If we want to replace Canada's current population of 40 million people, and only 3.5 million households are raising kids, each of those households would need to produce nearly 12 children just to break even over time.
SO. A household does not have to look like the nuclear family; in fact, I think it's better for the future if it doesn't. Let's go for cooperative households, cohousing developments, etc. Also, those countries where people are living longer are not going to sit looking at our vacant lands; better we keep bringing them in and work harder at integrating them.
So, I wonder what the demographic breakdown is between rich houses with kids and middle class or working poor houses with kids? Because, just anecdotally, it seems like rich households have fewer kids generally, and that's a shame. I don't know if that's because kids are so expensive (making it harder to BE a rich household if you have lots of kids) or just because urban households seem to be richer than their country peers (scale?). It seems to me we've been throwing the demographic with kids under the bus for a while now though (like since the Industrial Revolution "a while"). From simple but important things like fees on bank accounts under a certain threshold to fewer opportunities for the kids themselves.
Not only do we need to make the household the centre but we also need to upend the way we treat working poor and middle income households if they are going to feel supported in having more kids.
Thanks for the link Judy! I'll watch. It's for sure Japan and S. Korea are leading the decline. And there are dozens of countries looking for solutions. Most of them proving so far that government programs, policies, and departments can't buy or mandate a solution.
No they're not really working as hard as they could on a solution but there's a small group that's actually kind of trying to bring family values back and repopulating the areas which only have mostly seniors now, outside the cities. Re-familying!
There is one significant root problem the entire planet has (in that almost all of our problems can be traced back to it, or largely resolved by mitigating it) and that is overpopulation. What the worlds needs is stability, not growth. Sure, we can selfishly pick one country over another and say, Canada has a shrinking population which "hurts" us, while not talking about the balance where other parts of the world have way too much growth. We all live on one planet, and we need to think globally. Nothing good will come of the global population expanding on it's current trajectory. We all need to work together to bring the world back to balance. There is an interesting book called "The Lives of A Cell" which compares human population growth to cancer. it is quite enlightening when you see that pattern.
But purposeful, generational renewal is not cancer. It’s civilization.
I think we’re talking about different kinds of problems at different scales.
The “overpopulation” argument was built in an era when global fertility rates were high and planetary resources were poorly managed. But that’s not the world we live in anymore. Global fertility is collapsing, not exploding. Nearly 70% of the world now lives in countries with below-replacement fertility.
The overpopulation argument is outdated. The facts no longer support it.
There is no country on Earth with a rising birthrate.
Fertility is declining everywhere—from Canada to China, from Italy to India. Even in Africa, birthrates are falling fast.
The global replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.
Canada is at 1.4.
China is at 1.0.
South Korea is at 0.72—and falling.
Meanwhile, human reproductive lives are short, and generational momentum is hard to reverse. That’s why many scientists and demographers now say the real crisis isn’t overpopulation—it’s population collapse.
The “too many people” framing made sense in the 1970s.
But the world has changed.
We’re not keeping up—with births, with reality, or with what it takes to sustain a nation.
The United Nations Population Division projects that the world will reach 9 billion people in 2037 and 10 billion in 2058. That is growth, and that is too many people. Your argument works if the birthrate is slowly falling or stabilizing, but it is not.
Thanks, Chris—this is an important point, and you’re right to bring up the UN projections.
Yes, the total global population is still growing. But here’s the critical detail those headline numbers often obscure:
That growth is not being driven by births. It’s being driven by people not dying.
The global birthrate is in freefall.
Nearly every country in the world is below replacement fertility—including India, Brazil, China, the U.S., and Canada. Even sub-Saharan Africa, long seen as the last outlier, is now seeing steep declines.
So how can population still be growing?
Because we’re living longer, especially in parts of the world that industrialized earlier.
This creates a lag effect—an illusion of growth—while hiding what demographers are now calling a statistical cliff.
Here’s the hard part: when the baby boomers begin to die in large numbers—as they inevitably will over the next 20–30 years—the cliff will be exposed. Fast.
We’ll see not a gentle decline, but a dramatic, chaotic collapse in population—especially in the working-age population that keeps economies, care systems, and communities functioning.
This isn’t speculative. It’s already happening:
Japan is losing half a million people per year.
China’s population shrank last year for the first time since the Great Famine.
South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in recorded history.
Canada is being buffered—for now—by immigration. But immigration isn’t infinite, and it won’t work if we don’t have households and communities healthy enough to receive and integrate new people.
The real issue isn’t whether growth is good or bad.
It’s this: without generational renewal, no society can function.
We don’t need runaway growth. We need replacement. Sustainability. Continuity.
Because when the age pyramid flips—too few workers, too many dependents—it’s not just an economic problem. It’s a civilizational one.
So yes, global population is still technically rising.
But we’re running up a hill that ends in a cliff.
Having said all that, I hope it remains clear that my argument isn't for more babies and growing populations — it's for more and better households, held in higher regard, with enough babies to have a prosperous, sustainable, and happy society with a good future.
Seems like you’ve discovered Peter Zeihan. He’s been talking about this for years. It seems to be the (un)natural outcome of serving our corporate overlords.
I don't know Peter but I just looked him up and we may be drawing from the same well. I studied Geopolitics at LSE, and I know George Friedman, who he worked for at Stratfor.
He talks mostly about China, Korea, Japan, and Germany. Canada gets only the occasional mention. He regularly predicts the collapse of the Chinese economy and population. Russia is also basically dead to him. That particular thing has been coming since the end of WW2 though, maybe longer. How long can you purge your population and survive as a nation?
SO. A household does not have to look like the nuclear family; in fact, I think it's better for the future if it doesn't. Let's go for cooperative households, cohousing developments, etc. Also, those countries where people are living longer are not going to sit looking at our vacant lands; better we keep bringing them in and work harder at integrating them.
So, I wonder what the demographic breakdown is between rich houses with kids and middle class or working poor houses with kids? Because, just anecdotally, it seems like rich households have fewer kids generally, and that's a shame. I don't know if that's because kids are so expensive (making it harder to BE a rich household if you have lots of kids) or just because urban households seem to be richer than their country peers (scale?). It seems to me we've been throwing the demographic with kids under the bus for a while now though (like since the Industrial Revolution "a while"). From simple but important things like fees on bank accounts under a certain threshold to fewer opportunities for the kids themselves.
Not only do we need to make the household the centre but we also need to upend the way we treat working poor and middle income households if they are going to feel supported in having more kids.
A related perspective...did you see "60 Minutes" last weekend on what Japan is experiencing when it comes to their shrinking population problem. Equally thought-provoking: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-population-decline-60-minutes/
Thanks for the link Judy! I'll watch. It's for sure Japan and S. Korea are leading the decline. And there are dozens of countries looking for solutions. Most of them proving so far that government programs, policies, and departments can't buy or mandate a solution.
No they're not really working as hard as they could on a solution but there's a small group that's actually kind of trying to bring family values back and repopulating the areas which only have mostly seniors now, outside the cities. Re-familying!
There is one significant root problem the entire planet has (in that almost all of our problems can be traced back to it, or largely resolved by mitigating it) and that is overpopulation. What the worlds needs is stability, not growth. Sure, we can selfishly pick one country over another and say, Canada has a shrinking population which "hurts" us, while not talking about the balance where other parts of the world have way too much growth. We all live on one planet, and we need to think globally. Nothing good will come of the global population expanding on it's current trajectory. We all need to work together to bring the world back to balance. There is an interesting book called "The Lives of A Cell" which compares human population growth to cancer. it is quite enlightening when you see that pattern.
You are so right!
Growth for its own sake is bad.
But purposeful, generational renewal is not cancer. It’s civilization.
I think we’re talking about different kinds of problems at different scales.
The “overpopulation” argument was built in an era when global fertility rates were high and planetary resources were poorly managed. But that’s not the world we live in anymore. Global fertility is collapsing, not exploding. Nearly 70% of the world now lives in countries with below-replacement fertility.
The overpopulation argument is outdated. The facts no longer support it.
There is no country on Earth with a rising birthrate.
Fertility is declining everywhere—from Canada to China, from Italy to India. Even in Africa, birthrates are falling fast.
The global replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman.
Canada is at 1.4.
China is at 1.0.
South Korea is at 0.72—and falling.
Meanwhile, human reproductive lives are short, and generational momentum is hard to reverse. That’s why many scientists and demographers now say the real crisis isn’t overpopulation—it’s population collapse.
The “too many people” framing made sense in the 1970s.
But the world has changed.
We’re not keeping up—with births, with reality, or with what it takes to sustain a nation.
The United Nations Population Division projects that the world will reach 9 billion people in 2037 and 10 billion in 2058. That is growth, and that is too many people. Your argument works if the birthrate is slowly falling or stabilizing, but it is not.
Thanks, Chris—this is an important point, and you’re right to bring up the UN projections.
Yes, the total global population is still growing. But here’s the critical detail those headline numbers often obscure:
That growth is not being driven by births. It’s being driven by people not dying.
The global birthrate is in freefall.
Nearly every country in the world is below replacement fertility—including India, Brazil, China, the U.S., and Canada. Even sub-Saharan Africa, long seen as the last outlier, is now seeing steep declines.
So how can population still be growing?
Because we’re living longer, especially in parts of the world that industrialized earlier.
This creates a lag effect—an illusion of growth—while hiding what demographers are now calling a statistical cliff.
Here’s the hard part: when the baby boomers begin to die in large numbers—as they inevitably will over the next 20–30 years—the cliff will be exposed. Fast.
We’ll see not a gentle decline, but a dramatic, chaotic collapse in population—especially in the working-age population that keeps economies, care systems, and communities functioning.
This isn’t speculative. It’s already happening:
Japan is losing half a million people per year.
China’s population shrank last year for the first time since the Great Famine.
South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in recorded history.
Canada is being buffered—for now—by immigration. But immigration isn’t infinite, and it won’t work if we don’t have households and communities healthy enough to receive and integrate new people.
The real issue isn’t whether growth is good or bad.
It’s this: without generational renewal, no society can function.
We don’t need runaway growth. We need replacement. Sustainability. Continuity.
Because when the age pyramid flips—too few workers, too many dependents—it’s not just an economic problem. It’s a civilizational one.
So yes, global population is still technically rising.
But we’re running up a hill that ends in a cliff.
Having said all that, I hope it remains clear that my argument isn't for more babies and growing populations — it's for more and better households, held in higher regard, with enough babies to have a prosperous, sustainable, and happy society with a good future.
Seems like you’ve discovered Peter Zeihan. He’s been talking about this for years. It seems to be the (un)natural outcome of serving our corporate overlords.
I don't know Peter but I just looked him up and we may be drawing from the same well. I studied Geopolitics at LSE, and I know George Friedman, who he worked for at Stratfor.
He talks mostly about China, Korea, Japan, and Germany. Canada gets only the occasional mention. He regularly predicts the collapse of the Chinese economy and population. Russia is also basically dead to him. That particular thing has been coming since the end of WW2 though, maybe longer. How long can you purge your population and survive as a nation?