A Generation Change
By: OpinionThe disasters of the world are due to its inhabitants not being able to grow old simultaneously. There is always a new and intolerant nation eager to destroy the tolerant and mellow. - Cyril Connolly, "The Unquiet Grave," 1945 THAT's history for you.
King Lear was a striking exception, but half the kings and princes
in Shakespeare were under thirty.
Many of them were under twenty.
Their hormones were still raging, so of course they committed
murders, massacres and the like.
In a world where average life expectancy was thirty and most
people didn't even survive childhood, politics was bound to be
pretty turbulent.
It was always the same, in every part of the planet - but what
if all the nations grew up together? At the end of a discouraging
year, here is an encouraging thought: the world IS growing up.
The average age in the world today is twenty-eight.. (In
Shakespeare's time, it was around fifteen.) By 2050, it will be
forty.
At the age of forty, calculations of long-term self-interest
have largely prevailed over hormones.
It doesn't necessarily make people nicer, but it certainly makes
them more careful.
When the experts play around with population growth statistics
these days, they are mostly concerned about overpopulation (current
world population is 6.5 billion), pressure on resources and the
environment, all the usual worries - and they are right to worry
about those things.
They pay less attention to the political effects, because they
are less easy to trace.
But they are there, and they are very important.
There has been a steady run of good news on the population front
in the past few decades.
In 1968 the United Nations Population Division predicted that
the world population would grow to 12 billion by 2050.
By 1992, the same office was predicting 10 billion people by
2050.
Last month it predicted that the world's population would peak
at 8.9 billion, and not until 2300 - although it will already be
pretty close to that figure by 2050.
In reality, even that is probably a pessimistic prediction.
All these projections have been based on an assumption that
birth-rates will continue to fall - a straightforward projection of
the world's population based even on today's birth-rate yield would
a total of around 15 billion people by 2050 - but the assumptions
about how fast they will fall have consistently been too
conservative.
You can see why the forecasters tended towards pessimism: the
recent history of human population growth has resembled an
avalanche.
It took all of history for the human race to reach a total of
two billion people, around 1927.
It took less that fifty years to add the next two billion, by
1974.
It took less than 25 years to add another two billion, by
1999.
And we're still growing at 76 million a year: an extra Germany
(Iran, Philippines, Ethiopia, two Argentinas) every year.
In 1950 there was not a single country on the planet where the
population was not growing rapidly, the average woman had over five
children in her lifetime, and the birthrate was not dropping
significantly anywhere.
Then came the new birth-control technologies and the rise of
women's liberation ideologies, and in many Western countries the
birth-rate halved in ten years.
As recently as 1974, however, the median birth-rate worldwide
was still 5.4 children per woman, so the pessimists were still
winning the arguments.
They believed that only literacy could spread the ideas and
techniques that made the birth-rates fall, and that literacy would
not grow fast enough.
Well, literacy has grown a lot faster than they expected -
between 1980 and 2000, literacy rose from 18 per cent to 47 per
cent in Afghanistan, from 33 per cent to 64 per cent in Nigeria,
from 66 per cent to 85 per cent in China, and from 69 per cent to
87 per cent in Indonesia.
But birth-rates have dropped even more steeply than literacy has
risen: the global average is now 2.7 children per woman.
Some of the most startling recent drops have been in places
where women's illiteracy is still quite high - Bangladesh and parts
of India, for example - so we clearly need a broader criterion than
mere literacy.
In fact, ANY form of mass media, including broadcast media that
do not require literacy, seem to produce the same effect in many
places.
(Though purely local cultural factors also play a role: Pakistan
and Bangladesh both had a birth-rate of 6.3 in 1981; now
Bangladesh's is 3.3, while Pakistan's is still 5.6.) The global
birth-rate may be no more than a decade away from dropping to
replacement level, only 2.2 children per woman.
Most developed countries have already dropped well below that
rate.
This does not immediately stop population growth, since all the
children who have already been born will have a child or two
themselves, and then live for another fifty years afterwards.
It does not solve the environmental crisis either, since all of
these seven or eight billion human beings will aspire to the kind
of lifestyle now enjoyed only by the privileged billion or so.
But it does mean that populations almost everywhere will start
greying within the next decade, and in due course the old will come
to outnumber the young.
(The exceptions are practically all African and Arab countries,
amounting altogether to only a tenth of the world's population.)
Countries where the average age is rising are unlikely, on all
historical precedent, to become aggressor nations.
Peace through exhaustion, perhaps?
* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose
articles are published in 45 countries.
Many of them were under twenty.Their hormones were still raging, so
of course they committed murders, massacres and the like.In a world
where average life expectancy was thirty and most people didn't
even survive childhood, politics was bound to be pretty
turbulent.It was always the same, in every part of the planet - but
what if all the nations grew up together? At the end of a
discouraging year, here is an encouraging thought: the world IS
growing up.The average age in the world today is twenty-eight.. (In
Shakespeare's time, it was around fifteen.) By 2050, it will be
forty.At the age of forty, calculations of long-term self-interest
have largely prevailed over hormones.It doesn't necessarily make
people nicer, but it certainly makes them more careful.When the
experts play around with population growth statistics these days,
they are mostly concerned about overpopulation (current world
population is 6.5 billion), pressure on resources and the
environment, all the usual worries - and they are right to worry
about those things.They pay less attention to the political
effects, because they are less easy to trace.But they are there,
and they are very important.There has been a steady run of good
news on the population front in the past few decades.In 1968 the
United Nations Population Division predicted that the world
population would grow to 12 billion by 2050.By 1992, the same
office was predicting 10 billion people by 2050.Last month it
predicted that the world's population would peak at 8.9 billion,
and not until 2300 - although it will already be pretty close to
that figure by 2050.In reality, even that is probably a pessimistic
prediction.All these projections have been based on an assumption
that birth-rates will continue to fall - a straightforward
projection of the world's population based even on today's
birth-rate yield would a total of around 15 billion people by 2050
- but the assumptions about how fast they will fall have
consistently been too conservative.You can see why the forecasters
tended towards pessimism: the recent history of human population
growth has resembled an avalanche.It took all of history for the
human race to reach a total of two billion people, around 1927.It
took less that fifty years to add the next two billion, by 1974.It
took less than 25 years to add another two billion, by 1999.And
we're still growing at 76 million a year: an extra Germany (Iran,
Philippines, Ethiopia, two Argentinas) every year.In 1950 there was
not a single country on the planet where the population was not
growing rapidly, the average woman had over five children in her
lifetime, and the birthrate was not dropping significantly
anywhere.Then came the new birth-control technologies and the rise
of women's liberation ideologies, and in many Western countries the
birth-rate halved in ten years.As recently as 1974, however, the
median birth-rate worldwide was still 5.4 children per woman, so
the pessimists were still winning the arguments.They believed that
only literacy could spread the ideas and techniques that made the
birth-rates fall, and that literacy would not grow fast
enough.Well, literacy has grown a lot faster than they expected -
between 1980 and 2000, literacy rose from 18 per cent to 47 per
cent in Afghanistan, from 33 per cent to 64 per cent in Nigeria,
from 66 per cent to 85 per cent in China, and from 69 per cent to
87 per cent in Indonesia.But birth-rates have dropped even more
steeply than literacy has risen: the global average is now 2.7
children per woman.Some of the most startling recent drops have
been in places where women's illiteracy is still quite high -
Bangladesh and parts of India, for example - so we clearly need a
broader criterion than mere literacy.In fact, ANY form of mass
media, including broadcast media that do not require literacy, seem
to produce the same effect in many places.(Though purely local
cultural factors also play a role: Pakistan and Bangladesh both had
a birth-rate of 6.3 in 1981; now Bangladesh's is 3.3, while
Pakistan's is still 5.6.) The global birth-rate may be no more than
a decade away from dropping to replacement level, only 2.2 children
per woman.Most developed countries have already dropped well below
that rate. This does not immediately stop population growth, since
all the children who have already been born will have a child or
two themselves, and then live for another fifty years afterwards.It
does not solve the environmental crisis either, since all of these
seven or eight billion human beings will aspire to the kind of
lifestyle now enjoyed only by the privileged billion or so.But it
does mean that populations almost everywhere will start greying
within the next decade, and in due course the old will come to
outnumber the young.(The exceptions are practically all African and
Arab countries, amounting altogether to only a tenth of the world's
population.) Countries where the average age is rising are
unlikely, on all historical precedent, to become aggressor
nations.Peace through exhaustion, perhaps? * Gwynne Dyer is a
London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in
45 countries.