortages. Another way to think of them: there will be fewer and fewer jobs for humans. Without a major expansion UBI or similar welfare programs, and/or some kind of transition to socialization or cooperative ownership of private property, this could be catastrophic for the world's poor.

In a capitalist economy, how are humans supposed to sustain themselves when there aren't enough jobs to go around?

With all of these projections flying here and there, if there is anything Coronavirus have taught us is that plans and projections can be derailed and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Whoever thoughts that 2020 would be like this no one saw it coming but here we are. For me 2100 is still a long way to go and who knows maybe we would have moved to the moon or maybe the population of the world would have reduced drastically with several issues we are still battling with. There is still trade war going on, threat of nuclear power from countries, climate change is another factor.

Those that would be here in 2100 should take care of their projections. It's not as if government would start planning towards that.

You do realize that governmental affects and boundaries do happen and that is why some stuff slow down right? I mean India is not a super rich country, sure there are worse countries in the world but it can't survive on 1.5 billion for too long, most of the time when nations reach that point they start to go down.

Look at china for example and their child situation, that is why they are going down and will probably go down even faster with that rule, maybe India will put that too? Or Nigeria going up that much thanks to better economical situation but at around 733 million? That is not going to be reached at all. All of these numbers are probably calculated on "if everything continues like this, this will be the result" but I do not think everything will continue like that.

Will this be a reason for world government to minimize future threats? The biggest threat to planet Earth is extinction and thats for sure.

Its scary but human are the most blamed species and must be responsible for what happen on earth. About mars, I dont think it would be the right place for the human species if the earth was doomed and I didnt even know where the right place was for the human species at that time.

I'm not a bit surprised with the projection of Nigeria's population as it is predicted to become the second most populous nation in the world in the next 80 years after India. 2021 is still a very long walk to do, Nigeria is faced with a lot of economic crises, insecurities and many other social vices killing people and rendering the projection almost impossible. A lot can still be fixed withing this time frame and we hope it becomes a fiscal reality.

Regardless Nigerians have high libidos and they are very fertile  when it comes to childbirth; very hardworking people and are working relentlessly everyday to put food on the tables of the children they birth.

Nowadays, every country is economically strong in the extent to which it invests in its people, ie in their education and in creating an entrepreneurial climate in which these people realize their ideas. Countries facing the challenge of losing population in a way lose not only the ability to have a strong economy, but also to become vulnerable in defending their borders and preserving their identity.

However, in the future, most hard work will be done by robots (which we can see today), so perhaps the consequences for the economy in terms of labor shortages will not be as pronounced as today.


Planet Earth, at least in terms of resource consumption, is already very dangerously endangered today because we spend much more in one year than the earth can realistically produce in order to maintain balance. The problem here is not in the overpopulation, but in the unequal distribution of resources in the form of food, technology and wealth in general. If 10% of the population controls 90% of resources and wealth, then they are a problem that not only destroys people as a species, but also their environment. Unfortunately, humans are the only species of living beings that consciously destroy the place where they live, perhaps because some rich people think that one day they will live on Mars anyway.

My comment about people having avenues for self-indulgence isn't gender specific actually. What i meant is that men and women today have a lot else to do than follow a set pattern of getting married and settling down with a bunch of kids. Many people want to forego marriage entirely and maybe "explore" the world, follow their passion and what not. This is a typical sentiment for a lot of people in the recent middle class, living in metros in developing countries at least. Ditto for women not wanting to tie down careers multiple times for the pregnancy and early-rearing period. All these things are much more simplified in the bigger households of poorer countries.

Interesting talk.

I think there is one more branch that could come out in this discussion. The rise of A.I., decreased reproduction rate, increased immortality rates etc. Yes the last one is not misspelled. With the current increased advancements in the IT sector and mechanical industries we may have robotic surgeons, cancer healing power and sense of healthy life.

We talking about 80 years from now! When we had engines running on steam and thought of the future we made them run on electric current and beyond.

In similar way just imagine the growth of these sectors from 80 years onwards!

It could happen all above theories might just become obsolete, people may stop reproducing due to increased life span. Or may have sense of having single child for inheritance and stuff.

The whole world might just unite together with one united leadership and protocols to live life happily. So this may happen population may not grow but decline drastically, climate will flourish to it's old age era, breathable, pure oxygen, purest water. All leading to sustained life time.

So no predictions, which country will cross which in terms of population.

It's not as easy as saying that women don't want children because they are lazy and prefer to spend money on pretty things instead of changing diapers.
The problem in developed countries is that everything is expensive and forces people to spend a large portion of their income on bills. If you compare a country like Nigeria, where people dig a hole in the ground behind the house and burn their garbage in it, don't have to buy winter clothes or heat the house, often barbecue or cook in wood fired ovens, to a typical western city, where you have to pay for everything, even for parking your car. The western society is based on taxes and fees on every step and it forces both parents to work, which is why most couples choose to have a single child.

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/