Is The Human Race Doomed? Deutsche Bank On "One The Most Important (Future) Turning Points In History"

Tyler Durden's picture

Discussing population dynamics in elite (or is that elitist, let's just call it Wall Street) circles has always had an aura of taboo about it, due to the inevitable degeneration of any conversation into Malthusian rhetoric, especially if one of the speakers had had a little too much to drink. And for better or worse, name-dropping Malthus does not garner brownie points, nor will it lead to another horrendous straight to HBO faux morality tale about this or that. That stigma, however (and luckily) has not prevented Deutsche Bank's Sanjeev Sanyal (yes, there are people at DB who do think originally and whose day is not taken up by trips to and fro Englewood Cliffs) from penning a must read macro analysis titled "The End of Population Growth" which we will discuss more in depth shortly, but wanted to bring readers' attention to one particular chart: namely that comparing world fertility rates in 1950-1955 and 2010-2015. The surprising implication of the below chart leads Sanyal to declare that the period set to begin in just 10 years "will be one of the most important turning points in history" simply because: "the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing." And since global reproduction will not be net additive, it will be net subtractive... and on a long-enough timeline the world's population will drop to zero...

From Deutsche Bank:

Some fascinating clarification:

A theme that is common to the latest census data for almost all countries is that population growth is slowing for almost all countries. The population growth rate of the United States during the decade of 2000-2010 was 0.9% per annum, down from 1.2% during the nineties. In comparison, Japan and Germany saw almost zero population growth during the last decade. Nonetheless, it is the emerging economies that have seen the most dramatic deceleration in population growth. China saw its population growth rate fall to 0.56% per annum over the last decade compared to a rate of around 1% in the nineties and over 2% in the sixties and early seventies. Similarly, India’s population growth rate fell to 1.6% from a peak of 2.3% in the seventies. The growth rate for the last decade in Brazil was 1.1% and for Russia minus 0.4%. Note that these are averages for the last decade and the current pace is significantly lower in almost all cases.

At its simplest, demographic dynamics is about the relative relationship between birth rates and death rates. Typically, death rates fall first as people live longer due to improvements in nutrition, public health, medicine and so on. Birth rates fall more slowly when social attitudes gradually change, especially for women. The chronological gap between the two rates causes a population boom. Over time, however, the birth rate catches up and, in most developed countries, keeps falling past the level required to stabilize population. As being witnessed now in Japan, the population then ages rapidly and shrinks in size.

Let us look at how this cycle played itself out over the last two hundred years. For most of history, the years of life expected at birth were around 24-28years. This began to change in Europe from the late eighteenth century. By 1820, life expectation in the United States and many Western European countries has drifted up to 37-40 years range. It then drifted up to the 47-50 years range by 1900 and further to 65-70 years range by 1950. In contrast, the life expectancy in India and China barely budged from the pre-industrial equilibrium till well into the twentieth century. In 1950, China had a life expectation of 41 years and it may have been as low as 38 years in India. They now stand at around 74 and 65 years respectively. Both have some more scope for improvement as life expectancy is now in the late seventies or early eighties in most developed countries.

The decline in birth rates also began in Western Europe at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Many interrelated changes affected this – urbanization, attitudes, aspirations, literacy, female work participation and so on. France was the first place where this change took place. The number of births per 100 population dropped from 3.2 in 1820 to 2.2 in 1900. Other Western Europeans followed soon. Today, the birth rate per  100 stands at around 1 for most Western European countries. The United States had a much higher starting point and, despite sharp declines, still has a level higher than for most developed countries. In contrast, Japan had a relatively high birth rate of 3.24 in 1900 but now is at a mere 0.75 –  one of the lowest in the world.

One useful way to think about trends in birth rates is to look at what is called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). This is the average number of live births per woman over her lifetime. It is usually estimated by sampling women of child bearing age (usually defined as 15-44 years). In the long run, a population is said to be stable if the TFR is at the “replacement rate”. This is usually said to be 2.1 births per woman but in reality only developed countries can hope to keep their population stable with such a level. For developing countries, the required replacement rate is much higher because factors such as infant mortality and maternal deaths at childbirth. Thus, the replacement level of TFR is a little above 2.3 for the world as a whole.

The TFR for most developed countries now stands well below replacement levels. The OECD average is at around 1.74 but there are countries like Germany and Japan that produce less than 1.4 children per woman 5. According to the OECD’s latest estimates, South Korea has a TFR of barely 1.15 – a level that foretells rapid aging and a sharp decline in population from the 2020s. However, the biggest TFR declines in recent years have been in emerging economies. According to the UN’s population division, the TFR in China and India were 6.1 and 5.9 respectively in 1950. The ratio has now fallen to 1.8 in China due to the aggressive one-child policy and to 2.6 in India due to a steady change in social attitudes. Similarly, Brazil’s TFR has fallen to 1.7 from 6.2 in 1950. These are large declines but there is reason to believe that the underlying dynamics are driving actual birth rates down even faster than suggested by the headline TFR.

China and, to lesser extent, India have skewed gender ratios. The Chinese census suggests that there are 118.6 boys being born for every 100 girls, worsening from 116.9 in 2000. Similarly, India has a gender ratio at birth of around 110 boys for every 100 girls with large regional variations. Compare this with the “natural” ratio of 105 boys per 100 girls (notice that even the natural ratio is not exactly 1:1). A cultural preference for boys is usually held responsible for the deviation. Since it is women who give birth and not men, the future scarcity of women implies that the effective reproductive capacity for both countries is below what is suggested by the unadjusted TFR reading. After making the adjustment for the gender imbalance, China’s Effective Fertility Rate (EFR) is around 1.5 while that for India is around 2.45 – both below what is widely discussed. In other words, the Chinese are already far from replacing themselves while the Indians are only slightly above the replacement rate.

If we make the same adjustment for the world’s fertility rate, we now have an EFR of around 2.4 which is almost at the replacement rate. In our view, the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing. This will be one of the most important turning points in history.

Much more shortly

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Crisismode's picture

Genome, bitchez!

Hugh G Rection's picture

Looks like the great culling missed a spot

redpill's picture

Fire up them cloning vats!

Ahmeexnal's picture

Ah-nold is contributing to increase the fertility rate in Cali.

silberblick's picture

Not sure if the human race is doomed, but Obama may be. Black social activist and university professor Cornel West calls out Obama as being a part of the oligarchy and challenges Americans to rise up like people in Europe and the Middle East are doing. Maybe this will save the human race?? Read here:

http://redpillfactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/cornel-west-calls-out-obama.html

zaknick's picture

"Deutche Bank" us a front for the Warburgs (Rothschild lackeys). They bought Bankers Trust (TGE Banksters Trust). Involved in 911 and every other genocidal scam.

nope-1004's picture

Tyler:

Good article.  No where have I read the truth, that is, that there are ALWAYS more males born in every species than females.  Everyone seems to think it's 50/50.

Just one point to add:  If you look at death rates among aged 55+, you will see that more women die than men.  The reason is that the male in most species is supposed to "fight" and defend the family, causing them to behave in much more aggressive nature.  Men also are the majority in wars.  Also, boys aged 15-24 egage in riskier activities.  So although more males are born than females, there are more females living at older ages due to differential mortality.  Men act in ways that put them more at risk to dying young, which is why most species have evolved to have a male slanted birth rate.

Gotta love nature.

 

forexskin's picture

And since global reproduction will not be net additive, it will be net subtractive... and on a long-enough timeline the world's population will drop to zero...

really sounds like someone is trying to get the eco-nazis excited...

 

mkkby's picture

Tyler was joking with that comment.

Peak energy, commodities and debt will all work together to drastically raise the cost of living.  So I think over the coming decades the trend will point even more steeply downward.  The long term sustainable population may be under 2 billion, which is the number of people currently earning over $10 per day now.  Everyone else will be priced out of life's necessities.

FEDbuster's picture

Who's going to pay for my Social Security?  The Ponzi needs new people to pay for the older ones, so all you under 40 couples out there, "start reproducing".

forexskin's picture

ummm, my response was joking too.

thanks for being wise enough to point out the obvious to the resident idiot here...

Absinthe Minded's picture

Quadruplicate! Jeez the fuckin'servers are slow tonight, aren't you guys supposed to be watching Dancin' with the Idles or something.

nmewn's picture

Well, at least someone is reproducing ;-)

Milestones's picture

Informative post. Thank you.       Milestones

TheTmfreak's picture

Ok I'll accept that "it will show a different trend than before." But human history doomed? Thats the most sensational assumption ever. Perhaps it would be better to say "The largest number of humans living on the globe ever, will be reduced, with no guarantees of a constant decline thereafter." Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed. As with any organism. I deny there is some sort of "actual limit" considering "better use of resources" and or innovations could completely negate statements about population limits, particularly by 2020. Sure perhaps with our current "technology" and path of a maximum limit could be reached.

Doomed? Please.

l1xx3r's picture

I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity. You could correlate the losing of freedoms, with the lowering of the birth rate very well. It might not be causation, but most animals do not breed well in captivity, why not humans too?

 

Rodent Freikorps's picture

I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity.

You must be a public school graduate. Ever heard of slavery? They breed quite well. Populations decrease in good times due to love of self.

The worst thing that can happen to a population is it finds itself rich and self-absorbed.

mophead's picture

"Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed."

I hate to differ with you. Last time I checked, dogs, geese, wales and other organisms aren't having to spend ridiculous amounts of money on health "insurance". Do you know how much it costs to bring a baby into this world?

Ratscam's picture

bringing it into this world is easy and mostly costless, however bringing it up roughly cost you 800K for the first child in CH, the second comes at a discount of 600K and these are 2005 figures. still want kids?

A Nanny Moose's picture

It's up to you to figure out how to turn your rugrats into a positive sum game.

Ratscam's picture

never goin to happen, but I guess young rugrats are not about money.

geekgrrl's picture

I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have a reference? $800K/18 years= $44,444/year, and the median household income is just shy of 50k/year. I'd believe something closer to $20k/year/child, but I don't think most folks could possibly spend 89% of their net income on their kids, whether they wanted to or not.

Ratscam's picture

http://www.beobachter.ch/familie/artikel/familienplanung_was-kostet-ein-kind/

see grey box at the end, or check out Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS).

BTW: Figures are for 20 years, do not include state subsidies but do include opportunity costs. Parents simply lower their living standards when rugrats are swarming the house.

Looking at upper middle class, where most of the women work as opposed to the fifties, just them nannies cost 2'500 per month reducing the opportunity costs by increasing their total cost basis.

I know its not a sexy topic to talk about - simply facts as ZH is all about.

geekgrrl's picture

A Switzerland site? I don't see the numbers applicable to the US, but I do appreciate the reference, even if I can't understand all of it.

Thanks.

Ratscam's picture

that's why I wrote in CH, which stands for confoederatio helvetica or Switzerland.

Try google translation. I guess the figures for the US are less but not by far, the principle stays the same in all western countries. Woman have to unfortunately work in order to afford a child.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Norman Borlaug bought the world time, but we spent it screwing and exploding the population.

Humans are not rational.

TheTmfreak's picture

Is that really your argument? You dont' have to get health insurance. (except forcibly by the government) Nor even to "bring a baby into the world." There are still people who have kids the old fashion way, or with home water births. I'd say it is a luxury to have a child in a hospital, that we've taken for granted for decades.

 

Id fight Gandhi's picture

As quality of life and life conditions get better, fertility rates fall. That's why you have poor countries and poor people have more children.

At this rate there should be a population explosion in the USA as we get poorer

NewThor's picture

Doomed?

Relative to what?

I'm willing to bet a packet of Fun Dip that Elenin's 9.7 Earthquake

on or around September 26th, 2011 reduces the population quite a bit,

and that's just the beginning.

Reptil's picture

pff that guy took his damn time..

I spoke with him in a professional sense a decade or so ago. Typical american believer in the "system". Nothing wrong with that, but if a policy ("war on drugs") is devastating minority communities, you'd expect a slightly less meek attitude.

As for the "great culling". There's a number of issues that will lower the birthrate dramatically. All of these are linked to the destruction of our natural habitat. At some point we'll see a real division. Those that are "in" and can afford genetical changes, to counter greater amounts of toxins, and a sort of collective with AIs. And on the other side the ones that are "out", left to their own devices, and what the little nature that's left offers them. We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system. That is, IF we don't do anything. There's always a fighting chance. Give up, and inmediately you've lost the battle. So I'm getting a bit grumpy of all these "rapture" (wasn't that supposed to happen last weekend) or "2012" predictions of people that can't tell me anything but hazy generalisations and bleak images of grim reapers and zombie armies. bleh boooringgg

A square several hundred kilometers in the Sahara desert can provide power to most of the present energy need. There's too much food right now, on a planetary scale we actually have to scale it down, the only BIG problem now is.... who's in? And who decides that with what criteria? I'm genuinely curious. I guess "money" will play a big role, but healthy genes even more..

(yeah I can back all of that up, but you find it yourself ;-)

bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

This report is not about population it is about money. Namly inflation.

The deflation that is caused by population will slow.

Governments will still print money for themselves so you will get added inflation to the money supply as population slows.

Basicly it adds to what we all ready know in the next decade.  Vary high inflation comes this way.

PS: male/female ratio is biological not cultural.

Y chroms are lighter then X chroms so they move faster. Better chance of being a boy over a girl but only slightly.

mophead's picture

"We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system."

For starters. There's no such thing as an immune system. Yet another big lie, "the system" promotes. Show me the immune system. Take a picture of it. Draw it. Describe it. It can't be done. Because it doesn't exist.

Secondly, year after year we hear about these so called "new diseases" that are right around the corner, ready to mug you. Where are the diseases, where? They're not coming. The only diseases man has to worry about are the same diseases that have plagued us for centuries. These diseases are caused by two things: malnutrition and/or psychological trauma.

There isn't a shred of evidence that GMO foods will harm you. And as for toxins, the amounts are so small that it's pointless to even discuss. Nevertheless, if you ate something that was toxic and it didn't kill you the first time, then it will never kill you in the future. The idea that toxins build up in our bodies and weaken our immune systems, which then make us more susceptible to disease is beyond ridiculous. You may as well believe in Santa Clause.

AurorusBorealus's picture

Mophead, The book to read is Plagues and Peoples.  In the long run of things, humanity has enjoyed a brief respite of infectious disease between roughly 1770 and the present. Euro-Asian diseases spred to all corners of the world and much of the world's population passed genetic immunity on to their children.  However, this fortunate respite, upon which many of the "advances" of modernity rest,  this ecological golden age for humanity, will inevitably come to an end.  Any time human population centers grow dense, with domesticated animals living among peoples, new diseases have decimated populations.  There have been respites in the past when population grew rapidly, but each time a new plague arose to harvest human hosts.  This has occurred many times to humanity and for thousands of years.  Another disease will come, and population will drop rapidly.  Nature's law, not mine.

mophead's picture

Thanks for the recommendation. But I don't like to read propaganda unless it's for reference. Speaking of "infectious disease". If some diseases are truly infectious, then please explain to me how a doctor can be around hundreds, if not thousands of infectiously diseased patients, yet never contract the disease him/herself? The reason so many people died in those plagues are: a) malnutrition and/or b) psychological trauma. That's it.

Here's a question: why is it that some people (a very tiny minority of the population) die after getting stung by a bee? There is no medical explanation, is there?

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Dude, how can you argue with a 100 million dollar industry?

Did you know corn flakes got their start as a miracle cure food?

Heh. Every scam gets recycled every other generation. People are morons.

 

mophead's picture

Not every corporation/industry is trying to poisen you so they can increase their profits. The scam that you're not seeing is that the tables are being turned on us once again like with global warming/climate change: at first it was the big bad corporations that were polluting the environment and something had to be done, so they gave us carbon credits and made everyone a polluter, forcing new regulations upon the world, basically, driving up the cost of doing business and ultimately, the cost of living. NOW what's unfolding is that the big bad food producing boogeymen are selling us GMO/Toxic food. So what's the solution? Regulation. Which does what? Drive up the cost of food thanks to the artificial scarcity that will be created by banning the pesticides and eventually the GMO foods. We will also have more starvation. Would you rather starve or eat a cucumber with wax on it? OMG OMG -- that cucumber has wax on it -- it'll...it'll give you cancer !!!

Rodent Freikorps's picture

I agree our doom is that now the government is part of the scam.

I don't see a way out.

When EPA requires a hazmat response to a milk spill, the inmates are running the asylum.

And the proles cheer. Crazy, crazy times.

Milestones's picture

Never used wax on cukes--a cap full of vegetable oil in a couple of gallons of water when ya wash them before going to market.   Milestones

Reptil's picture

The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms. It's several glands supported (not seperate) from the rest of the body. Lymphatic nodes is one part of it. Your answer seems very strange to me. Are you discussing semantics or throwing mud?

Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism.

As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around.

FYI: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-mos...

--

Here's another interesting snippet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4441564.stm

mophead's picture

"The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms."

Ridiculous. For that matter, the entire human body is an "immune system". Even if it existed, then explain exactly how it is weakened or strengthened, in a purely scientific way. No bullshit hypothesis.

"Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism."

Did I say everything stays the same? Or are you now trying to baffle me with bullshit?

"As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around."

Your research blows as much as you do. First of all, let's define "harm", because if it makes your balls itch for 2 minutes, I hardly consider that harm. On the other hand, if you're trying to say it causes cancer or some other serious disease, then it needs to be 100% scientifically provable. Otherwise, it's horse shit.

Reptil's picture

Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references.

I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)

Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it.

mophead's picture

"Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references."

The problem is that this stuff is rarely if ever scientific. The research is based on statistics. The situation is so bad that they resort to bullshit terms like, "Scientific Hypothesis". Basically, an oxymoron. A hypothesis is an educated guess, which is a polished turd. The guess is the turd, and the education is the polish. A guess is anything, ANYTHING but scientific, in fact, one could argue that it is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE. So a "Scientific Hypothesis" literally translates to "Unscientific Science".

"I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)"

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. There are thousands upon thousands of research papers explaining how everything works, yet to this day, after spending TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on medical research, modern medicine has yet to to cure a single disease. I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?

The reason they can't cure a single disease is because they're looking in all the wrong places. If your glucose is this, or your vitamin B is that, is it not logical to consider that perhaps your MIND made it that way? Why must "the cause" ALWAYS be external/separate from the psyche? Put it this way, if you turn on your car and your gas pedal gets stuck, all the way floored, and then your car starts shaking violently, does it make sense to have the chassis reinforced to prevent the shaking, or is it just better to get the gas pedal fixed? Doh.

"Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it."

"Medical Science"? Ya gotta be kidding me. FYI, modern medicine incorporates I believe over 3000 hypothesis. A "Scientific Hypothesis" is by virtue an "Unscientific Science". If you believe in that, then I don't need to insult you, you've insulted yourself.

geekgrrl's picture

I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?

It tells you that it is more profitable to treat the symptoms of disease rather than to identify the actual causes and address them. And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox. Same with Cholera except when water sources are polluted. Try googling John Snow.

mophead's picture

"And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox."

There is no cure for polio, neither is there one for smallpox. Being largely eradicated does not qualify as a cure, not even close.

tarsubil's picture

Eradicating a disease is better than curing one. It prevents morbidity instead of treating it. Would you rather get sick and cured rather than never get sick at all?

mophead's picture

First of all, none of these diseases have been eradicated. And if they have, they can still "return" according to modern medicine. So a cure is far, far better. Nevertheless, it appears no one can step up to the plate and answer one simple question: why is there no cure for even ONE SINGLE DISEASE after centuries of modern medical research and TRILLIONS of dollars spent? The answer is simple: diseases are caused by psychological trauma.

geekgrrl's picture

Lifespan histories strongly suggest you are mistaken. Modern sanitation greatly increased lifespans, and this has nothing to do with psychological trauma. And in more recent times, the discovery and administration of penicillin and other antibiotics have also increased lifespans These treatments have nothing to do with psychological trauma, so I am perplexed as to the source of your convictions. Do you have any actual evidence to support your view?

Peace Corp training manuals talk at length about disease in remote areas, and one of the low-hanging fruits for reducing disease is creating village latrines. Not much psychological trauma involved there, but low and behold, the incidence of disease miraculously decreases when these simple sanitation steps are taken.

I'm not sure what axe you're grinding, or who you're representing, but your arguments lack soundness and are wholly unpersuasive. If psychological trauma was solely responsible for disease, then lifespans should have been decreasing all throughout the 20th century, but when you look at the actual empirical evidence, lifespans have never been so long.