In 2021, an estimated 1.13 million people unlawfully migrated to America and during fiscal year 2022 more than 1.6 million migrants were apprehended illegally crossing the border. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 3 2023 (IPS)

Approximately 225 million people from around the world would like to migrate permanently to the United States. But given America’s current policies, relatively few of them will be able to do so legally.

In 2021 the number of persons who obtained lawful resident status in the United States was 740 thousand. Also, based on past trends, population projections of the U.S. Census Bureau for the coming four decades estimate an annual addition of approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants to America’s population.

Consequently, millions of men, women and children wanting to emigrate to America but unable to do so legally are resorting to illegal immigration. In 2021, an estimated 1.13 million people unlawfully migrated to America and during fiscal year 2022 more than 1.6 million migrants were apprehended illegally crossing the border.

In addition, many illegal migrants are willing to risk their personal safety and lives to reach America. During the past twelve months, no less than 853 migrants died trying to reach America from Mexico, making fiscal year 2022 the deadliest year for unauthorized migrants recorded by the U.S. government.

Furthermore, over the past fifteen years the number of children encountered by Border Patrol officers at the southern border has grown enormously. Since fiscal year 2008, the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied children has increased seventeen-fold, reaching a total of nearly 622 thousand.

Approximately 97 percent of the unaccompanied children come from four countries: Guatemala (32 percent), Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (21 percent) and El Salvador (16 percent). Also, between 2008 and 2019, the number of both unaccompanied and accompanied children apprehended at the southern border, reaching an overall total of 1.35 million, has risen five-fold (Figure 1).

Source: TRAC Syracuse University.

On May 11, the administration is expected to end the Title 42 COVID-19 pandemic policy. That policy, which was relied on extensively by the previous administration, allowed officials to turn away hundreds of thousands of people without offering them an opportunity to claim asylum.

Also, earlier in March, another administration policy, referred to as Parole plus Alternative to Detention, was stopped by a Florida court. That policy aimed at reducing unauthorized migration pressures through the use of ankle monitors or a phone app.

The root cause for illegal immigration to the U.S. is not complicated. Most unauthorized migrants coming to America are doing so to escape difficult living conditions. The administration’s foreign aid initiative to improve living conditions in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has done relatively little to stem the historic levels of illegal immigration at the southern border

Despite the announcements and assurances by senior officials in the Biden administration, including Secretary State Antony J. Blinken and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, to limit the flow of unauthorized migrants across the U.S. southern border, the combination of the court’s March decision and the ending of Title 42 is expected to lead to a massive surge of tens of thousands more unauthorized migrants arriving at the southern border. The estimated illegal crossings could reach as high as 18,000 a day.

As has been the case in the recent past, such large numbers of unauthorized migrants are already overwhelming border resources and overcrowd government facilities. By the end of April more than 20,000 migrants were in Border Patrol custody, which is more than twice the rated capacity of the agency’s detention facilities along the U.S. southern border.

Those developments are expected to be followed by the release of many unauthorized migrants into the country without a court date, which is widely viewed as an incentive to additional illegal entries. That decision in turn will continue to incur costs and create pressures on border communities as well as cities in the country’s interior.

Bracing itself for the expected surge of unauthorized migrants at the country’s southern border, the Biden administration is implementing various immigration measures to address the illegal immigration crisis.

Among those measures are to open regional processing centers, increase refugee numbers from the Western hemisphere, have migrants enroll in the parole programs, schedule an appointment at the border via an app, seek asylum protection in a country they traveled through and increase pathways for legal immigration, including for El Salvadorans Hondurans and Guatemalans to reunite with family in the U.S.

Although two Republican sponsored immigration bills are proceeding through the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress has yet to pass immigration legislation and is unlikely to do so with the run up to the 2024 elections. As a result, President Biden has used his executive authority for measures to open the doors for hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter America legally.

In addition to the use of humanitarian parole programs for people fleeing war and political upheaval, the Biden administration’s measures offer migrants opportunities to enter the U.S. and secure work authorization if they have a private sponsor. By mid-April, about 300 thousand Ukrainians had arrived in America and by the close of 2023, approximately 360 thousand migrants from Latin America are expected to be admitted legally via private sponsorship.

Also with some exceptions, the administration plans to bar from asylum all non-Mexican migrants who arrive at the southern U.S. border without having first sought and been denied asylum in at least one of the countries they passed through on their trip. However, rights groups and their supporters oppose that plan as they believe it violates U.S. law and have threatened to sue the administration.

The root cause for illegal immigration to the U.S. is not complicated. Most unauthorized migrants coming to America are doing so to escape difficult living conditions. The administration’s foreign aid initiative to improve living conditions in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has done relatively little to stem the historic levels of illegal immigration at the southern border.

It is certainly understandable that many of those living under harsh conditions, including poverty, unemployment, lack of basic services, violence and political instability, want to emigrate. However, such living conditions are generally not grounds to permit legal entry into America.

Consequently, many of the unauthorized migrants arriving at the U.S. southern border are claiming asylum. To date, nearly 1.6 million asylum applications are pending in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services and immigration courts, which is the largest number of pending cases on record.

According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Asylum is granted to persons who can demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular group.

Most of the migrants who have claimed asylum in the U.S. are not detained. In 2022, approximately 80 percent of the unauthorized migrants in the immigration court asylum backlog were never detained.

Those migrants were permitted to remain in the country while their cases are processed, which take on average more than four years. During that period of time, migrants take steps to integrate themselves into local communities, especially places offering sanctuary to illegal migrants.

The number of pending cases in the U.S. immigration court asylum backlog has grown rapidly over the recent past. Between 2012 and 2022 the number of pending cases in the asylum backlog increased seven-fold, i.e., from about 106 thousand to 757 thousand (Figure 2).

Source: TRAC Syracuse University.

Most claims for asylum in the U.S. fail to meet the criteria needed to be granted asylum. Over the past several years, approximately 70 percent of the asylum claims have been denied.

Nevertheless, relatively few of the migrants whose claims have been denied are repatriated. The number of non-citizen removals conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in fiscal year 2022 is 72,117.

With a growing world population of 8 billion, the supply of people who want to migrate to the U.S., estimated at approximately 225 million people, greatly exceeds America’s demand for migrants, which is a small fraction of the worldwide supply.

Consequently, as a result of the substantial demographic and economic imbalances, millions of men, women and children are resorting to illegal migration to secure a better life in America. As of yet, neither Congress nor the White House have come up with an effective blueprint to address America’s illegal immigration predicament.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends and Differentials: More Important Population Matters”.

The median ages of populations are expected to continue rising over the coming decades. East Nanjing Road, Shanghai, China. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 27 2023 (IPS)

Yes, lower the retirement ages! That is the key message that workers worldwide are conveying to their governments.

Rather than increasing retirement ages as many governments are now proposing, men and women worldwide want to stop working well before they reach old age, which is approximately 60 years.

After toiling for years in factories, offices, shops, backrooms, vehicles, fields, etc., most workers around the world want to stop working before they reach old age. That desire translates into exiting the labor force and receiving a government pension at approximately age 55 years.

Government officials, economic advisors, business leaders and many others calling for raising retirement ages will no doubt consider lower retirement ages to be preposterous, verging on financial blasphemy and leading to an economy’s doom. Some have argued that lowering retirement ages places an unaffordable and unfair burden on taxpayers.

The number of young women and men available to work is the largest ever. Whereas the proportion of the world’s population between ages 18 to 59 was 52 percent in 1950 and numbered 1.3 billion, that proportion increased to 56 percent in 2022 and numbered 4.5 billion

On the contrary, rather than leading to an economy’s ruination, a retirement age of 55 years may usher in a “retirement renaissance” resulting in untold benefits to societies worldwide.

The renaissance will enhance and extend the quality of life for those in retirement. It is also expected to decrease unemployment rates, lead to increased motivation among younger employees to continue working until retirement, provide businesses with energetic, healthy, well-trained youthful workers as well as foster cross generational interactions, recreation, hobbies and cultural activities.

In addition, the renaissance may contribute to raising low fertility levels by making childcare more readily available. Today two-thirds of the world’s population lives in a country where the fertility rate is below the replacement level of about 2.1 births per woman.

The retirement renaissance will permit retired men and women with adult children to assist with childcare and related activities. With grandparents available for childcare, young working mothers and fathers can be expected to be more favorably disposed to having additional children.

The protests, demonstrations and objections in Asia, Europe, North America and elsewhere reflect the public’s resistance to working until, as they claim, broken-down and close to near death. Large majorities of workers have clearly conveyed their opposition to their respective government proposals requiring people to work well into old age before they are entitled to receive their promised retirement pensions.

The various projected insolvencies of government pension systems, often cited as justification for raising retirement ages to record breaking high levels, are often dismissed by workers and their supporters as irrelevant. The insolvencies, workers contend, are simply financial excuses concocted by government officials and their wealthy supporters, who object to paying their fair share of taxes, to justify their goal of raising retirement ages and cutting pension benefits.

In addition to higher taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, workers argue that governments have plenty of financial resources at their disposal to permit lowering retirement ages and financing pension programs. Some contend that countries could substantially reduce their defense spending and redirect the substantial savings to retirement pension programs.

Admittedly, it is certainly the case that on average people are living longer than in the recent past and the proportions of elderly are increasing. However, those increases in longevity have not been shared equally across populations.

In general, those with high incomes have experienced longevity gains, while low earners have seen little gain in longevity. Moreover, workers contend that living longer should not translate into working longer and receiving reduced retirement pension benefits.

Both men and women spend decades working at jobs that they don’t particularly enjoy and for bosses they loathe. Many would argue that it only seems fair and reasonable to have several decades available to workers permitting them to do what they desire before they eventually face death. People are largely opposed to working until they are tired, bed ridden and unable to enjoy the remaining years of their life.

It is also the case that women on average live several years longer than men. At age 65, for example, at the global level women live close to three years longer than men. Even larger differences in life expectancy at age 65 between women and men are observed in other countries, such as France and Japan at nearly four and five years, respectively (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Taking into account those well documented sex differences in longevity, the retirement age for women could be several years greater than that for men, perhaps 57 and 54 years, respectively. Such a difference between women and men would help to ensure gender equality in the number of retirement years.

In addition, neither men nor women should be forced to work beyond the recommended lower official retirement ages for men and women. Of course, exceptions should be permitted and lower official retirement ages should not bar individuals from working in old age if they choose to do so.

Some heads of state, elected officials, government bureaucrats, investors, business owners, academics, the wealthy, entertainers as well as many others are choosing for personal reasons it appears to work beyond official retirement ages. Some current heads of state, for example, are well beyond the official retirement ages of their respective countries with few of their constituents objecting (Figure 2).

Source: Author’s compilation.

With the world population reaching a record-breaking 8,000,000,000 people, the number of young women and men available to work is the largest ever. Whereas the proportion of the world’s population between ages 18 to 59 was 52 percent in 1950 and numbered 1.3 billion, that proportion increased to 56 percent in 2022 and numbered 4.5 billion.

There’s no denying the fact that the world’s population is older than in the past. Over the past 70 years, the proportion of the world’s population aged 60 years and older has nearly doubled, from 8 percent in 1950 to 14 percent in 2022. However, the increase in the proportion elderly is offset by the decrease in proportion of children below age 18 years from 40 percent in 1950 to 30 percent in 2022 (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Also, some believe that rapidly improving technologies, including robots, androids and artificial intelligence, can complement and broaden a country’s labor supply. Those technologies are expected to offset reductions in the size of the labor force as people retire at around 55 years of age.

Many governments have enacted or are seriously considering raising retirement ages. Increases in today’s retirement ages are viewed by workers as nothing more than pension benefits cuts.

Proposals for raising retirement ages are viewed by workers as relying on faulty actuarial analyses of bankruptcy, dire warnings of pension insolvency and catchy phrases such as “Vivre plus longtemps, travailler plus longtemps” (“live longer, work longer”).

Moreover, conservative government officials in general are resistant to raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations. However, many of those officials are favorably disposed to raising retirement ages, which would result in reductions in pension benefits. Also, some government officials have rejected calls to return retirement ages back to 60 years.

In sum, in addition to meeting the wishes of billions of working men and women who want to retire well before reaching old age, lower official retirement ages of approximately 57 years for women and 54 years for men may usher in a “retirement renaissance” that could result in untold benefits to societies worldwide.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

Israel's separation barrier as seen from Al Ram.. Credit: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 2 2023 (IPS)

Israel of today as a Jewish and democratic state is a contradiction of terms and as such may possibly become transformed into a genuinely democratic Israel tomorrow with justice and equality for all.

In Israel today, citizens who are not Jewish are treated differently than those who are Jewish, who benefit from certain rights and privileges. In a national opinion poll, most Jewish Israelis, about 80 percent, say Jews should get preferential treatment in Israel. Also, nearly half of Jewish Israelis say that Arab Israelis should be expelled or transferred from Israel.

In Israel today, citizens who are not Jewish are treated differently than those who are Jewish, who benefit from certain rights and privileges. In a national opinion poll, most Jewish Israelis, about 80 percent, say Jews should get preferential treatment in Israel. Also, nearly half of Jewish Israelis say that Arab Israelis should be expelled or transferred from Israel

In addition, several years ago Israel passed the “nation-state law”, which among other things, states that the right to exercise national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people and also established Jewish settlement as a national value. While embraced by many Jewish Israelis, the nation-state law was considered apartheid by the country’s non-Jewish population, ostensibly making them second-class citizens.

In a democratic Israel, in contrast, all Israelis irrespective of their religious affiliation would have the same rights and privileges. In such a state, justice and equality would prevail across the entire country’s population, not just for a single dominant religious group.

A democratic Israel would be similar in many respects to Western liberal democracies such as the United States. In that democracy, all religious groups, including Jewish Americans, have the same rights, privileges and equality under the law.

Most Jewish Israelis, some 75 percent across the religious spectrum, continue to believe that Israel can be a Jewish state and a democracy. In contrast, non-Jewish Israelis, including the majorities of Muslims, Christians and Druze, generally do not believe Israel can be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time; it’s simply viewed as inconsistent.

Further complicating political, legal and human rights matters for Israelis as well as Palestinians are the new government’s recent proposals for judicial reform, which would impact the independence of the Israeli Supreme Court.

Many Israelis have gone to the streets to protest the proposed reform. Objections to the reforms are being raised by former government officials, military officers, business investors and others. Foreign allies, especially officials, Jewish leaders and journalists in America, have also expressed concerns over the proposals. In addition, the majority of Israelis, about two-thirds, oppose the proposed judicial reform.

Turning to demographics, Israel’s population stood at 9.656 million at the end of 2022. The composition of the population was 74 percent Jewish, 21 percent Arab (largely Christian and Muslims) and 5 percent others (Figure 1).

Source: Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

In 1948 when Israel was established, the country’s proportion Jewish was 82 percent of its population of 806 thousand. By the 1960s the proportion Jewish reached a record high of nearly 90 percent. Since that high, the proportion Jewish in Israel has been steadily declining to its current level of 74 percent.

In addition to Israel’s changing demographics, the Jewish Israeli population has not been confined to its 1948 borders. Large numbers have expanded to settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Israel’s Jewish settler population in the West Bank, for example, is now estimated at more than half a million. Many of the estimated 700 thousand Jewish Israelis now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are motivated by their religious mission to restore historic Israel to the Jewish people.

The Jewish settler population is continuing to increase rapidly in the West Bank, which is a top priority of ultranationalist parties who oppose Palestinian statehood.

The Israeli government has also pledged to legalize wildcat outposts and increase the approval and construction of settler homes in the West Bank.

In contrast, the United Nations Security Council and much of the international community of nations, including the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, continue to support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. However, the changing demographics in the West Bank have virtually eliminated the possibility of the two-state solution.

Without the two-state solution, Jewish Israelis face a major challenge affecting their majority status, namely the possibility of the one-state solution.

The one-state solution would involve the entire Israeli and Palestinian populations now living between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. In such a population numbering approximately 15 million inhabitants, the Jewish population would become a ruling minority of approximately 47 percent, a fundamental change from the sizable Jewish majority of 74 percent in Israel today (Figure 2).

Source: Times of Israel.

Even today the Israeli government is confronting human rights issues with its expansion throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. International, Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations as well as independent observers have found Israeli authorities practicing apartheid and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to those human rights organizations, Israeli government policy is to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians as well as the abuses and discriminatory policies against Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

Israel rejects those accusations, saying it is a democracy and committed to international law and open to scrutiny. The government cites security concerns and protecting the lives of Israelis for its imposition of travel and related restrictions on Palestinians, whose violence in the past included suicide bombings of Israeli cities and deadly attacks against Israelis.

Many have come to the conclusion that given the policies of the current Israeli government, a political path for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully is simply wishful thinking. For some the two-state solution is effectively dead and it is simply waiting for its formal funeral.

In addition, the human cost of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been high and is rising. So far in 2023, the conflict has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 63 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

From 2008 to 2020 the numbers of killed and injured from the conflict among Israelis and Palestinian documented by the UN were 251 and 5,590 deaths, respectively, and 5,600 and 115,000 injuries, respectively. In brief, over that time period approximately 95 percent of those killed and injured due to the conflict were Palestinians (Figure 3).

Source: UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

It is evident that the Israeli government and many Israelis would like to continue the Jewish settler expansion in the West Bank. That expansion clearly has serious consequences for the resident Palestinian population and the Israelis as well as the prospects of an independent Palestinian state.

The demise of the two-state solution and the possible one-state solution also creates a major foreign and domestic dilemma for the United States, Israel’s major political, military and economic supporter and biggest ally.

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, estimated at more than 3 billion dollars annually and more than 150 billion dollars cumulatively. Also, America has vetoed scores of United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1973.

Given America’s commitment to democratic values, freedom of religious beliefs and equality of citizenship, the White House, U.S. Senators, Congressional Representatives as well as the nation’s citizens will be faced with how to respond to the absence of a possible Palestinian state and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

In the absence of the two-state solution, it will become increasingly difficult for the United States to continue its unwavering commitment and unequivocal support in light of Israeli policies and treatment of the Palestinians. Perhaps, consistent with its values and laws, America will decide to support the one-state solution with equality of all inhabitants, regardless of religious identities.

More importantly, in the absence of a truly independent Palestinian state, Israel may slowly come to embrace the one-state solution. Eventually then, especially given the unavoidable demographic realities strikingly visible on the ground, Israel may possibly come to realize that it’s time to transform the Israel of today into a truly democratic Israel of tomorrow with justice and equality for all.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

The ageing of populations poses mounting challenges for governments that will require changes in national policy priorities, country institutions and social arrangements. Credit: Maricel Sequeira/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 21 2023 (IPS)

Fear of population ageing is all over the news media and in government offices of country capitals worldwide. Planet Earth is becoming “planet ageing”.

Population ageing is being described as a demographic time bomb, a humanitarian crisis, a growing burden, a national security threat, ticking towards disaster, a significant risk to global prosperity, a silver tsunami, an unprecedented set of challenges, a problem for young and old.

Government officials, business leaders, economists, healthcare providers, social organizations, political commentators and others are increasingly ringing alarm bells over the menacing demographic ageing of populations.

Adding to those alarm bells is the 2022 Japanese film, Plan 75, presented in May at the annual Cannes Film Festival. That dystopian film describes a government program that encourages senior citizens to be euthanized to remedy the burdens of an aged Japanese society.

More recently, a Yale University assistant professor of economics reportedly suggested that to address Japan’s demographic ageing, elderly Japanese people should commit “mass suicide”. After raising objections in Japan and elsewhere, he subsequently explained that his suggestion was taken out of context. He explained that his remark was intended to address a growing effort to revamp Japan’s age-based hierarchies and make room for younger generations in leadership positions in business and politics.

Demographic ageing coupled with population decline and increased human longevity are forcing governments to address mounting financial issues, especially retirement and healthcare benefits. Many government programs for old age benefits are facing insolvency in the near future

Mainstream media regularly reports that government expenditures on retirement and healthcare benefits for the elderly are outpacing tax revenues. Also, many governments are reportedly struggling to find the money to support retirees. Furthermore, current trends, unless they are reversed, indicate that the growing numbers of elderly people on the planet pose a challenge for governments to provide the needed care for them.

People have taken to the streets to protest government proposals to address population ageing by making changes to benefits and official retirement ages. In France people have taken to the streets to protest the government’s intention to raise the current age of 62 years to receive government benefits.

Similarly in China, retirees and their supporters are protesting government proposed cuts in benefits for the elderly. And fearing public backlash at the voting booth, elected government officials in the United States are bending over backwards in their assurances, retreating from possible program cuts, and promising that they “won’t touch” Social Security or Medicare.

The ageing of populations should not really come as a surprise to government officials and their many economic and political advisors and aides.

For decades demographers and many others have been writing articles, publishing books, giving presentations, and advising government officials and others about the demographic ageing of populations resulting from the continued decline in fertility rates and increased life expectancy.

Nevertheless, despite those considerable efforts and clear communication about population ageing, governments have not been paying enough attention.

Apparently, governments mistakenly came to believe that the demographic realities of population ageing could simply be ignored because those realities were largely academic matters as well as concerns for the distant future. In fact, however, those realities were neither largely academic nor concerns for the distant future.

Over the past half century, the median age of the world’s population has increased to 30 years in 2020 from 20 years in 1970, an increase of 10 years. Many countries have attained median ages in 2020 well above 35 years, such as France at 41 years, South Korea at 43 years, Italy at 46 years and Japan at 48 year.

In addition, many countries have seen their elderly population reach unprecedented levels. In the United States, for example, more than 1 in 6, or 17 percent, were 65 or older in 2020. That percentage is relatively low in comparison to many other developed countries. In Italy and Japan, the proportion 65 years and older is 24 and 29 percent, respectively (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The ageing of populations certainly poses mounting challenges for governments as well for the elderly that will require changes in national policy priorities, country institutions and social arrangements.

Among those challenges are needs for financial aid, caregiving and assistance, medical treatment, healthcare and drugs. Such needs are not only increasingly overwhelming many households, but they are also straining government resources and the capacities of institutions to provide care for the elderly.

In addition to the financial costs, governments are wrestling with major policy issues. Population ageing is competing with national priorities that require financial resources, including defense, economy, employment, education, health care, environment and climate.

Population ageing is also raising vexing questions about the proper role of government and the responsibilities of individuals for their personal wellbeing in old age. Those questions continue to roil government legislatures and heighten concerns about retirement and old age healthcare among their citizens.

Much of the public believes that the government should be primarily responsible to cover the financial costs and provide the needed care and support to the elderly, as has generally been the case over the past decades in many countries.

Others, however, contend that it is not the role of the government to be primarily responsible to provide care and support to the elderly. They argue that the elderly themselves and their families should be primarily responsible for covering the costs and providing the needed care, support and assistance for older persons.

The fear of population ageing is further complicated by population decline. Over the coming years, many countries across the globe are facing declines in the size of their populations due to below replacement fertility rates (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Demographic ageing coupled with population decline and increased human longevity are forcing governments to address mounting financial issues, especially retirement and healthcare benefits. Many government programs for old age benefits are facing insolvency in the near future.

Possible options to address those financial issues include reducing retirement benefits, limiting eligibility, raising the retirement age and increasing taxes. As would be expected, reducing benefits, limiting eligibility and raising retirement ages are unpopular among most of the public. While many are in favor of increased taxes to fund retirement pensions and healthcare for the elderly, businesses and investors are generally opposed to raising taxes.

The consequences of the demographic realities of population ageing are largely unavoidable and need to be addressed. Governments may continue choosing to avoid addressing those consequences. Perhaps they are hoping that if the demographic realities are ignored, they somehow will magically disappear.

Governments need to stop ringing the alarm bells about population ageing. Instead, they need to adapt to the demographic realities of population ageing. In particular, governments need to address the weighty consequences of population ageing by making the admittedly difficult but necessary policy and program decisions regarding official retirement age, pensions benefits, assistance, and healthcare.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

On average a person might be consuming 5 grams of microplastics per week, amounting to approximately 18 kilograms, or 40 pounds, of plastic over a lifetime. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 13 2023 (IPS)

With one in ten people in the world going hungry, food prices hitting record highs, and the worsening conditions of the environment and climate, it’s time for the world’s population of 8 billion to eat something that is available, abundant and inexpensive: plastics.

Their introduction at the start of the 20th century began the rapid start of the Age of Plastics. Today plastics are ubiquitous, easily transported and stored, and readily available even in the most remote corners of the world.

Without knowing it, people are already consuming microplastics. The largest source of microplastics in people’s diet is drinking water. Microplastics can also be found in vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, tea, beer, wine, etc

Plastics have become such an integral part of human daily life from birth to death, completely infiltrating the environment of planet Earth. Plastics can be found anywhere, including in water, on land and even in the atmosphere

Every year the world produces approximately 400 million metric tons of plastics. That amounts to about 50 kilograms of plastics, or 110 pounds, for each person on the planet.

Today’s annual amount of plastics produced could certainly be increased. With the proper political commitment, private investments and improved technologies, the annual production of plastics could be greatly expanded.

A tenfold increase in the annual production of plastics would yield no less than 500 kilograms, or 1,100 pounds, of a variety of plastics for every man, woman and child on the planet. That would provide an individual daily consumption of 1.4 kilograms, or 3 pounds, from a broad diversity of plastics, which is approximately the amount of food people eat each day.

In addition, the cumulative amount of plastics that has already been produced worldwide is estimated at approximately 10 billion metric tons. That vast valuable global resource yields about 1,250 kilograms, or 2,756 pounds, for each man, woman and child now inhabiting planet Earth. Moreover, the world’s cumulative amount of plastics is projected to nearly triple by midcentury to about 27 billion metric tons (Figure 1).

Source: Our World in Data.

Eating plastics would solve the world’s hunger problem for hundreds of millions of people as well as offer numerous other advantages. Plastics could be used as a feed supplement for farm animals, especially for pigs but also for cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, etc., as well as a supplemental food for fish and other aquatic wildlife, many of which are already eating plastics.

It’s highly unlikely that people will voluntarily agree to cutbacks in their current use of plastics. Eating plastics would also largely eliminate the costly, ineffective and bothersome process of asking people to recycle their plastics.

Cost is the primary reason why less than a tenth of plastics produced annually are recycled. For the plastics industries the costs of recycling are far greater than the costs of producing new plastics.

Instead of today’s problematic plastic throw-away culture, eating plastics would foster a “keep-consume” culture. Such a cultural transformation to keep-consume plastics would certainly be welcomed by people around the world.

A keep-consume plastics culture would be environmentally sound, cost effective and economically sustainable. Rather than having more than 10 million metric tons of plastics dumped in the oceans annually, humans could simply eat their plastics in the comfort of their homes. Human and livestock consumption of plastics would keep the oceans clean and reduce pollution. Plastics that accidently enter the oceans can be consumed by fish and other wildlife.

In 2021 about one third of the global plastic materials was produced by China. It was then followed by North America, the rest of Asia and Europe 18, 17 and 15 percent, respectively. Substantially lower in the production of plastics with each less than 10 percent were the rest of the regions (Figure 2).

Source: Statista.

Attempting to eliminate the production of plastics is clearly impractical and costly. The elimination or even the serious reduction in the production of plastics would undermine national economies, increase unemployment, reduce wages, raise poverty rates and fuel political instability. Consequently, eating plastics at every meal should be promoted in schools, workplaces, places of worship, recreation facilities, retirement centers, homes, etc.

Most plastics are generally not biodegradable. They will not spoil and are not perishable like traditional foods and therefore have a long shelf life, taking anywhere from 20 to 500 years to breakdown, if at all.

Plastics breakdown depends on the material’s composition, structure and environmental factors, such as exposure to sunlight. In the oceans, for example, plastics straws and plastic water bottles are estimated to breakdown in 200 and 450 years, respectively.

The plastics remaining in the environment often break down into microplastics, which are small pieces of plastics including fibers, microbeads, fragments, nurdles, and foam. Those microplastics are already found in water, food and some animals. Given their diversity of shape, texture and color, microplastics can be readily consumed by men, women and even older children, but in small amounts initially.

Plastics could enhance traditional dishes, such as chicken plastic masala, microplastics pizza, kung plastic pao chicken, plastic burger, croque plastic-monsieur and shepherds’ plastic pie. Microplastics could also be used as a spice, food additive or culinary enrichment to enhance daily meals, similar to the current practice of adding salt and pepper to meals.

Without knowing it, people are already consuming microplastics. The largest source of microplastics in people’s diet is drinking water. Microplastics can also be found in vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, tea, beer, wine, etc.

Some have estimated that on average a person might be consuming 5 grams of microplastics per week, amounting to approximately 18 kilograms, or 40 pounds, of plastic over a lifetime. Human autopsies have also found microplastics in major human organs, such as lungs, liver, spleen, and kidney tissue.

On the plus side, people eating plastics reduces the feeling of hunger, cuts down on calories and helps with weight loss. Also, it fills the stomach of birds, fish and other small animals.

Human consumption of plastics also addresses concerns of countries regarding the problems resulting from plastics. Rather than banning the use of plastic bags for bagging groceries, governments could encourage their citizens to eat their plastic bags at their daily meals.

People eating plastics also helps to eliminate the plastics trash problem, reduces pollution in waterways, landfills and atmosphere, and contributes to the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals adopted by United Nations Member States. Eating plastics will also improve the world’s environment, atmosphere and wildlife, reduce the consumption of unhealthy junk food and help reduce inflation due to the rising costs of traditional foods (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

As is case with innovation, it will take some time for people to become accustomed to eating plastics. This will especially be the case among older cohorts of people who are less willing than younger cohorts to accept innovation, new technologies and new cultural behavior.

Admittedly, some concerns have been expressed by health professionals and scientists about eating of plastics, given that they are being made mostly from fossil fuels, i.e., oil and natural gas, through a process that is energy intensive and emits greenhouse gases. Those health concerns include endocrine disrupting chemicals, which are linked to infertility, obesity, diabetes, prostate or breast cancer, and cognitive impairment and neurodevelopmental disorders.

However, such health concerns and exaggerated warnings are limited to scientific research and not from the producers of plastics. The technical research findings are understood largely by scientists, but mainstream media as usual has publicized the warnings about eating plastics.

People’s bodies will evolve to the consumption of plastics. That evolutionary process will be similar to people eating processed junk foods. But like junk foods, infants should not consume microplastics and young children should limit their consumption.

Eating plastics will require more mindful chewing of most plastics. Some may be tempted to simply swallow plastics. However, except for microplastics, it is not recommended for proper digestion.

Those with existing health problems may encounter reactions to eating plastics. Such reactions can be addressed by eating small amounts of plastics initially and drinking plenty of fluids, especially alcoholic beverages. Those fluids will aid in digestion and permit the body’s vital organs to evolve.

In sum, to address widespread hunger in the world, the high and rising costs of food, and the consequences of plastics on the environment, flora, fauna and climate, the solution is clear. Let’s eat plastics!

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

With China’s population at 1.4126 billion, the reported decrease of 850,000 amounts to 0.06 percent. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 1 2023 (IPS)

China’s announcement on 17 January 2023 that its population had declined for the first time in 60 years has fostered population decline hysteria and promoted more Ponzi demography in many parts of the world.

Pro-population growth advocates, including many policy makers, traditional economists, business leaders, conservative writers and media commentators, are advancing the hysteria of demographic gloom and doom following the Chinese government’s announcement of a decline in the world’s largest population.

China’s population decline was reported to be 850,000, which is the difference between 9.56 million births in 2022 against 10.41 million deaths. With China’s population at 1.4126 billion, the reported decrease of 850,000 amounts to 0.06 percent.

Much of the media has described China’s population decline with various hysteria phrases, including “demographic time bomb”, “disappearing population” and “demographic collapse” (Chart 1).

Source: Author’s compilation from news media.

The population decline hysteria has in turn facilitated the promotion of Ponzi demography, which calls for sustained robust rates of population growth. Ponzi demography is basically a pyramid scheme that generates more money, power and influence for some by adding on more and more people through natural increase and in some cases immigration.

Its underlying strategy is relatively straightforward: privatize benefits and profits and socialize burdens and costs incurred from increased population growth. Ponzi demography, however, is clearly unsustainable. Populations cannot continue to grow indefinitely without having serious social, economic, environmental and climatic consequences.

The unsustainability of Ponzi demography, however, doesn’t seem to be a concern of those calling for continuing, robust population growth with no endpoint in sight. The unsustainability and critical consequences of long-term population growth are typically ignored, dismissed or trivialized.

Instead of getting caught up with population decline hysteria and Ponzi demography, it’s prudent, instructive and advisable to review the past growth of China’s population, examine its likely future growth, and consider some of the major challenges posed by those expected demographic changes.

China’s population of 1.4126 billion people in 2022, which represents 18 percent of the world’s total, grew rapidly during the recent past. In 1950 the Chinese population was slightly more than a half a billion. China’s one billion population milestone was reached in 1981. By the close of the 20th century, China’s population had grown to approximately 1.3 billion by (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

China’s future population over the coming decades depends largely on the course of the country’s fertility rate. If its fertility rate of 1.18 births per woman were to remain constant at its current level, the Chinese population at midcentury is projected to decline to 1.28 billion, a decrease of about 10 percent.

The often-cited United Nations medium variant population projection assumes China’s fertility rate will increase slightly over the coming several decades, reaching 1.39 births per woman by 2050. If that were to occur, China’s population in 2050 is again projected to decline, reaching 1.31 billion.

Under the UN high variant population projection, China’s fertility rate is a half child higher than medium variant, i.e., 1.89 births per woman by 2050. The high variant projection results in China’s population in 2050 remaining essentially unchanged at its current size of 1.41 billion.

Alternatively, fertility in the UN low variant population projection is a half child lower than the medium variant, i.e., 0.89 births per woman by 2050. The expected 2050 population of China in the low variant projection is 1.22 billion, a decrease of 15 percent from its current population.

China is not alone in its low fertility rate. Approximately 100 countries worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman.

Moreover, the fertility rates of some thirty countries in 2022 were less than 1.5 births per woman. Several of those countries had fertility rates that were roughly half or less than the replacement level, including China, Italy and South Korea, and consequently are confronting population decline (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

The low fertility rates of today, including China’s, are expected to increase somewhat in the coming decades. However, despite the desires, policies, and programs of governments to raise fertility levels, expectations of a return to replacement level fertility in the foreseeable future can be simply described as future fertility fantasies. Consequently, the current populations of some 50 countries, including China’s, are projected to be smaller by midcentury.

Instead of getting caught up with population decline hysteria and Ponzi demography, it’s prudent, instructive and advisable to review the past growth of China’s population, examine its likely future growth, and consider some of the major challenges posed by those expected demographic changes

In addition to population decline, China as well as many other low fertility countries are experiencing demographic ageing. The median age of China’s population is expected to continue rising during the 21st century. China’s median age increased from 18 years in 1970 to nearly 39 years today. By 2070 the median age of China’s population is expected to be 55 years, or three times the median age of the population in 1970.

Besides its expected population decline, demography ageing presents a major challenge for China. The consequences of the demographic realities of older population age structures with declining numbers of young workers supporting growing numbers of the elderly are likely unavoidable.

Consequently, careful rethinking, comprehensive evaluations and major adjustments, some likely to be unpopular with the public such as raising the official retirement age, will be needed.

In addition to China, many countries with below replacement fertility are expected to face declining populations and older age structures over the coming decades. In contrast, many other countries, especially in Africa, with fertility levels of more than four births per woman are expected to have rapidly increasing populations and relatively young age structures throughout the century.

The net result of these substantial country differences in future population growth rates is that the world’s current population of 8 billion is projected to continue increasing. Over the next forty years, the world’s population is expected to add another 2 billion people, reaching 10 billion around 2058.

So, in conclusion, it’s time to stop fostering population decline hysteria with its doom and gloom and promoting Ponzi demography of unsustainable, continued robust population growth. It’s time to recognize, understand and analyze today’s demographics and their likely trends over the coming decades. And also importantly, it’s time for countries to prepare for the formidable challenges of their respective expected demographic realities in the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

The median ages of populations are expected to continue rising over the coming decades. East Nanjing Road, Shanghai, China. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 16 2023 (IPS)

Demography doesn’t care about such things as national strikes over pension retirement ages, public protests about contraception and abortion rights, sexual orientation, habits and preferences, political ideology and party affiliation, dress codes and head coverings, and religious identity, beliefs and practices.

Demography is basically about the mathematics of human populations, i.e., births, deaths, migrations, ageing, morbidity, sex ratios, mobility, size, change, growth, distribution, density, structure, composition, life expectancies, biological, social and economic characteristics, etc.

Demography is relatively straightforward, visible and equitable. For example, in every human population a person is born an infant at age zero, ages one year every twelve months, and eventually over time faces death, too often earlier rather than later unfortunately.

Between birth and death, a wide variety of demographic phenomena or transitions typically occur in human populations. Among them are surviving infancy and childhood, passing through puberty, finding a mate, having offspring, migrating to another place, falling ill or becoming disabled, and experiencing ageing.

Over the many centuries of human history, the interactions of those various demographic phenomena and transitions have resulted in today’s world population of 8,000,000,000. That extraordinary number of human beings now inhabiting planet Earth is due in large part to the record-breaking rapid growth of world population during the 20th century.

World population reached the one billion milestone at the start of the 19th century in 1804. The 20th century then ushered in what turned out to be the century of rapid demographic growth. World population nearly quadrupled from 1.6 billion at the start of the 20th century to 6.1 billion by the century’s close (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to that unprecedented rapid demographic growth, the world’s annual rate of population growth peaked at 2.3 percent in 1963. Also, by 1990 the world’s annual population increase reached a record high of 93 million.

The unprecedented growth of world population that took place during the 20th century was simply the result of births greatly outnumbering deaths with mortality rates dropping rapidly, especially during the second half of the past century.

The world’s fertility rate in the 1960s, for example, was about five births per woman and births outnumbered deaths by nearly three to one in the 1980s. Life expectancy at birth increased dramatically, increasing from about 45 years in the middle of the 20th century to about 65 years by the end of the century.

The current demographic situation for the world is different from the exceptional rates, levels and changes of the past century. For example, the growth rate of world population in 2021 was about 0.8 percent, or nearly one-third the peak level in 1963.

In addition, the annual increase of world population in 2021 was about 68 million, or about three-fourths the level in 1990. Also, the median age of the world’s population, which was about 20 years in 1970, has increased by 50 percent, reaching 30 years in 2022.

The world’s fertility rate is now about 2.3 births per woman, or about half the level 60 years ago. In addition, approximately 100 countries have a total fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman.

Furthermore, the fertility rates of some thirty countries in 2021 were less than 1.5 births per woman. Several of those countries had fertility rates that were approximately half or less than the replacement level, including China at 1.16, Singapore at 1.12 and South Korea at 0.81 (Chart 1).

Source: United Nations.

As a result of below replacement fertility rates, the current populations of some 60 countries are expected to be smaller by 2070. The total population decline of those countries over the next 50 years is projected to be more than a half a billion. Among the countries with the largest declines in their populations are China (-340 million), Japan (-35 million), Russia (-22 million), South Korea (-16 million) and Italy (-15 million).

In addition, many countries are expected to experience substantial declines in the relative size of their populations. Many of those countries are projected to have population declines of 10 percent or more over the coming four decades. For example, the relative decline in population size is expected to be 22 percent for Japan, 21 percent for South Korea and 18 percent for Italy (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

At the other extreme, the populations of two dozen countries, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the world’s population, are expected to more than double by 2060. Those projected population increases by 2060 include 106 percent in Afghanistan, 109 percent in Sudan, 113 percent in Uganda, 136 percent in Tanzania, 142 percent in Angola, 147 percent in Somalia, 167 percent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 227 percent in Niger (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to the projected decline and growth of national populations, the age structures of countries worldwide are expected to become substantially older. Many countries have attained median ages in 2020 above 40 years, such as France at 41 years, South Korea at 43 years, Italy at 46 years and Japan at 48 years.

The median age for the world is expected to increase from 30 years today to close to 40 years by 2070. In some countries, including China, Italy, Japan and South Korea, the median ages of their populations by 2070 are projected to be 55 years or older

The median ages of populations are expected to continue rising over the coming decades. The median age for the world, for example, is expected to increase from 30 years today to close to 40 years by 2070. In some countries, including China, Italy, Japan and South Korea, the median ages of their populations by 2070 are projected to be 55 years or older.

Demographic ageing in the 21st century constitutes a major challenge for societies and economies. The consequences of the demographic realities of older population age structures and increasing human longevity are likely unavoidable.

In particular, the ageing of populations is contributing to strains on fiscal revenues and spending on pensions and healthcare for the elderly. Despite the ageing of populations and increases in human longevity, official retirement ages for government pension benefits have remained largely unchanged at comparatively low ages.

In France, for example, the official pension retirement age is 62 years, which is well below the retirement ages of many other developed countries. Despite criticisms, protests and a scheduled national strike from worker unions and leftist opponents, the French government has unveiled a pension overhaul that proposes gradually raise the retirement age to 64 years by 2030.

Also, a mounting crisis for a growing number of countries worldwide is illegal immigration. Neither governments nor international agencies have been able to come up with sensible policies and effective programs to address the mounting illegal immigration crisis.

A major factor behind the rise of illegal immigration is the large and growing supply of men, women and children in sending countries who want to migrate to another country and by any means possible, including illegal immigration. The number of people in the world wanting to migrate to another country is estimated at nearly 1.2 billion.

In conclusion, too often many choose to ignore, deny or dismiss today’s demographic realities, such as population growth and decline, demographic aging, declining fertility, rising life expectancy and increasing illegal immigration.

Rather than acknowledging, addressing and adjusting to the challenging consequences of the demographic realities of the 21st century, many are turning to protests, strikes, demonstrations, and balderdash. Demography, however, simply doesn’t care about such things.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Over the past fifty years the world’s life expectancy at birth increased by 16 years, i.e., from 56 in 1970 to 72 in 2020. Credit: Maricel Sequeira/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 23 2022 (IPS)

Despite the objections, resistance and protests taking place in many countries around the world, raising the official retirement age to receive government provided pension benefits is coming soon.

The primary reason for raising the official retirement age is the rapidly rising costs of national old-age pension programs, which are mainly the result of two powerful global demographic trends: population ageing and increased human longevity.

The age structures of populations worldwide are becoming older than ever before. Over the past half century, for example, the median age of the world’s population has increased by 10 years, i.e., from 20 years in 1970 to 30 years in 2020. Many countries have attained median ages in 2020 well above 35 years, such as France at 41 years, South Korea at 43 years, Italy at 46 years and Japan at 48 years (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Moreover, the median ages of populations are expected to continue rising over the coming decades. The median age for the world, for example, is expected to reach close to 40 years by 2070. Also in some countries, including China, Italy, Japan and South Korea, the median ages of their populations by 2070 are projected to be 55 years or older.

Even with the ageing of populations and increases in human longevity, official retirement ages in order to receive government pension benefits have remained largely unchanged at relatively low levels, typically below 65 years

The pace of changes in the population age structures of China and South Korea are particularly noteworthy. In 1970 their populations had a median age of 18 years, i.e., half of their populations were children. By 2070 the median ages of China’s and South Korea’s populations are expected to triple to 55 and 61 years, respectively, with the proportion of children declining to 12 and 10 percent, respectively.

Many countries will see their elderly population increase rapidly, reaching about one-third of their total populations by midcentury. In addition, by 2070 the proportion aged 65 years and older in some countries, such as China, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Spain, are expected to be approximately 40 percent.

In addition to markedly older population age structures, life expectancies have increased significantly during the recent past with both men and women living longer than ever before. For example, over the past fifty years the world’s life expectancy at birth increased by 16 years, i.e., from 56 in 1970 to 72 in 2020.

The gains in life expectancies at birth for some countries were even more impressive, with increases of more than 20 years during the past five decades. Again, the gains in life expectancy achieved by China and South Korea are particularly noteworthy. China’s life expectancy at birth increased by 21 years, i.e., from 57 years in 1970 to 78 years in 2020, and South Korea’s increased by 22 years, i.e., from about 62 years in 1970 to 84 years in 2020.

Moreover, the life expectancies of the elderly have also increased over the recent past. At age 65, for example, the world’s average life expectancy increased by four years, from 13 years in 1970 to 17 years in 2020. And in many developed countries, including Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, life expectancies at age 65 years have reached 20 years or more (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Some of the largest gains in life expectancies at age 65 years have been in East Asia. For example, gains in China, South Korea and Japan were 7, 8 and 9 years, respectively, resulting in life expectancies at age 65 of 18, 22 and 23 years, respectively. In other words, people in those countries on average can expect to live to ages 83, 87 and 88 years, respectively.

Despite the recent setbacks in life expectancies due to deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancies of the elderly are expected to continue rising throughout the remainder of the 21st century. For example, by 2070 the world is projected to have an average life expectancy at age 65 of 21 years. Also, many developed countries by that time are expected to have life expectancies at age 65 of 25 years or more, i.e., people surviving on average to age 90.

Even with the ageing of populations and increases in human longevity, official retirement ages in order to receive government pension benefits have remained largely unchanged at relatively low levels, typically below 65 years. For example, the official retirement age in France and South Korea is 62 years and in Brazil and Russia the retirement age is also 62 for men, 57 years for women (Figure 3).

Source: OECD.

However, some countries are now proposing to raise their retirement ages. China, for example, recognizing its rapidly ageing population, shrinking labor force and its national pension’s expected insolvency by 2035, has said that over the next five years it would gradually delay the legal retirement ages, which have been unchanged for more than 70 years.

Despite public objections in the past, China took an initial step several months ago to raise its current retirement age, which is 60 for men and 55 for white-collar women workers and 50 for blue-collar women workers. In one of its eastern provinces people were permitted to start voluntarily applying for delayed retirement.

Also, the French government, remarking “vivre plus longtemps, travailler plus longtemps”, has proposed that beginning in 2023 the minimum retirement age to receive a full pension be gradually increased from today’s 62 to 65 by 2031. Although previous proposals were shelved due to nationwide strikes, the French government has said that without those proposed changes a decrease in the size of pensions would be needed.

One OECD country, the United States, was among the earliest in legislating an increase in the official retirement age to 67 years to receive full benefits, which is above the current average age for OECD countries. Also, seven OECD countries have introduced linkages between life expectancy and retirement age.

In addition to being unpopular among the general public, raising the official retirement age is an issue that governments are not eager to address. Typically, government officials remain silent on the issue and postpone making decisions regarding projected financial shortfalls in national retirement programs.

In the United States, for example, the Social Security Board of Trustees in its 2022 annual report concluded that if no changes are made, the program will not be able to meet its financial responsibilities by 2035. Although various political statements have been made by government officials, the U.S. Congress has yet to propose the needed legislation to address Social Security’s projected insolvency in a dozen years.

In general, the three major options available to governments to address pension insolvency are: reduce benefits, increase taxes and raise retirement age. Reducing benefits, however, would create financial difficulties for many of the elderly. Increasing taxes is also unlikely to be well received by today’s workers and business communities. Consequently, raising the retirement age may be the least objectionable option to address projected pension insolvencies.

The consequences of the demographic realities of older population age structures and increasing longevity are unavoidable. In particular, those consequences include: decreasing numbers in the labor force per retired person: increasing proportions in old age who are living longer; and rising costs for old age retirement benefits that threaten the solvency of the national programs.

In sum, raising the retirement age addresses many of the consequences of those seismic demographic changes as well as expands the size of the labor force, provides additional years for workers to save for retirement, and deals with the projected insolvencies of government pension programs.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

New York City, January 5, 2020: People marching from Manhattan to Brooklyn against the rise in antisemitism in New York. Antisemitic incidents reached an all-time high in the United States in 2021. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 12 2022 (IPS)

It’s time to step up, speak out and object to antisemitism. Antisemitic remarks, behavior and events cannot continue to be swept under the rug, unethically edited for political media consumption, or ignored in hopes that they will simply go away.

Events several weeks ago as well as those from the recent past that took place at the highest political levels of an advanced developed country, the United States, are indicative of the worrisome rising trend of antisemitism in many parts of the world.

On 22 November former president Trump had dinner at his home with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and antisemite Kanye “Ye” West. The notorious event was followed by the largely silent responses of many Republican officials and leaders, including some seeking the presidential office.

The repeated behavior and words of the former president, including his troubling response to the Charlottesville tragedy in 2017, and the tepid reactions to antisemitism by most of his supporters legitimizes the animosity expressed toward Jewish Americans.

Such behavior and remarks cannot be excused as being insignificant instances that have been blown out of proportion by the news media. Nor can they be simply deflected, diminished or explained away with references to irrelevant overseas diversions.

The former president and his various enablers have minimized, dismissed and legitimized antisemitism events in the United States, including harassment, threats, vandalism, assaults, killings and bombings. The failures to address the antisemitism facing America are inexcusable, disgraceful and dangerous.

The Jewish population of the United States is a relatively small proportion of the country. In 2022 Jewish Americans are estimated to represent slightly more than two percent of America’s population of 333 million inhabitants. In contrast, the largest religious group, Christians, is close to two-thirds of country’s population (Figure 1)

Source: PEW Research.

Despite Jewish Americans representing a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population, the number of reported antisemitic incidents involving assault, harassment and vandalism reached an all-time high in 2021 of 2,717, or more than seven incidents per day and nearly triple the level in 2015 (Figure 2).

Source: Anti-Defamation League.

The reprehensible incidents of the recent past took place in various places across the United States, including in places of worship, community centers, schools and colleges. The motivations for the antisemitism were not always evident as they typically lacked an identifiable ideology or belief system.

One notable exception, however, is the “great replacement” theory being promoted by U.S. white supremacist groups. They believe in the conspiracy that white Christians are being intentionally replaced in the population by individuals of other races through immigration and other means.

That great replacement, they believe, is leading to white Christians no longer being the dominant majority in America. In their various demonstrations and gatherings, including the Charlottesville event in 2017, the neo-Nazi marchers often chant out such hateful antisemitic nonsense as ”Jews will not replace us”.

The former president and his various enablers have minimized, dismissed and legitimized antisemitism events in the United States, including harassment, threats, vandalism, assaults, killings and bombings. The failures to address the antisemitism facing America are inexcusable, disgraceful and dangerous

In the American Jewish Committee’s “The State of Antisemitism in America 2021” report, an estimated 60 percent of U.S. adults indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country. However, approximately one-quarter of the respondents felt that antisemitism wasn’t a problem for the country.

In contrast, some 90 percent of Jewish Americans in the report indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country and approximately three-quarters of Jewish Americans felt that there is more antisemitism in the country today than there was about five years ago. A majority of Jewish Americans, 53 percent, reported feeling personally less safe than they did in 2015.

Contributing to antisemitism is the apparent self-induced amnesia among some extremist groups regarding the methodical persecution followed by the horrendous events that were committed against Europe’s Jews approximately eight decades ago. That amnesia is easily dispelled by a viewing of the illuminating Ken Burns’ documentary, “The U.S. and the Holocaust”. The Holocaust resulted in the murder of approximately six million European Jews, or roughly 63 percent of Europe’s Jewish population at the time.

Sadly, antisemitism was also evident in America’s refugee policy with respect to European Jews seeking asylum from their harrowing persecution in Nazi Germany.

Perhaps the most memorable single event reflecting its ignoble refugee policy in the past is the refusal of the U.S. government in 1939 to grant entry to about 900 Jewish refugees seeking asylum aboard the USS St. Louis that had reached Miami, Florida. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where nearly one third of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.

In addition, America too often has chosen to ignore its troubling antisemitic past and the many popular figures who were openly antisemitic in their public attacks on the character and patriotism of Jewish Americans. Among those ignoble figures are Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Coughlin, Fritz Kuhn, Coco Chanel and Louis Farrakhan.

Furthermore, besides facing educational quotas at major universities in the 1920s, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, Jewish Americans experienced discrimination among the major professions and restrictions on residential housing. They were also denied membership to most clubs, camps, resorts and associations, with some hotel advertisements explicitly excluding Jewish Americans.

While that recent tragic history remains beyond doubt, many of America’s antisemitic white supremacists, including Fuentes and West, continue to deny the existence of the Holocaust, express hateful rhetoric and discriminate against Jewish Americans. They attempt to negate the historical facts of the Nazi genocide, promote the false claim that the Holocaust was invented or greatly exaggerated in order to promote the Jewish interests, and display the Nazi swastika flag and make the “Heil Hitler” gesture.

Antisemitism also fueled vocal criticism and opposition to many U.S. political leaders in the past who attempted to address the discrimination against Jewish Americans. For example, at conference of some 20,000 people in New York City in 1939, Fritz Kuhn, leader of the German American Bund, mocked President Franklin Roosevelt as “Frank D. Rosenfeld”, referred to the New Deal as the “Jew Deal”, and declared Jews to be enemies of the United States.

Some current U.S. political leaders, including some eagerly seeking to become president, continue to dismiss or ignore antisemitism. When confronted with offensive behavior and words such as the former president’s recent dining with two notorious antisemites, the initial reluctance verging on muteness of many political leaders to express outrage only contributes to antisemitism.

No matter the place, occasion or time, the U.S. electorate cannot tolerate or support those who promote, permit or condone antisemitism. In particular, U.S. elected and appointed government officials must be held accountable for their words and deeds.

An encouraging development in the U.S. was a letter recently signed by more than one hundred members of Congress to President Biden calling for a unified national strategy to monitor and combat antisemitism in the country. The letter also recognized that rising antisemitism is endangering people in Jewish communities both in the U.S. and abroad

Another encouraging development aimed at recognizing the rise of antisemitism was the 2022 Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism. More than 25 mayors from around the world and dozens of local government officials participated in the two-day Summit held in Athens, Greece, from 30 November to 1 December.

The Summit highlighted the significant problem of rising antisemitism worldwide and presented strategies and solutions to address it. Various countries around the world have reported a rise in antisemitic incidents between 2020 and 2021. In addition to the rise of incidents of approximately one-third in the United States, higher percentage rises were reported in Australia, Canada and France (Figure 3).

Source: Antisemitism Worldwide Report 2021.

The Mayors Summit also provided a framework for exchange of ideas and cooperation between cities. The meeting also emphasized the particular role of mayors in creating inclusive societies for their cities.

Finally, recalling the tragic lessons of the recent past and troubled by today’s rising antisemitism, it’s time for everyone to speak out and denounce the hate, discrimination and violence. Tolerating antisemitism is categorically wrong and poses a serious moral threat to the world in the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Credit: UNOHCR.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 1 2022 (IPS)

Illegal immigration has evolved into a mounting crisis for a growing number of countries worldwide and governments appear to be at a loss on how to deal with the crisis.

Migrant destination countries are facing record high numbers of unlawful border crossings and unauthorized arrivals at their shores, thousands of visa overstayers, and millions of men, women and children residing unlawfully within their countries.

In many of those countries illegal migration is viewed as a threat to national sovereignty. It is seen as undermining cultural integrity. Illegal migration is also creating financial drains on public funds.

Some officials as well as much of the public in those countries have described the continuing illegal immigration to their borders and shores as an “invasion”, a “battle situation” and a “security threat”. And some have called on their governments to “send’em straight back”.

In addition, illegal immigration is also undermining the rule of law, threatening regional cooperation, challenging law enforcement agencies, eroding public support for legal migration, altering political equilibrium and adding to nativism and xenophobia. In addition, the public’s concerns about immigration are reflected in the growing influence of far-right political parties in such countries as Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Sweden and the United States.

Multinational migrant-smuggling networks are also contributing to the mounting illegal immigration crisis as well as generating substantial profits for criminal organizations. Those networks exploit migrants seeking to leave their countries, offering various services, including transportation, accommodations and critical information.

Government programs and plans to counter migrant smuggling networks have achieved limited success. Also, international attempts to address illegal immigration, such as the Global Compact on International Migration of 2018, have not diminished illegal immigration nor the activities of smuggling networks.

A major factor behind the rise of illegal immigration is the large and growing supply of men, women and children in sending countries who want to migrate to another country and by any means possible, including illegal immigration. The number of people in the world wanting to migrate to another country is estimated at nearly 1.2 billion.

The billion plus people wanting to migrate represents about 15 percent of the world’s population. That number of people wanting to migrate is also more than four times the size of the estimated total number immigrants worldwide in 2020, which was 281 million (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations and Gallup Polls.

The country with the largest number of immigrants is the United States with almost 48 million foreign-born residents in 2022, or approximately 14 percent of its population. About one quarter of those immigrants, or approximately 11.4 million, are estimated to be illegal immigrants.

While an estimate of the total number of immigrants in the world is readily available, the number of illegal immigrants is a very different matter with few reliable estimates available on a global scale.

Nearly two decades ago it was estimated that perhaps 20 percent of the immigrants were unauthorized migrants. Applying that proportion to the current total number of immigrants of 281 million yields an estimate of about 56 million unauthorized migrants. If the U.S. proportion of illegal immigrants is applied to the total global immigrant population, the resulting estimated number of illegal immigrants in the world is approximately 70 million.

The public’s concerns about immigration are reflected in the growing influence of far-right political parties in such countries as Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Sweden and the United States

The widely recognized human rights regarding international migration are relatively straightforward. Articles 13 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respectively state, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”, and “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.

Importantly, however, everyone does not have the right to enter nor remain in another country. The unlawful entry into a country and overstaying a temporary visit are clearly not recognized human rights. Moreover, to be granted asylum, an individual needs to meet the internationally recognized definition of a refugee.

According to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Difficult living conditions, such as unemployment, poverty, inadequate housing, lack of health care, marital discord and political unrest, do not qualify an individual for the internationally recognized refugee status nor to a legitimate claim for asylum.

Nevertheless, in the absence of a right to migrate to another country, people wanting to do so are increasingly turning to illegal immigration. And upon arriving at the destination country, many are claiming the right to seek asylum.

Once inside the country, the legal determination of an asylum claim often takes years, permitting claimants time to establish households, find employment and integrate into accepting communities, such as sanctuary cities. Also, many of the unauthorized migrants believe, based on the experiences of millions before them, that government authorities will not repatriate them even if their asylum claim is rejected, which is typically the case.

The mounting illegal immigration crisis is complicated by 103 million people who are estimated to have been forcibly displaced worldwide by mid-2022. That number is a record high for forcibly displaced people and is expected to grow in the coming years.

Approximately 50 percent of those forcibly displaced were displaced internally and 5 percent were people in need of international protection. In addition, the number of refugees has reached a record high of nearly 33 million worldwide and the estimate for asylum seekers is close to 5 million (Figure 2).

Source: UNHCR.

The worldwide numbers of forcibly displaced people, internally displaced people and refugees have increased substantially since the start of the 21st century. For example, over the past two decades the numbers of displaced people increased from 38 million to nearly 86 million (Figure 3).

Source: UNHCR.

Many of those people have been displaced by weather-related events. UNHCR estimates that an annual average of nearly 22 million people have been forcibly displaced by events related to weather, such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat temperatures.

Moreover, the numbers of displaced people are expected to increase substantially over the coming decades. Some estimate that by midcentury more than one billion people, largely from less developed countries, could be displaced due to climate and environmental changes and civil unrest.

By third decade of the 21st century, the following major trends contributing to the mounting global illegal migration crisis have become abundantly clear:

1. Powerful forces worldwide are fueling illegal immigration, including demographics, poverty, smuggling networks, civil unrest and increasingly climate change, which is creating “climate refugees”.
2. Those potent forces are resulting in large and increasing numbers of men, women and even unaccompanied children arriving at borders and landing on shores of destination countries without authorization.
3. Unauthorized migrants, as well as visa overstayers, seek to settle in those destination countries by any means available and are not prepared to return to their countries of origin.
4. Most of the large and growing numbers of unauthorized migrants now residing unlawfully within countries are not likely to be repatriated.

Finally, it is also clear that neither governments nor international agencies have yet been able to come up with effective policies and programs to address the mounting global illegal immigration crisis.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

In the armed services, African Americans make up 23 percent of enlisted soldiers, which is approaching nearly double their proportion of the U.S. population. Among officers, however, the percentage of African Americans is considerably lower at 11 percent. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 23 2022 (IPS)

Countries worldwide, and as different as India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ireland, Israel and Italy, are struggling with the issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy across disparate ethnic, racial, caste, linguistic and religious subgroups in their populations.

In a growing number of areas, including politics, employment, careers, education, armed forces, immigration, the judicial system, entertainment and sports, countries are making far-reaching decisions regarding when to strive for diversity and when to stress meritocracy.

Some may consider the goals of diversity and meritocracy to be noncontradictory. In practice, however, the two goals are often difficult to reconcile, especially with imprecise definitions, differing concepts and lack of reliable measures.

Promoting diversity certainly poses a variety of challenges for societies. However, the pursuit of meritocracy also faces unrecognized risks and biases as well as discrimination behind efforts to reward merit.

The rewards ascribed to meritocracy are often simply the result of privilege, legacy and entitlement. In addition, some have argued that the pursuit of meritocracy actually produces inequality, stifles social mobility and increases unhappiness.

Admittedly, diversity and meritocracy across country populations are varied and differ considerably globally. Nevertheless, useful insight may be gained from considering the experience of a country that exemplifies a nation attempting to find the appropriate balance between diversity and meritocracy: the United States.

U.S laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. At the same, however, policies and practices, such as affirmative action, aim at countering discrimination against certain racial groups by increasing their chances for employment, promotion, higher education and other opportunities.

Since the first U.S. census in 1790, the U.S. Census Bureau has been tasked to gather information on the racial composition of America’s population. In the 1790 census an estimated 81 percent of the U.S. population was identified as white with the remaining 19 percent enumerated as black, with 92 percent of them being slaves.

The white proportion of the U.S. population rose to 90 percent in 1920, where it remained until 1950 when it began declining and reached 80 percent in 1990. At the start of the 21st century the proportion white declined further to approximately 75 percent where it has remained. The proportion white is projected to continue declining, reaching 68 percent of the U.S. population by 2060 (Figure 1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

The methods employed by the Census Bureau to collect race data over the past 230 years have evolved, reflecting changes in American society. Based on the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race, the Census Bureau gathers self-identified responses to the race question, with respondents permitted to select more than one race.

OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Those categories reflect a social definition of race and do not define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.

The race categories and their proportions of America’s 2021 population of 332 million are: White at 75.8 percent, Black or African American at 13.6 percent, Asian at 6.1 percent, American Indian or Alaska Native at 1.3 percent, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander at 0.3 percent, and two or more races at 2.9 percent (Figure 2).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Reviewing a number of examples from different areas of life in the United States is useful in illustrating the various aspects of the country’s efforts to balance racial diversity and meritocracy.

In professional basketball African Americans represented 20 percent of league players in 1960. Today African Americans account for approximately 75 percent of basketball players in the National Basketball Association.

Among the country’s orchestras, in contrast, African Americans account for less than 2 percent of the players. Nearly a half century ago, the selection of musicians for orchestras was changed to blind auditions in which candidates performed behind a curtain. As blind auditions have not led to making orchestras more diverse, some have called for ending blind auditions and taking race into account so orchestras reflect the communities they serve.

In professional football African Americans represent 58 percent of the players. However, they account for 9 percent of the head coaches, or five head coaches in the 32-team league of the National Football League (NFL).

Nearly 20 years ago after accusations of discriminatory head coach hiring practices, the NFL team owners agreed to policy changes to address those accusations. Among those changes was the so-called Rooney Rule, which said, “Any club seeking to hire a head coach will interview one or more minority applicants for that position.”

In the armed services, African Americans make up 23 percent of enlisted soldiers, which is approaching nearly double their proportion of the U.S. population. Among officers, however, the percentage of African Americans is considerably lower at 11 percent.

The U.S. military has taken a number of initiatives to promote racial diversity at the higher ranks. The Army, for example, has removed photos of officers from personnel files so promotion boards are less aware of race and they have more minority officers choosing combat assignments, which is a critical stepping stone to high-star officer ranks.

With respect to higher education, the racially conscious admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are being challenged in cases currently before the Supreme Court. The court is being asked to consider the constitutionality of racial preference in college admissions of those two universities.

Asian Americans admissions to Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are 25 and 22 percent, respectively. Those percentages are approximately four times the proportion of Asian Americans in the U.S. population.

Nevertheless, the racially conscious admissions practices of those two universities are being considered by the court. After its initial hearing of the cases on 31 October, the Supreme Court appeared ready based on its questioning and comments to rule that the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful.

Those admission practices, which allegedly discriminate against Asian Americans and effectively cap Asian matriculation numbers, have drawn comparison to the past efforts by Harvard and other elite universities to limit the enrollment of Jewish Americans. If only academics were considered, internal research by Harvard University suggests that Asian Americans would make up 43 percent of an admitted class.

In four Gallup polls from 2003 to 2016, at least two-thirds of Americans said college admissions should be solely on the basis of merit. A more recent national Washington Post survey in October found a majority of Americans, 63 percent, supported a ban on the consideration of race in college admissions. At the same time, however, a majority in that survey, 64 percent, endorsed programs to boost racial diversity on campuses.

Imbalances in achieving racial diversity are also reflected in the composition of America’s professions. For example, while Asian Americans represent 17 percent of active physicians, the proportion for African Americans is 5 percent.

Similarly in science and engineering occupations, the proportions for Asian Americans and African Americans are 21 and 5 percent, respectively. Among U.S. lawyers, the proportions are relatively low for both Asian Americans and African Americans at 2 and 5 percent, respectively.

The personal views of Americans concerning workplace diversity also reflect the difficulties in balancing racial diversity and meritocracy. One national PEW survey in 2019 found that a majority, 75 percent, value workplace diversity. However, a majority in that survey, 74 percent, also felt that only the qualifications and not an applicant’s race should be taken into account in hiring and promotions even if it results in less diversity.

The issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy remains a major challenge for America as well as for many other countries. That challenge has become more difficult in the United States. with the puzzling and prejudicial use of racial, ethnic, linguistic, ancestry and origin categories that increasingly make little sense.

In sum, with a growing world population of eight billion, the shifting demographic landscapes of national populations and the fundamental need to ensure human rights for all, the challenge of how to balance diversity and meritocracy can be expected to become even more critical and consequential for countries in the years ahead.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

India’s population will likely overtake China’s population by 2023. Picture: Mumbai, India. Credit: Sthitaprajna Jena (CC BY-SA 2.0).

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 8 2022 (IPS)

Contrary to the often-cited hype and nonsense of some celebrities reported in the news media, the world’s population of 8,000,000,000 human beings is not going to collapse any time soon.

Moreover, that fancied collapse of world population is neither the biggest problem facing the world nor is that false notion a much bigger risk to civilization than climate change, which is certainly humanity’s greatest challenge.

According to recent projections, the world’s population is expected to continue increasing over the coming decades. Hundreds of millions of more people are projected to be added to the planet, but at a slower pace than during the recent past.

The expected slowdown in the growth of world population does not constitute a problem. The global demographic slowdown clearly signals social, economic, environmental and climatic successes and benefits for human life on planet Earth.

Many of those calling for increased rates of population growth through higher birth rates and more immigration are simply promoting Ponzi demography. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth.

World population reached the 1 billion milestone in 1804. World population doubled to 2 billion in 1927, doubled again to 4 billion in 1974, and then doubled a third time to 8 billion in 2022 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Throughout the many centuries of human history, the 20th century was an exceptional record-breaking period demographically.

World population nearly quadrupled from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion by the close of the century. In addition, the world’s population annual growth rate peaked at 2.3 percent in 1963 and the annual increase reached a record high of 93 million in 1990.

Since the start of the 21st century, the world’s population has increased by nearly 2 billion people, from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8 billion in 2022. Over that time period, the world’s annual rate of population growth declined from 1.3 percent to 0.8 percent, with the world’s annual demographic increase going from 82 million to 67 million today.

While mortality continues to play an important role in the growth of the world’s population, as witnessed recently with the COVID-19 pandemic, fertility is expected to be the major determinant of the future size of world population.

The world’s average fertility rate of approximately 2.3 births per woman in 2020 is less than half the average fertility rates during the 1950s and 1960s.

The United Nations medium variant population projection assumes fertility rates will continue to decline. By the century’s close the total fertility rate is expected to decline to a global average of 1.8 births per woman, which is one-third the rate of the early 1960s and well below the fertility replacement level.

The medium variant projection results in an increasing world population that reaches 9 billion by 2037, 10 billion by 2058 and 10.3 billion by 2100.

Alternative population projections include the high and low variants, which assume approximately a half child above and below the medium variant, respectively. Accordingly, world population by 2100 ends up being substantially larger in the high variant at 14.8 billion and substantially smaller in the low variant at 7.0 billion (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Another alternative population projection, which is unlikely but instructive, is the constant variant. That projection variant assumes the current fertility rates of countries remain unchanged or constant at their current levels throughout the remainder of the 21st century. The constant variant results in a projected world population at the close of the century that is more than double its current size, 19.2 versus 8.0 billion.

Although world population is projected to continue increasing over the coming decades, considerable diversity exists in the future population growth of countries.

The populations of some 50 countries, including China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Korea and Spain, are expected to decline in size by midcentury due to low fertility rates. At the same time, the populations of about two dozen other countries, including Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Niger, Somalia and Sudan, are expected to increase substantially due to their comparatively high fertility rates.

A comparison of the growth of the populations according to the medium variant for the four projected largest countries by midcentury, i.e., China, India, Nigeria, and the United States, highlights the diversity of population growth expected during the 21st century.

China’s current population size is estimated to be near its peak at approximately 1.4 billion. Due to its fertility rate of 1.16 births per woman, which is close to half the replacement level and is assumed to remain relatively low over the coming decades, the Chinese population is expected to decline to 1.3 billion by 2050 and decline further to 0.8 billion by 2100.

In contrast, India’s population, which has an estimated fertility rate of 2.0 births per woman that is expected to decline further, is continuing to increase in size. As a result of that demographic growth, India’s population will likely overtake China’s population by 2023. By 2060 India’s population is projected to peak at 1.7 billion and decline to 1.5 billion by 2100 (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

The population of the United States, currently the third world’s largest population after China and India, is expected to continue increasing in size largely due to immigration. By 2050 the U.S. population is projected to reach 375 million and be close to 400 million by the century’s close.

Nigeria’s rapidly growing population, which more than doubled over the past 30 years from 100 million in 1992 to 219 million in 2022, is expected to continue its rapid demographic growth for the remainder of the century. The population of Nigeria is expected to be larger than the U.S. population by 2050, when it reaches 377 million, and then increase to 500 mil1ion in 2077 and 546 million by the century’s close.

Admittedly, the future size of the world’s population remains uncertain. Demographic conditions, especially mortality levels as recently witnessed with the COVID-19 pandemic, could change markedly and future fertility rates may also follow different patterns from those being assumed in the most recent population projections.

Nevertheless, it appears that the world’s current population of 8 billion will continue increasing over the coming decades, likely gaining an additional 2 billion people by around midcentury.

The expected demographic growth of the world’s population of 8 billion during the 21st century poses daunting challenges. Prominent among those challenges are dire concerns about food, water and energy supplies, natural resources, biodiversity, pollution, the environment, and of course climate change, considered by most, including the world’s scientists, to be humanity’s greatest challenge.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Republicans in general favor less immigration than Democrats. For example, a national Gallup poll in July 2022 found that the proportion saying immigration to America should be decreased was 69 percent among Republicans versus 17 percent among Democrats. Credit: Guillermo Arias / IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 24 2022 (IPS)

Given the upcoming midterm elections in the United States and the consequences of the outcome for domestic legislation and programs as well as the country’s foreign policy, it’s useful and fitting to review fundamental differences between America’s two major political parties on vital demographic issues.

On virtually every major demographic issue, including reproduction, mortality, immigration, ethnic composition, gender, marriage and population ageing, significant divides exist between the Democrats and Republicans (Figure 1). Those divides have significant consequences and implications for current and future government policies and programs.

Source: Various U.S. public opinion surveys.

Those divides on vital demographic matters, which have become increasingly politicized by the two major parties, are reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country and hindering the economic, social and cultural development of the United States.

With respect to reproduction, while most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent.

Also, Gallup polls indicate a widening gap since the late 1980s between Democrats and Republicans on the circumstances permitting abortion. By 2022, for example, the proportions of Democrats and Republicans saying abortions should be legal under any circumstances were 57 and 10 percent, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup.

A similar difference on abortion is evident among members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court. While Congressional Democrats are largely in favor codifying access to abortion and safeguards to the right to travel across state lines to undergo the procedure, Congressional Republicans are opposed to such access and safeguards. And the recent Supreme Court abortion decision ending the right to abortion reflects the divides in the views of justices appointed by Republican and Democrat administrations.

Concerning access to birth control methods, the vote on the recently passed bill by the House of Representatives was mostly along party lines. All but eight Republicans opposed the bill that aims to ensure access to contraception. In the Senate, the birth control measure is expected to fail as most Republicans are likely to be against it.

While most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent
On mortality and morbidity issues, Congressional Democratic and Republican leaders are also divided. A notable example of that divide has been the sustained Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act enacted by Democrats more than a decade ago.

Recent research has also found that more premature deaths occur in Republican-leaning counties than in Democratic-leaning counties. The policies adopted by Democratic-leaning states compared to those in Republican states are believed to have contributed to the greater divide in mortality outcomes. Those policies include Medicaid expansion, health care access, minimum wage legislation, tobacco control, gun legislation, and drug addiction treatment.

The early responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was transformed from a public health concern into a major political issue, also reflect the divide in mortality outcomes between Democrats and Republicans. While mask wearing, social distancing, and related preventive measures were often stressed by most Democratic officials, many Republican leaders resisted such measures and downplayed the risks of the coronavirus.

Those partisan differences concerning the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in the behavior and attitudes of Republicans and Democrats across the country. As a result of those attitudinal and behavioral differences, Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democrat-leaning counties.

With respect to immigration, Republicans in general favor less immigration than Democrats. For example, a national Gallup poll in July 2022 found that the proportion saying immigration to America should be decreased was 69 percent among Republicans versus 17 percent among Democrats. The rise for decreased immigration during the past several years is primarily due to Republicans, whose desire for reducing immigration increased by 21 points since June 2020 compared to an increase of 4 points among Democrats (Figure 3).

Source: Gallup.

To address immigration levels, the former Republican administration advocated building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and limiting the granting of asylum claims. In contrast, most Democratic leaders have not been in favor of erecting a border wall. Also, the current Democratic administration has been removing obstacles to granting asylum claims, including ending the former administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

Concerning the more than 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the country, the former Republican administration wanted to ban counting them in the 2020 census. The desired exclusion of undocumented migrants in the census enumeration was aimed at not including them when determining Congressional representation. The current Democratic administration, in contrast, includes undocumented migrants in the census count and determining Congressional representation.

On whether to offer an amnesty to immigrants living unlawfully in the country, a wide divide exists between the two major political parties. While Democrats are largely in favor of offering illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship, many Republicans oppose granting an amnesty to those who are unlawfully resident in the country. A PEW survey in August 2022, for example, found the proportion in favor of a path to U.S. citizenship among Democrats was more than double the level among the Republicans, 80 versus 37 percent, respectively.

Regarding the changing ethnic composition of the U.S. population, Democrats tend to view the changes more favorably than Republicans. For example, one national PEW survey found Democrats three times more likely than Republicans to say a majority nonwhite population will strengthen America’s customs and values, i.e., 42 and 13 percent, respectively.

Similar divides between Democrats and Republicans were found with respect to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. The growth of interracial marriage is considered to be a good thing for the country by a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans, 61 and 33 percent, respectively. Also, Democrats have been consistently more likely than Republicans to say that same-sex marriages should recognized by the law as valid, with the proportions in 2022 at 83 and 55 percent, respectively (Figure 4).

Source: Gallup.

Democrats and Republicans also differ in their views about gender identity. While a national PEW survey found 80 percent of Republicans saying that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex assigned at birth, 64 percent of Democrats took the opposite view, believing that a person’s gender can be different from the sex assigned at birth.

Moreover, the majority of Republicans, 57 percent, say that society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender, compared to 12 percent of Democrats.

On the issue of population ageing, noteworthy policy differences with program implications exist between Democrats and Republicans. In general, Republican leaders have resisted government entitlement programs established by Democrats, such as Social Security and Medicare, preferring reliance on the private sector, freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

Republican leaders have proposed replacing those major programs for older Americans with private investment accounts and a voucher system for health insurance. In addition, some Republicans recommend eliminating Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlement programs and have them become programs approved by Congress annually as discretionary spending.

A similar political divide exists among Americans concerning the provision of long-term care that the elderly may need. One national PEW survey in 2019 reported that while two-thirds of Democrats say the government should be mostly responsible for paying for that care for the elderly, 40 percent of Republicans have that view.

In sum, significant divides currently exist between Democrats and Republicans on nearly every major demographic issue facing the United States. Those divides are being politicized by the two parties, reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country, which in turn are affecting domestic legislation and foreign policy as well as hampering America’s progress in the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

The current Israeli prime minister, Yair Lapid, speaking at the opening of the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly, expressed his government’s backing for a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 13 2022 (IPS)

Demography is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the fundamental obstacle to achieving to what each side has long desired: “שָׁלוֹם”, “سلام”, or “peace”.

An Israeli-Palestinian peace can’t wait another year, another decade, or another 75 years. Too many Israelis and Palestinians are being killed, too many are being repressed, and too many are longing for peace.

The movement for a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, which prior to World War I was part of Ottoman Syria, began in earnest in the late 19th century amidst growing European anti-Semitism and the Zionist movement to establish a Jewish nation in Zion. The movement secured support among Western European governments, especially with the 1917 British Balfour Declaration supporting “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The tract of land in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, established as the British Mandate of Palestine in 1922, is relatively small, about half the size of Denmark, and had a population of about three-quarters of a million. A century later, the population in that tract of land has increased nearly twentyfold to 14.8 million, with 9.6 million in Israel and 5.3 million in the State of Palestine.

Jewish migration to the British Mandate of Palestine increased during the first half of the 20th century. As a result of that migration, the religious composition of the resident population underwent noteworthy change. The estimated numbers of Jewish migrants during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940 to 1945 are 100,000, 223,000, and 45,000, respectively, resulting in a total of 368,000 (Figure 1).

Source: Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.

The resident Palestinian population in the British Mandate of Palestine was predominantly Muslims and Christians. Their proportion was close to 90 percent in 1922. By 1931 the proportion declined to 83 percent and to 68 percent by the mid 1940s. In 1945 the estimated proportions of Muslims, Jews, and Christians of the population in British Mandate of Palestine were 60, 31, and 8 percent, respectively (Table 1).

With the establishment of Israel in 1948 in part of the former British Mandate of Palestine, the demographic compositions changed significantly with the displacement of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians. In the newly founded nation of Israel with a population close to one million the estimated proportion Jewish was 82 percent, which rose to a record high of 89 percent a decade later.

The demographic changes in the natural increase, migration and religious composition of the populations residing in the former British Mandate of Palestine continued throughout the second half of the 20th century as well as into the first two decades of the 21st century.

Moving to today, the current Israeli prime minister, Yair Lapid, speaking at the opening of the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly, expressed his government’s backing for a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Amnesty International, for example, reported Israel enforcing a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinians wherever it has control over their rights. Similar findings were reported by Human Rights Watch, the UN Special Rapporteur, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq. In addition, one quarter of American Jews now say Israel is an apartheid state

The Israeli prime minister said, “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children.” He added that despite the obstacles, a large majority of Israelis support the two-state solution.

In his statement to the General Assembly, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, took note of the Israeli prime minister’s call for a two-state solution. He added that Palestine also looks forward to achieving peace with Israel.

The Palestinian president said, “Let us make this peace to live in security, stability and prosperity for the benefit of our generations and all the people of the region.”

Also, in his remarks to the General Assembly, the U.S. president, Joseph Biden, called for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The American president said, “And a negotiated two-state solution remains, in our view, the best way to ensure Israel’s security and prosperity for the future and give the Palestinians the state which — to which they are entitled — both sides to fully respect the equal rights of their citizens; both people enjoying equal measure of freedom and dignity.”

At the time of the General Assembly, the Arab Peace Committee also promoted its two-decade old proposal calling for peace and normalization for Arab countries with Israel in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian land captured during the 1967 war and for the creation of a Palestinian state. That proposal is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw from occupied lands to secure and recognize borders in exchange for peace.

Various options have been proposed to address the nearly century long conflict. Those options include a confederation of Israel, Jordan and Palestine, autonomy-plus for the Palestinians, a federation of smaller Palestinian provinces or cantons, and the expulsion or transfer of the Palestinians from the West Bank, also referred to as Judea and Samaria by Israel (Table 2)

Besides the long and widely advocated two-state solution, two major choices now facing the Israelis and Palestinians are the continuation of the status quo and the one-state solution. However, many consider the continuation of the status quo to be untenable, clearly not a resolution to the conflict, and also places Israel’s democracy in peril.

In addition, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations as well as independent observers have found Israel practicing apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Amnesty International, for example, reported Israel enforcing a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinians wherever it has control over their rights. Similar findings were reported by Human Rights Watch, the UN Special Rapporteur, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq. In addition, one quarter of American Jews now say Israel is an apartheid state.

Israel, however, rejects the accusation that it is practicing apartheid, saying “it is a democracy committed to international law and open to scrutiny”. Its government cites security concerns in imposing travel restrictions on Palestinians, whose uprising in past decades included suicide bombings in Israeli cities.

Some fundamental Israeli and Palestinian demographics provide some relevant insight into the likely religious composition in the one-state solution.

At the eve of the Jewish New Year 5782 observed on 25 September Israel’s population stood at 9.6 million residents, with 7.1 million, or 73.7 percent, being Jewish. The State of Palestine’s population is estimated at slightly more than half the size of Israel’s, at approximately 5.3 million.

Combining the Israeli and Palestinian populations yields an overall total population in 2022 of 14.8 million. The Jewish proportion of that combined population turns out to be a minority of 48 percent. Moreover, the Jewish proportion of the population in the one-state solution is projected to decline to 46 percent by 2030 and further to 45 percent by 2048 (Figure 2).

Source: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and United Nations.

Regarding the prospects of the two-state solution, while some stress that it is desirable and achievable, others believe that it is no longer an option primarily due to today’s realities. Nearly 700,000 Israelis are currently living in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

In addition, many of Israel’s political leaders, even those of the center-left, do not support a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. Also, the former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged to impose Israeli sovereignty in parts of the West Bank. In practical terms, some have concluded that Israel annexed the West Bank long ago.

Achieving a just and comprehensive two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a formidable undertaking, with many serious challenges. Prominent among those challenges are the status of Jerusalem, the million plus Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries, religious extremists, international boundaries and security.

Given the facts on the ground and political realities, some have concluded that it’s time to abandon the traditional two-state solution and embrace equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians in a single state. The one-state solution, however, would clearly be at odds with Israel remaining a “Jewish and democratic state”.

Despite the weighty obstacles, a negotiated peace would lead to innumerable benefits. The Israelis and Palestinians could reap the rewards of peace, reconciliation, and prospects for a better future. In addition, peace would strengthen and expand relationships with countries in this strategically important region.

In brief, the time for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate פתרון שלום , حل سلمي, or a peace solution is now.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s. Picture: Mumbai, India. Credit: Sthitaprajna Jena (CC BY-SA 2.0).

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 3 2022 (IPS)

While the world’s population of 8 billion is continuing to increase and projected to reach 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2058, considerable diversity in the population growth of countries is continuing in the 21st century.

At one extreme are some 50 countries, accounting for close to 30 percent of today’s world population, whose populations are expected to decline over the coming decades.

By 2060, for example, those projected population declines include 9 percent in Germany, 11 percent in Russia, 13 percent in Spain, 15 percent in China, 17 percent in Poland, 18 percent in Italy, 21 percent in South Korea, 22 percent in Japan, and 31 percent in Bulgaria (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In terms of the size of those population declines, the largest is in China with a projected decline of 218 million by 2060. Following China are population declines in Japan and Russia of 27 million and 16 million, respectively.

At the other extreme, the population of 25 countries, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the world’s population, are expected to more than double by 2060. Those projected population increases by 2060 include 106 percent in Afghanistan, 109 percent in Sudan, 113 percent in Uganda, 136 percent in Tanzania, 142 percent in Angola, 147 percent in Somalia, 167 percent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 227 percent in Niger (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

With respect to the size of the populations that are projected to more than double, the largest is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a projected increase of 165 million by 2060. DRC is followed by population increases in Tanzania and Niger of 89 million and 60 million, respectively.

In between the extremes of declining and doubling populations are 120 intermediate growth countries. They account for about 60 percent of today’s world population and are projected to have larger populations by 2060 to varying degrees.

Those projected increases in population size include 13 percent in the United States, 17 percent New Zealand, 20 percent in India, 24 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Australia, 38 percent Saudi Arabia, 58 percent Israel, 95 percent in Nigeria, and 98 percent in Ethiopia (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Among the intermediate growth countries, the largest expected population growth is in India with a projected increase of 278 million by 2060. India is followed by Nigeria and Ethiopia with population increases of 208 million and 121 million, respectively.

The continuing significant differences in the rates demographic growth are resulting in a noteworthy reordering of countries by population size.

For example, while in 1980 about half of the 15 largest country populations were developed countries, by 2020 that number declined to one country, the United States. Also, Nigeria, which was eleventh largest population in 1980, was the seventh largest in 2020 and is projected to be the third largest population in 2060 with the United States moving to fourth place (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

In addition, China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s, 1.7 billion versus 1.2 billion, respectively.

The major explanation behind the diversity in population growth rates is differing fertility levels. While the countries whose populations are projected to at least double by 2060 have fertility rates of four to six births per woman, those whose populations are projected to decline have fertility rates below two births per woman.

Europe’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close the continent’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million

About two-thirds of the world’s population of 8 billion live in a country, including the three most populous China, India and the United States, where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In addition, most of those populations have experienced low fertility rates for decades.

Also, many countries are experiencing fertility rates that are approximately half the replacement level or less. For example, the total fertility rate declined to 1.2 births per woman for China and Italy, 1.3 for Japan and Spain, with South Korea reaching a record low of 0.8 births per woman.

The population of some countries with below replacement fertility, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, are projected to continue growing due to international migration. However, if international migration to those countries stopped, their populations would begin declining in a few decades just like other countries with below replacement fertility levels.

In hopes of avoiding population decline, many countries are seeking to raise their fertility rates back to at least the replacement level. Among the countries with below replacement fertility close to two-thirds have adopted policies to increase their rates, including baby bonuses, family allowances, parental leave, tax incentives, and flexible work schedules.

Most recently, China announced new measures to raise its below replacement fertility rate by making it easier to work and raise a family. Those measures include flexible working arrangements and preferential housing policies for families, as well as support on education, employment, and taxes to encourage childbearing.

Despite the desires, policies, and programs of governments to raise fertility levels, returning to replacement level fertility is not envisaged for the foreseeable future.

The world’s average total fertility rate of 2.4 births per woman in 2020, which is about half the levels during the 1950s and 1960s, is projected to decline to the replacement level by midcentury and to 1.8 births per woman by the end of the 21st century. Consequently, by 2050 some 50 countries are expected to have smaller populations than today, and that number is projected to rise to 72 countries by 2100.

As many of those countries are in Europe, that continent’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close Europe’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million.

In contrast, the populations of roughly three dozen countries with current fertility levels of more than four births per woman are expected to continue growing throughout the century.

As most of those countries are in Africa, that continent’s population is projected to double by around midcentury. Moreover, by close of the 21st century Africa’s population is projected to be triple its current size, i.e., from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion.

In sum, considerable diversity in the growth of populations is expected to continue throughout the 21st century. While the populations of many countries are projected to decline, the populations of many others are projected to increase. The net result of that diversity is the world’s current population of 8 billion is expected to increase to 10 billion around midcentury.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

The nonacceptance of the climate change crisis persists despite its increasingly visible worldwide consequences. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 19 2022 (IPS)

Many people around the world, especially those among the political far-right, do not accept the climate change crisis. Over the years their thinking, behavior, and policies dismissing climate change have largely continued and impaired global efforts to address global warming and environmental degradation.

The unequivocal findings of numerous reports on the consequences of climate change by international and national scientific committees have not been sufficient to counter climate change skepticism. On the contrary, the reactions of skeptics to the climate change reports can be summed up in the phrase “Don’t confuse me with the facts”.

The rise of right-wing populism in many countries also constitutes a potential obstacle to addressing climate change. Right-wing parties and politicians frequently voice climate change skepticism, denials, and opposition to climate change policies, such as carbon taxes.

The nonacceptance of the climate change crisis persists despite its increasingly visible worldwide consequences. It’s indeed difficult to avoid news reports of climate change events, including extreme heat, flooding, droughts, destroyed crops, wildfires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, smog, pollution, and increasing rates of human morbidity and mortality.

Even the signed petitions to government leaders from thousands of scientists from around the world warning of a climate emergency and the concerns, demonstrations, and protests of younger generations calling for urgent action have not been enough to convince skeptics of the climate change threat, especially among the political right.

In general, the majorities of most populations are concerned about the climate change crisis. A global survey by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) of public opinion in 2021 covering 50 countries and over half of the world’s population found that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believed climate change is a global emergency.

The proportion of the population believing climate change is an emergency ranged from a low of 61 percent in sub-Saharan Africa to a high of 71 percent in Western Europe and North America. The proportions of the remaining four regions varied from 63 to 65 percent (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations Development Programme.

In addition to the UNDP study, a 2022 PEW survey of nineteen countries across North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region found a median of 75 percent viewing global climate change as a major threat to their country.

However, views concerning the climate change threat differed considerably across political groups. By and large, surveys find that those of the political right are less likely than those of the left to believe in the reality and anthropogenic nature of the climate change crisis.

In the 2022 PEW survey, for example, those on the political right in fourteen countries were found to be consistently less likely to consider climate change a major threat to their country than those on the political left (Figure 2).

Source: Pew Research Center.

The largest difference among those fourteen countries was in the United States where 22 percent of the political right considered climate change a major threat to their country versus 85 percent on the political left. Other countries with a large difference between those on the political right and left were Australia with 47 and 91 percent, Canada with 46 and 80 percent, and Germany with 59 and 83 percent, respectively.

Moreover, the differences in the views of political groups concerning climate change in some major countries have widened over the recent past. In the United States, for example, the difference between Republicans and Democrats has increased substantially over the past quarter century.

Near the start of the 21st century 20 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of Democrats believed that global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime. By 2021, the difference between Republicans and Democrats had widened substantially to 11 percent versus 67 percent, respectively (Figure 3).

Source: Gallup Survey.

Also, differing views about climate change are reflected in the statements and policies of political parties and their leaders. For example, the Vox party in Spain dismissed climate change as “a hoax”, the National Front in France promoted climate skepticism, and Sweden’s Democrats described the climate debate as “weird” in budget discussions, arguing that the seriousness of climate change is exaggerated, and scientific evidence is being distorted.

The unequivocal findings of numerous reports on the consequences of climate change by international and national scientific committees have not been sufficient to counter climate change skepticism. On the contrary, the reactions of skeptics to the climate change reports can be summed up in the phrase “Don’t confuse me with the facts”

In Germany the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) challenged the global scientific consensus on climate change, describing it as “hysteria”. In addition, the AfD abandoned the previous cross-party consensus on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

In the United States, the world’s second largest emitter of CO2 producing about 14 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions, the former Republican president said that he was not a believer in man-made global warming, called climate change “a hoax” invented by China, and said scientists were “misleading us” on climate change. Moreover, he dismissed federal scientific reports on climate change and sought to roll back climate regulations, including increasing U.S. coal mining and reconsidering fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

In China, the world’s top emitter of CO2 producing about 30 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions, some report that the Communist Party’s climate change skeptics are mostly shunned and may chatter in the shadows. After decades of rejecting climate change and its visible consequences, such as choking smog hanging over most of the country, no higher-up Chinese officials are saying that climate change is a hoax and while some may have that view, they won’t say it.

In India, which the IPCC highlights as a vulnerable hotspot, some find politicians denying or ignoring climate change. They note that in the election manifestos of the two leading national parties, the Indian National Congress and the BJP, neither of them mentioned the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Also at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, India reportedly found the IPCC’s recent report too gloomy and requested a section on mitigation be removed.

A preliminary draft of the Glasgow pact called on countries to “accelerate the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”. In the final negotiations, however, India and China, whose coal-fired power stations provide approximately 70 and 60 percent of their electricity, respectively, said they would agree only to “phase-down unabated coal” and the phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

In addition, when heading to COP26, Australia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia were among those countries lobbying the United Nations “to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels”. Some wealthy nations also questioned paying more to poorer states to move to greener technologies.

In preparatory meetings for the November COP27 climate summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, African nations pushed back against abrupt moves away from fossil fuels. They stressed the need to avoid approaches that encourage abrupt disinvestments from fossil fuels, which would threaten Africa’s development. For example, Nigeria, Africa’s largest population, indicated that gas was a matter of survival for the country.

The latest report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise. The IPCC report also states that current plans to address climate change are not ambitious enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is a threshold necessary to avoid even more catastrophic impacts.

A number of social and psychological explanations have been offered for climate change crisis nonacceptance and skepticism, especially among the right-wing conservatives. In the past, the lack of knowledge about the causes of climate change was believed to play a major role. More recently, political ideology and party identification are believed to strongly influence how people selectively seek and interpret information about climate change.

Political beliefs and motivations have also been found to guide people’s attention, perceptions, and understanding of climate change evidence and mitigation efforts. In addition, some are not willing to accept the climate change crisis and proposed mitigation measures because they challenge their need to protect existing socioeconomic structures and traditional lifestyles, raise their anxieties about declines in living standards, and threaten development efforts, particularly in less developed countries.

In sum, it is certainly the case that the majority of most populations worldwide, especially the younger generations, are concerned about the climate change crisis. However, it is also the case that despite the overwhelming unequivocal evidence, many people, especially far-right conservatives, continue their nonacceptance of the climate change crisis.

Such a political divide with vocal opposition from the political far-right with the continuing support, political lobbying, and extensive efforts of various extractive industries is worrisome and consequential. It undermines global plans to address climate change and thwarts more ambitious efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the goal set in the Paris Agreement to avert the worst effects of global warming

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Sizable differences in the levels of children dying persist especially between more developed and less developed regions. Credit: Franz Chávez/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 5 2022 (IPS)

The chances of a child dying before reaching age five years have dropped substantially worldwide during the recent past. However, a significant divide remains among countries as well as within regions in the chances of children dying.

Over the past fifty years, the death rates of infants and children under age five have declined markedly. Since 1971 the world’s infant mortality rate declined from nearly 100 deaths per 1,000 live births to 28. Similarly, the world’s under-five mortality rate declined from nearly 150 deaths per 1,000 live births to 37 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Despite those impressive declines, sizable differences in the levels of children dying persist especially between more developed and less developed regions. In 2021, for example, the infant mortality rate and under-five mortality rate of the less developed regions were about eight times the levels of the more developed regions.

High rates of children dying are even more striking for many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. While sub-Saharan Africa represented 14 percent of the world’s population in 2021, it accounted for more than 56 percent of the deaths of children under age five. In contrast, more developed regions represented 16 percent of the world’s population but accounted for 1 percent of deaths of children under age five.

In addition, the infant mortality rates of the fifteen highest countries are all located in sub-Saharan Africa. Their rates are no less than thirteen times higher than those of the more developed regions. Moreover, four of those countries, i.e., Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, and Somalia, have rates that are eighteen times higher than those of the more developed regions (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

A similar pattern is clear for death rates of children under-five. The fifteen highest countries are again all in sub-Saharan Africa. They have under-five mortality rates that are at least fifteen times higher than those of the more developed regions. In addition, the rates of Somalia, Nigeria, Chad, and the Central African Republic are about twenty times higher than the levels of the more developed regions.

Important factors contributing to high levels of children dying include neonatal causes, including preterm and low birth weight, asphyxia, infection, pneumonia, malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, measles, and tuberculosis.

The death of mothers is also a major factor associated with high levels of children dying. High rates of maternal mortality are often the result of excessive blood loss, infection, high blood pressure, unsafe abortion, obstructed labor, anemia, malaria, and heart disease. In addition to high rates of maternal mortality, countries with high death rates of children also have high rates of women dying during their childbearing years.

For the fifteen countries with the highest rates of child mortality, for example, female mortality between age 15 and 50 is at least four times higher than the level of the more developed regions. Moreover, in the Central African Republic, Chad, Lesotho, and Nigeria, female mortality between age 15 and 50 is more than seven times the level of more developed regions (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

One of key targets of the Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3) is by 2030 to end preventable deaths of newborns and children under five. More specifically, the goals are to reduce neonatal mortality to at least 12 deaths per 1,000 live births and under-five mortality to at least 25 deaths per 1,000 live births.

While sub-Saharan Africa represented 14 percent of the world’s population in 2021, it accounted for more than 56 percent of the deaths of children under age five. In contrast, more developed regions represented 16 percent of the world’s population but accounted for 1 percent of deaths of children under age five

For most of the sub-Saharan countries achieving those desired goals by 2030 appears unlikely. For example, the under-five mortality rate of sub-Saharan Africa in 2021 is 72 deaths per 1,000 live births, or nearly triple the desired goal by 2030. Also, the projected 2030 under-five mortality rate for sub-Saharan Africa is 62, again more than double the desired goal of 25 deaths per 1,000 births.

The situation for the fifteen countries with the highest levels of children dying are even more striking. The under-five mortality rates of those countries are expected to remain far greater than the desired goal by 2030. For example, the 2021 under-five mortality rates for Nigeria and Somalia of about 111 deaths per 1,000 births are projected to decline to approximately 100 by 2030, or four times the goal of SDG 3.

On a variety of developmental dimensions, the countries with high rates of children dying are doing comparatively poorly. Those countries have high levels of poverty, illiteracy, and malnourishment.

Furthermore, on various global indexes, such as the Fragile State Index, the Human Development Index, the Economic Freedom Index, and the Human Freedom Index, those sub-Saharan African countries are doing comparatively poorly, typically falling in the bottom tier. For example, on the Fragile State Index, the rankings of the fifteen high child mortality countries reflect low levels of economic and social development with high levels of political instability.

Moreover, high child mortality countries are facing increasing risks of climate change. Those countries are among the least able to adapt to its consequences, such as high temperatures, droughts, flooding, and extreme weather events. Also, the same countries generally lack the financial and institutional capacities to carry out adaptation programs.

It is certainly the case that child mortality levels worldwide have declined substantially over the past half century. However, despite those impressive declines, a significant divide in the level of children dying remains between the more developed regions and most sub-Saharan African countries and other countries with high child mortality rates.

The major measures needed to address the high levels of children dying are widely recognized, with most of those deaths being due to preventable or treatable causes. According to the World Health Organization, six solutions to the most preventable causes of under-five deaths are: skilled attendants for antenatal, birth, and postnatal care; immediate and exclusive breastfeeding; access to nutrition and micronutrients; improved access to water, sanitation, and hygiene; family knowledge of danger signs in a child’s health; and immunizations.

It is also widely recognized that the financial resources, political will, social stability, and health programs that are necessary to reduce the numbers of children dying are typically lacking or seriously inadequate.

Addressing the significant divide in the rates of children dying represents a major challenge for many developing countries as well as the international community of nations that can offer aid and assistance to those countries. While the challenge is formidable, it is essential to reduce the unacceptably high levels of children dying.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations, and his latest book is: “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Promoting children’s primary and secondary education, especially for girls, will contribute significantly to development efforts as well as facilitate the demographic transition. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Aug 22 2022 (IPS)

While most countries in the world have made the transition from high to low rates of deaths and births, many countries, largely in Africa, face the challenges of high fertility rates that are resulting in rapidly growing populations.

In 2020 thirty-six countries, of which thirty are among the United Nations’ least developed countries, had fertility rates of more than four births per woman (Chart 1). The combined populations of those three dozen countries in 2020 amounted to nearly 1 billion people, or approximately 12 percent of the world’s total population of nearly 8 billion.

Source: United Nations. * Least developed country.

By 2058 when the world’s population is projected to reach 10 billion, the combined populations of those thirty-six high fertility countries are expected to more than double to more than 2 billion. Their population total will represent approximately 22 percent of the world’s projected population in 2058.

Among the high fertility countries, ten of them, all least developed nations except Nigeria, had rates that were five or more births per woman in 2020. Furthermore, half of those countries had fertility rates of six or more births per woman. The highest rate was Niger’s at nearly seven births per woman (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations. * Least developed country.

The high fertility rates of those ten countries are contributing to the rapid growth of their populations. For example, the populations of all of those ten countries are projected to at least double by 2058. Consequently, the combined populations of those ten countries are expected to increase from 419 million in 2020 to 970 million by 2058, or from about 5 percent of the world’s population to 10 percent.

The largest population among those ten countries is Nigeria. Its population is expected to increase from 208 million in 2020 to 419 million by 2058. As a result of that rapid demographic growth, Nigeria is projected to move from the world’s seventh largest population in 2020 to the third largest by midcentury.

In addition, the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is expected to nearly triple between 2020 and 2058, increasing from 93 million to 257 million. However, among the thirty-six high fertility countries, Niger is expected to experience the most rapid demographic growth over the next several decades. Niger’s population of 24 million in 2020 is projected to more than triple to 83 million by 2058.

An important consequence of the high fertility rates is a young age structure. Half or more of the populations of the top ten fertility countries are children below the age of eighteen years. Moreover, in five of those countries the median age of the population is 15 years or less (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations. * Least developed country.

The thirty-six rapidly growing, young populations are facing numerous challenges. In addition to confronting high levels of poverty, those countries are facing serious difficulties in reducing hunger, providing basic education, offering decent work and employment opportunities, promoting women’s rights, providing healthcare, and reducing inequalities. Furthermore, many of them are among the countries with the lowest Human Development Index.

In some of those countries, the majority of the adult population is illiterate. For example, the proportion illiterate is more than 60 percent of the adult population in Benin, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and South Sudan.

As has been the case in regions worldwide, promoting children’s primary and secondary education, especially for girls, will contribute significantly to development efforts as well as facilitate the demographic transition

In addition, various studies report that Africa is likely to be the most vulnerable continent to climate change impacts. The effects are particularly pronounced in sub-Saharan countries due to temperature increases, changes in rainfall patterns, extreme weather patterns, and increasing natural disasters. For many of the rapidly growing countries, those effects already pose serious risks to water and food systems, public health, agriculture, employment, socio-economic development, and population displacement.

The three dozen rapidly growing populations are not on track to meet Sustainable Development Goal 2 to end hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round, and to end all forms of malnutrition. Since 2012 the number of undernourished people in drought-prone sub-Saharan African countries has increased by 46 percent.

In some of the high fertility African countries, the proportions suffering from undernourishment are high. For example, the proportion of Somalia’s population undernourished is 60 percent, followed by the Central African Republic at 48 percent, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 42 percent.

Climate change is also contributing to mass displacement of people in those countries due to heatwaves, droughts, and failed crops. Looking for relief from difficult living conditions, many move from rural areas to large cities.

In addition, large numbers of men and women in those rapidly growing countries are seeking to migrate both legally and illegally to other countries. Their preferred destinations are the countries of North America and Europe.

For example, in the most populous African country, Nigeria, about half of its population of more than 200 million people would like to migrate to another country. Even higher proportions wanting to resettle abroad are the populations of Sierra Leone and Liberia, 71 and 66 percent, respectively.

It’s abundantly clear that the three-dozen high fertility, rapidly growing populations are facing formidable economic, social, and environmental challenges. There are no simple and quick remedies to address those many challenges, which are expected to become more problematic in the coming decades.

However, it is certainly the case that many of those rapidly growing populations would benefit from international assistance, financial aid, and technical expertise. Contributions from the international community, aid agencies, and financial institutions would facilitate economic development, employment opportunities, and social progress as well as alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in those countries.

An important step in addressing those development challenges is to expediate the demographic transition in those countries, which would result in lower rates of population growth. Simply stated, development efforts in the rapidly growing populations should emphasize transitioning from high rates of fertility to low rates.

Finally, as has been the case in regions worldwide, promoting children’s primary and secondary education, especially for girls, will contribute significantly to development efforts as well as facilitate the demographic transition. Those efforts need to be reinforced with the provision of basic health care, including the widespread availability of family planning information, methods, and services.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Due to the increasingly visible consequences of climate change, governments are finding it difficult to downplay the warnings of scientists. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Aug 10 2022 (IPS)

With climate change bringing about increasing numbers of human deaths and untold suffering, and rising economic, social, and environmental consequences worldwide, it’s time for governments to take bold action to address the climate change emergency.

Climate scientists have warned that there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 Celsius. Beyond that level, even half a degree, will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

In November the 27th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP27) to the UN Framework Convention to Climate Change is scheduled to take place in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Government representatives from some 200 countries and other parties will focus on securing the 1.5°C goal and adapting to the negative impacts of climate change through the implementation of the Paris Agreement provisions.

At the time of COP27, world population is expected to reach 8,000,000,000. That figure is an increase of more than 2 billion humans on the planet since the first COP conference held in Berlin, Germany, in 1995.

The 8 billion milestone is double the size of world population in 1974 and quadruple its size in 1927. With the growth of the world’s population, annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have grown enormously over the past century, increasing more than nine-fold since 1927 and doubling since 1974 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations and Our World in Data. *Projected figures.

The growth of world population has slowed down from its peak levels in the second half of the 20th century. It continues to increase, currently at about 70 million annually and projected to reach 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2058.

If annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry continue to increase as they have during the past several decades, their annual level of emissions in 2058 when the world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion would be more than 50 percent higher than it is today, or approximately 60 billion tonnes.

Up until relatively recently, warnings of a climate change emergency by thousands of scientists have been downplayed by most governments. Frustrated by government responses, many scientists are increasingly feeling like climate change Cassandras.

Warnings that rising carbon emissions are dangerously heating the Earth have been clearly conveyed to governments. In particular, scientists have emphasized that the burning of fossil fuels is already heating up the planet faster than anything the world has seen in 2,000 years.

In 2020 five countries produced approximately 60 percent of the world’s annual CO2 emissions. In first place was China with nearly one-third of the annual CO2 emissions. China also has the greatest number of coal-fired power stations of any country in 2022, or approximately 1,110 operational stations (Figure 2).

Source: Our World in Data.

The United States is in second place accounting for 14 percent of the annual CO2 emissions in 2020. The percentages for the other three countries, India, Russia, and Japan, were 7, 5 and 3 percent, respectively

In addition to warnings of a climate change emergency, scientists have spelled out some of the likely consequences for life on the planet if the increase in global warming were to exceed 1.5 Celsius (Table 1).

Source: Job One for Humanity.

Those likely consequences include warmer temperatures with increased frequency, intensity, and duration, impacting oceans, seas levels, coral reefs, fish levels, glaciers and ice and snow cover. Also, changes in patterns and amount of rainfall are expected to result in increased droughts and desertification as well as flooding.

Climate change’s worsening of air and water quality is expected to contribute to the spread of certain diseases and human illnesses accompanied by increased malnourishment, hunger, and mortality, as well as the deteriorating ecosystems impacting numerous plant and animal species. Climate change will also likely contribute to the increased displacement of people as well as illegal migration as millions of men, women, and children seek to escape the consequences of global warming and environmental degradation.

Due to the increasingly visible consequences of climate change, governments are finding it difficult to downplay the warnings of scientists. Among the weather consequences of the climate change emergency are worldwide record-breaking high temperatures as well as droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, and hurricanes.

Global surveys also report that the majority of the world’s population is worried about climate change. In January 2021, for example, the global climate survey by the United Nations Development Programme across 50 countries found that nearly two-thirds of the respondents consider climate change as an emergency and represents a clear call for governments to take the needed action to address it.

Various measures have been recommended to address the climate change emergency. Among those measures are stabilizing or reducing the size of human populations, eliminating the use of fossil fuels, moving to renewable energies, reducing air pollutants, restoring ecosystems, shifting from meat to mainly plant based diets, and transitioning to sustainable GDP growth (Table 2).

Source: International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The upcoming November COP27 conference in Egypt is expected to follow the usual pattern of previous sessions with an adoption of a negotiated final report. However, that outcome is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the internationally established goal of limiting the increase in global warming to a maximum of 1.5 Celsius.

Despite more than two dozen annual COP sessions, various international agreements, and enumerated goals, a binding international agreement to address the climate change emergency is lacking. In addition, an authority that would impose climate change policies is not likely to be established, particularly given the supremacy of national sovereignty.

Nevertheless, progress to address climate change has been achieved over the past several decades. The international community of nations adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, and the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Also, governments have agreed on the science behind climate change, acknowledged the likely consequences of inaction, and have set emission reduction pledges to slow down CO2 emissions. Recently adopted policies have enhanced energy efficiency, slowed deforestation rates, and accelerated the use of renewable energy.

In addition, scores of governments are adopting additional commitments to address climate change. The United States, for example, recently passed historic legislation aimed at addressing climate change and clean energy that includes a budget of U.S. $369 billion.

As stated above, climate scientists have warned that there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 Celsius. Given that 12-year window to address the global warming goal, there is little time to waste.

It is time for governments, especially the major contributors to global warming, to implement bold actions to address the climate change emergency.

* Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

A half-century of reproduction rights upended by the Supreme Court. Credit: Greenpeace.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

The 24 June decision of United States Supreme Court to overturn the country’s nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion is being felt worldwide.

In addition to the objections and protests to the court’s landmark decision within the United States, governments, world leaders, and others have expressed their concerns and dissatisfaction about the overturning a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision

The European Union’s parliament overwhelmingly condemned the decision ending the constitutional protections of women for abortion in the United States. Fearing the expansion of anti-abortion movements in Europe, the parliament also called for safeguards to abortion rights be enshrined in the EU’s fundamental rights charter and protections be adopted across the EU.

The Director General of the World Health Organization was very disappointed with the decision and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called the court’s decision a major setback. Access to safe, legal, and effective abortion, the Commissioner stressed, is firmly rooted in international human rights law.

Objections to the decision came from many government leaders worldwide. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, saw the decision as a big step backwards. Accusing the court of diminishing the rights of U.S. women, the President of France said that abortion is a fundamental right of all women.

The German Chancellor viewed the decision as a threat to the rights of women, as did New Zealand’s Prime Minister who saw it as a loss for women everywhere. The Belgian Prime Minister expressed concerns about the signal the decision sends to the rest of the world about a woman’s right to an abortion.

Fifty years ago, various U.S. states criminalized a woman having an abortion. In 1973 in the case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s majority of seven justices established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in all 50 states (Table 1).

The justices concluded that state statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A majority of five justices reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions.

The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden”, which is defined as a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

In June 2022, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a majority of six justices concluded that the 1973 and 1992 abortion decisions of a dozen former justices were egregiously wrong in their legal reasoning that led to erroneous decisions concerning the right to an abortion.

After nearly a half century of women having a constitutional right to an abortion enshrined in the 1973 decision and reaffirmed in the 1992 decision, six justices of the current Supreme Court concluded that there is no such constitutional right. In the dissenting opinion, the court’s remaining three justices wrote that the U.S. will become an international outlier after the decision.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision.

In addition, a majority of Americans, approximately 60 percent, and President Biden with the backing of many Democratic leaders support Congress passing a law establishing a nationwide right to abortion. Such a law would protect a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

In contrast, a comparatively small minority of Americans, 13 percent in 2022, are opposed to abortion, with some, including Republican leaders, considering a federal abortion ban for all fifty states. Since 1975, the annual proportion of Americans who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has varied from a low of 12 percent in 1990 to a high of 22 percent in 2002 (Figure 1).

Source: Gallup Polls.

Following its decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, confidence in the Supreme Court has reached historic lows. A majority of the U.S. public, 58 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court. That level of disapproval is now on par with the public’s unfavorable view of Congress.

In addition, the United States has become a patchwork of abortion laws and given rise to a myriad of enforcement regulations, numerous court cases, and challenging legal questions. Abortion is now banned in at least nine states and more bans are expected in the near future. In some states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota, abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Also, many state legislatures are considering ways of stopping or criminalizing out of state abortions. They are also proposing banning or tightly restricting the use of abortion medication, which was approved in 2000 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and accounted for an estimated 54 percent of the country’s abortions in 2020. In response, other states are advancing legislation and executive orders protecting patients and providers from legal risks outside their borders.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision finding no constitutional right to an abortion has raised concerns that other rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are at risk of being overturned. Among those rights are same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraceptives.

In a concurring opinion to the recent abortion decision, for example, one of the court’s justices indicated that other precedents should be reconsidered. He also mentioned that future legal cases could curtail other rights not clearly addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

The court’s abortion decision may also embolden abortion opponents, influence policymakers, and affect reproductive health programs in other countries as well. The decision puts U.S. alongside several other countries, including Poland, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, that have backtracked on or restricted abortion policy in recent decades.

However, the court’s abortion decision runs counter to recent global liberalization trends on reproductive rights. During the past three decades about 60 countries have expanded laws and policies relating to reproductive rights, including legal access to abortion.

In sum, the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has not only revoked the nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion, but it is also now out of sync with the increasing worldwide recognition of fundamental reproductive rights, including a woman’s right to an abortion.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

TOPIO ("TOSY Ping Pong Playing Robot") is a bipedal humanoid robot designed to play table tennis against a human being. Photo: Humanrobo. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 4 2022 (IPS)

It is time for countries, especially those with slow growing and ageing human populations, to welcome androids, i.e., humanoid robots with human-like appearance and behavior, including speech, sight, hearing, mobility, and artificial intelligence.

Androids would not only complement and broaden a country’s labor supply, but they would also increase productivity, lower costs, raise profits, offer instruction, reduce accidents, assist in disasters, and provide safety, policing, firefighting, and security.

The introduction of androids into human societies would be especially beneficial for slow growing and ageing populations. Following the rapid population growth of the 20th century, demographic growth rates are slowing down, and populations are ageing globally.

Whereas world population was growing at an annual rate of 1.3 percent at the start of the 21st century, by midcentury the rate is expected to decline to 0.5 percent. The annual population growth rates of major regions are expected to decline over that period, with Europe’s population growth rate projected to decline to -0.3 percent (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations

With respect to population ageing, countries worldwide are becoming older than ever before. The proportion aged 65 years and older for the world, for example, is expected to more than double during the first half of the 21st century from approximately 7 percent in 2000 to 16 percent by 2050.

Among the major regions, the populations of Europe and Northern America are the most aged. During the first half of the 21st century, their proportions aged 65 years and older are expected to nearly double, reaching 28 and 23 percent by 2050, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations

Over the past decades various types of androids, or humanoid robots, have appeared in films, books, video games, and futuristic exhibitions. However, technology firms have been comparatively slow in bringing to market the latest research and progress in androids, including robotics, artificial intelligence, conversation, bipedal locomotion, and related technologies.

The only notable exception to the use of androids has been the sex industries. Those firms have jumped ahead with the rapid development of “sexbots”. Those androids are lifelike robots or dolls with humanoid form, body movements, artificial intelligence, hearing, sight, speech, and designed to have sexual relations with humans.

While certain jobs will be reduced and workers displaced, employment opportunities are expected to increase in other areas of the economy. For example, while the global number of the robots in manufacturing in 2021 had grown to 126 per 10,000 employees, or nearly double the level in 2015, employment opportunities have continued to expand

The market for sexbots is believed to be huge, with some convinced they are the future of sex. The realistic looking sexbots have artificial intelligence for simple conversation, are programmed to imitate basic human emotions, and can perform sexual acts with humans.

A recent study in the United States, for example, found that 40 percent of adults would have sex with a sexbot at least once to try it. Men were 21 percent more likely than women to say that they would have sex with a sexbot.

Most people are well accustomed to interacting with artificial intelligence on their cellphones, computers, and other electronic devices. Today most of those communications, which are provided both orally and by text, center on providing directions, information, explanations, purchases, games, music, entertainment, social activities, and various sorts of data.

Like the use of robotics to manufacture goods and provide services, androids could be utilized to perform a wide range of activities and services, including tasks that are boring, repetitive, hazardous, and dangerous. Already robotic devices have driven millions of miles autonomously, participated actively in space exploration, and reduced boredom and injuries to humans by carrying out dull, difficult, and dangerous tasks.

Androids could perform a variety of jobs, such as receptionist, salesclerk, guard, attendant, translator, and informant. Androids could answer basic questions, direct people to offices and individuals, remember names and faces, translate languages, log entry information, make phone calls, assist in rescues, monitor people’s health, provide caregiving, and alert authorities when human intervention is needed.

For example, the android, Nadine, is a receptionist at a Singapore university welcoming visitors and answering questions. The android, Erica, is a newscaster on Japanese television reporting the daily news and events and Sophia is the first android to be granted citizenship by Saudi Arabia.

Androids at a field hospital in Wuhan, China, perform services, measure temperatures, disinfect devices, deliver food and medicine, and entertain patients. And the android, Kime, is a beverage and food server in Spain that in addition to serving food can pour 300 glasses of beer per hour.

In addition to performing routine tasks and providing services, androids could be utilized to reduce feelings of loneliness, which has increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For those individuals suffering serious loneliness, including older persons limited by dementia and illness, androids could offer conversation and also provide companionship to those lacking a partner. Androids could also offer entertainment as well as facilitate social interaction.

Furthermore, the presence and interactions with androids can help to reduce feelings of stress, encourage wellbeing activities, and improve mental functioning. Androids could also monitor human behavior and health status.

Androids can also be available 24/7. Moreover, unlike humans, androids do not become frustrated, impatient, or angry. And as androids are not judgmental, prejudiced, or biased toward human behavior or appearance, people may feel freer to express their true feelings and thoughts.

In addition, androids could assist people with functional limitations. With speech, sight, hearing, location, and movement, androids can aid and help those with limited or lacking certain functions for daily living.

Despite androids potentially being able to contribute and enhance workplaces and households, concerns, fears, and reluctance persist about their use. For example, some are concerned that androids would replace workers as has been the case with the increased use of robotics in manufacturing, especially by the auto industry.

However, while certain jobs will be reduced and workers displaced, employment opportunities are expected to increase in other areas of the economy. For example, while the global number of the robots in manufacturing in 2021 had grown to 126 per 10,000 employees, or nearly double the level in 2015, employment opportunities have continued to expand.

Also, the numbers of robots per 10,000 employees in many advanced countries have reached substantially higher levels, such as 932 for South Korea, 605 for Singapore, 390 for Japan, and 371 for Germany. Nevertheless, demand for labor in those countries remains high and unemployment levels are comparatively low (Figure 3).

Source: World Robotics 2021.

Ethical questions have also been raised concerning the introduction of androids into human societies. For example, given that their appearance, intelligence, speech, and behavior will resemble humans, some have asked whether androids should be endowed with personhood that would entail certain rights, duties, and special laws.

While such ethical questions are not immediate concerns, similar questions are now being raised about the responsible use of artificial intelligence, such as facial recognition technology. However, some have suggested that androids rather than being feared may become allies of humans.

Still others have expressed fears that androids with artificial intelligence could revolt and harm humans. Those fears, which have been the plots in some popular science fiction films and books, tend to be highly exaggerated. Artificial intelligence achieving self-awareness or becoming sentient is unlikely any time soon and software safeguards could shut down an android.

Nevertheless, some continue to stress dangers and express warnings about the possibly imminent development of androids with machine intelligence greater than that of humans. Sentient machines, they contend, pose a greater likely threat to human societies than climate change, nuclear proliferation, or pandemics.

Proto-type androids have been introduced in various countries, including China, Germany, Iran, India, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Spain, and the United Kingdom. Many of the leaders in those countries have recognized the vital functions that androids could perform for societies and the market for androids is believed set for rapid expansion.

It’s time for countries to facilitate and promote the inclusion of androids in business establishments, government offices, public places, and personal households. Welcoming androids into human societies will advance the technological futures of countries as well as contribute to addressing slow growing and ageing populations.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Notwithstanding the various declarations, international agreements, conventions, platforms for action, and the progress achieved in recent decades, women continue to lag behind men in rights, freedoms, and equality. Credit: UN Women, India

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 23 2022 (IPS)

Why aren’t more women angry about their subordination, discrimination, and unequal treatment in the 21st century? Of course, some of the world’s women are angry, but they are comparatively few.

Women represent half of the world’s population and clearly play vital roles in humanity’s development, wellbeing, and advancement. Yet, women continue to experience discrimination, abusive treatment, misogyny degrading slurs, and subordinate roles in virtually every major sphere of human activity. 

Despite their treatment, discrimination, and subordination, most women aren’t expressing anger. If the situation between the two sexes were reversed, men would certainly be angry and would no doubt take the necessary steps to change the inequalities. 

Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted nearly seventy-five years ago applies all rights and freedoms equally to women and men and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. 

Some 40 years ago, the international community of nations adopted the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And more recently, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. 

Notwithstanding those various declarations, international agreements, conventions, platforms for action, and the progress achieved in recent decades, women continue to lag behind men in rights, freedoms, and equality.

 From the very start of life in some parts of the world, baby girls are often viewed less favorably than baby boys. In many societies boy babies continue to be preferred over girl babies. In too many instances the preference for sons has resulted in sex ratios at birth that are skewed in favor of males due to pregnancy interventions by couples.

The natural sex ratio at birth for human populations is around 105 males per 100 females, though it can range from 103 to 107. At present, at least seven countries, including the world’s two largest populations, have skewed sex ratios at birth reflecting son preference pregnancy interventions (Figure 1).  

Source: United Nations.

China and India have skewed sex ratios at birth of 113 and 110 males per 100 females, respectively. High sex ratios at birth are also observed in Azerbaijan (113), Viet Nam (112), Armenia (111), Pakistan (109), and Albania (109). In contrast, for the period 1970-1975 when pregnancy interventions by couples had not yet become widespread, the sex ratios at birth for those seven countries were within the expected normal range. 

Also in some countries, the female sex ratio imbalance continues throughout women’s lives. For example, India, Pakistan, and China, which together account for nearly 40 percent of the world’s population, the sex ratios for their total populations are 108, 106, and 105, respectively. In contrast, the population sex ratios are 100 in Africa and Oceania, about 97 in Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean, and 93 in Europe (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In terms of education, while progress has been achieved in the past several decades, girls continue to lag behind boys in elementary school education in some countries, especially in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. For example, 78 girls in Chad and 84 girls in Pakistan are enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys.

Among young women between 15 to 24 years approximately one-quarter are expected not to finish primary school. In addition, about two-thirds of the illiterate people in the world are women.  

With respect to decision making, women do not have political representation or participation levels similar to men. Worldwide the estimated percentages of women in national parliaments, local governments, and managerial positions are 26, 36, and 28 percent, respectively. Even in developed countries, such as the United States, women make up 27 percent of Congress, 30 percent of statewide elected executives, and 31 percent of state legislators.

The labor force participation of women is also considerably lower than that of men. Globally in ages 25 to 54 years, for example,  62 percent of women are in the labor force compared to 93 percent of men. Also, the majority of the employed women, or 58 percent, are in the informal economy earning comparatively low wages and lacking social protection.

In general women are employed in the lowest-paid work. Worldwide women earn about 24 percent  less than men, with 700 million fewer women than men in paid employment. 

Women perform at least twice as much unpaid care as men, including childcare, housework, and elder care. Unpaid care and household responsibilities often come on top of women’s paid work. 

Increasing men’s participation in household tasks and caregiving would contribute to a more equitable sharing of those important domestic responsibilities. Also, governmental provision of childcare to families with young children would help both women and men combine their employment with family responsibilities.

A global comparative measure of women’s standing relative to men for regions and countries is the gender parity index. The index considers gender-based gaps across four fundamental dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.

The regions with the highest gender equality are Western Europe and Northern America with parity indexes of 78 and 76, respectively. In contrast, the regions with the lowest gender equality are South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa with parity indexes of 62 and 61, respectively (Figure 3).

Source: World Economic Forum.

With respect to countries, the top five countries with the highest gender equality are Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, and Sweden, with parity indexes ranging from 82 to 89. The bottom five  countries with the lowest gender equality are Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria, with parity indexes between 44 to 57.

Source: World Economic Forum.

In addition to the four fundamental dimensions of the gender parity index noted above, other important areas reflecting women’s subordination include misogyny,  sexual harassment, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, and conflict-related sexual violence.

Worldwide it is estimated that 27 percent of women between ages 15 to 49 years had experienced physical or sexual violence by intimate long-term partners, often having long-term negative effects on the health of women as well as their children.

In addition, civil conflicts in countries, such as Ethiopia, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Syria, have all featured alarming reports of sexual violence against women. More recently, conflict-related sexual violence by the Russian forces in Ukraine is being reported, which has contributed to renewed attention by the international community to the sexual violence women face in conflict situations. 

The sexual harassment of women is a widespread global phenomenon. Most women have experienced it, especially in public places, which are often considered the domain of men with the home being considered the place for women. The reported percentages of women having experienced some form of sexual harassment in India and Viet Nam, for example, are nearly 80 and 90 percent, respectively. 

In addition to harassment, women in places such as India face risks from cultural and traditional practices, human trafficking, forced labor and domestic servitude. Moreover, the sexual harassment of women at the workplace is responsible for driving many to resign from their jobs.

Again, if men were experiencing misandry, discrimination, abusive treatment, harassment, and the subordination that women endure, they would be angry, intolerant, and no doubt turn to government officials, legislatures, courts, businesses, rights organizations, and even the streets to demand equality. Women should give serious consideration to the actions that men would take if inequalities were reversed.

With women continuing to lag behind men in rights, freedoms, and equality, the puzzling question that remains is:  why aren’t more women angry?

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

In virtually every region, governments appear to be at a loss on how best to address international migration, especially the waves of illegal migration arriving daily at international borders and the many already residing unlawfully within their countries. Credit: Alexander Bee/OIM

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 9 2022 (IPS)

A world with open borders, as some strongly advocate while others insist on maintaining controlled borders, is an interesting exercise to consider given its potential consequences for nations, the planet’s 8 billion human inhabitants, climate change, and the environment.

Based on international surveys of 152 countries taken several years ago before the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 15 percent of the world’s adults said that they would like to migrate permanently to another country if they could. Based on that percentage for adults plus their family members, the estimated number of people who want to migrate in 2022 is likely to be no less than 1.5 billion.

Seven destination countries attract half of those wanting to migrate to another country. The top destination country at 21 percent of those wanting to migrate is the United States. Substantially lower, Canada and Germany are next at 6 percent, followed by France and Australia at 5 percent, the United Kingdom at 4 percent, and Saudi Arabia at 3 percent

The figure of 1.5 billion wanting to migrate is more than 5 times the estimated number of immigrants in the world in 2020, or about 281 million. The figure of potential immigrants is also approximately 500 times the annual flow of immigrants globally.

The two regions with the highest proportions wanting to migrate to another country if they had the chance are sub-Saharan Africa at 33 percent and Latin America and the Caribbean at 27 percent. In addition, in 13 countries at least half of their populations would like to migrate to another country.

The top three countries with the proportion of their adult populations wanting to migrate are Sierra Leone at 71 percent, Liberia at 66 percent, and Haiti at 63 percent. They are followed by Albania at 60 percent, El Salvador at 52 percent, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 50 percent.

Seven destination countries attract half of those wanting to migrate to another country. The top destination country at 21 percent of those wanting to migrate is the United States. Substantially lower, Canada and Germany are next at 6 percent, followed by France and Australia at 5 percent, the United Kingdom at 4 percent, and Saudi Arabia at 3 percent.

Among those seven destination countries, the numbers wanting to migrate are greater than the current populations of five of them. For example, the number of people wanting to migrate to Canada is 90 million versus its current population of 38 million. Similarly, the number wanting to migrate to Germany is 94 million versus its current population of 84 million. In the remaining two countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, the numbers wanting to migrate are nearly the same size as their current populations (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations and Gallup.

In addition to its impact on the size of populations, open borders would alter the ethnic, religious, and linguistic composition of populations, leading to increased cultural diversity. Past and present international migration flows have demonstrated alterations in the cultural composition of populations.

In the United States, for example, since 1965 when the Immigration and National Act on country of origin was passed, the proportion Hispanic increased nearly five-fold, from 4 percent to 19 percent in 2020, and the proportion non-Hispanic white declined from 84 percent to 58 percent. Similarly in Germany, the proportion Muslim since 1965 has increased five-fold, from less than 1 percent to 5 percent of the population in 2020.

Various reasons have been offered both in support and in opposition to an open borders world. For example, those opposed believe open borders would increase security threats, damage domestic economies, benefit big business and elites, increase societal costs, encourage brain drain, facilitate illegal trade, reduce labor wages, undermine cultural integrity, and create integration problems (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

In contrast, those in support believe open borders would provide a basic human right, reduce poverty, increase GDP growth, reduce border control costs, increase the labor supply, provide talented workers, promote travel, reduce time and costs of travel, raise a country’s tax base, promote cultural diversity, and contribute to global interdependence.

Open borders would certainly impact the cultural composition of populations. Even without open borders, the current changes in the cultural composition of populations being brought about by international migration have not only raised public concerns but have also contributed to the growing influence of nativist and far-right political parties.

The nativist parties are typically opposed to immigration, seeing it as a threat to their national cultural integrity. In contrast, those supportive of immigration welcome the arrival of people with differing backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures. They view immigration it as a natural, ongoing human phenomenon that enriches societies.

Open borders would also have consequences on climate change and the environment. Large numbers of people would be migrating to countries with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. For example, while the world average of tons of CO2 equivalent per person is about 6, the level in the United States is about three times as large at 19.

Similarly, open borders would impact the environment. The migration to the high consumption destination countries would lead to increased biodiversity loss, pollution, and congestion.

An open borders world is not likely to happen any time soon. However, recent large-scale immigration flows, both legal and illegal, are substantially impacting government programs, domestic politics, international relations, and public opinion as well as the size and composition of the populations.

In virtually every region, governments appear to be at a loss on how best to address international migration, especially the waves of illegal migration arriving daily at international borders and the many already residing unlawfully within their countries. International conventions, agreements, and compacts concerning international migration are largely viewed as being outdated, unrealistic, and ineffective in dealing with today’s international migration issues.

The supply of men, women, and children in poor developing countries wanting to migrate greatly exceeds the demand for those migrants in wealthy developed countries by a factor of about five hundred.

The result is the Great Migration Clash, i.e., a worldwide struggle between those who “want out” of their countries and those who want others to “keep out” of their countries.

Given the enormous difference in supply and demand, the Migration Clash is unlikely to be resolved by simply asking destination countries to raise their immigration levels. To resolve the Migration Clash will require considerably improving the social, economic, political, and environmental conditions of the populations in the migrant sending countries.

Achieving those desirable development goals any time soon, however, appears as unlikely as establishing an open borders world. Therefore, countries will continue dealing the best they can with the consequences of controlled borders and the Great Migration Clash.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Haitians await news about their immigration status in the border city of Tijuana, in the northwest of Mexico. Credit: Guillermo Arias / IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 23 2022 (IPS)

Illegal immigration in the 21st century poses a serious dilemma for the world. Governments in virtually every region of the globe appear to be at a loss on how to address the two central dimensions of the dilemma.

The first dimension concerns the continuing waves of illegal migration arriving daily at international borders. The second dimension of the dilemma centers on the presence of millions of men, women, and children residing unlawfully within countries (Table 1).

Source: Author’s composition.

Various aspects of international migration with a focus on the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration were discussed at the first United Nations International Migration Review Forum convened 17-20 May. The primary result of the Forum was an intergovernmental agreed Progress Declaration, which includes calling on governments to intensify efforts for safe and orderly migration, crack down on human smuggling and trafficking, and ensure that migrants are respected and receive health care and other services. However, the 13-page declaration did not come up with explicit guidelines nor enforceable actions that would effectively resolve the illegal immigration dilemma.

Three fundamental aspects of the illegal immigration dilemma involve demographics, human rights, and profits.

First, the demographics aspect clearly shows that the supply of people wishing to migrate largely from developing countries far exceeds the demand for immigrants in developed countries. As a result of that demographic imbalance and despite the costs and risks, millions of men, women, and children are turning to illegal migration in order to take up residence in another country, which are generally wealthy developed nations.

While more than a billion people would like to move permanently to another country, the current annual number of immigrants of several million is just a small fraction of those wanting to immigrate. Also, the total number of immigrants worldwide is also comparatively small, approximately 281 million in 2020, with an estimated quarter of them, or about 70 million, being illegal migrants (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations, Gallup, and author’s estimates.

In addition, the numbers of people attempting illegal migration are reaching record highs. In the United States, for example, the number encountered, i.e., arrested or apprehended, at the U.S.-Mexico border in April reached the highest recorded level of 234,088.

The numbers of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea to reach the European Union and English Channel to reach the United Kingdom are on the rise again. In the first two months of 2022, illegal border crossings at the EU’s external borders rose 61 percent from a year ago, or nearly 27,000. The British government also reported that the number of illegal migrants arriving in small boats could reach 1,000 a day.

The second fundamental aspect of the illegal migration dilemma involves the asymmetry of human rights concerning international migration. Article 13 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his home country. However, a human right does not exist for one to enter another country without the authorization of that country (Table 2).

Source: Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In addition, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides individuals the right to seek asylum and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. However, to be granted asylum, a person typically needs to be unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Poverty, unemployment, domestic issues, climate change, and poor governance are generally not considered legitimate grounds for granting asylum. Unfortunately, many of the asylum claims advanced are not genuine, but simply aimed at first entering and then remaining in the destination country.

Once illegal migrants are settled at their desired destination, many businesses, and enterprises profit from their labor. Given their precarious status, illegal migrants are not only willing to work for below normal wages but are also reluctant to report workplace abuses as that can lead to their dismissal, arrest, and repatriation

Most asylum claims are denied but considerable amounts of time, often several years, are needed to reach a final decision on an individual’s claim. Such lengthy periods of time permit claimants to become settled, employed, and integrated into a local community.

In addition to the logistics, governments face economic consequences and public opposition from various quarters to repatriating illegal migrants to countries having high levels of poverty, corruption, and social unrest. Consequently, unless illegal migrants commit serious crimes, they are typically not arrested and deported.

One notable recent exception, however, is the United Kingdom, which is seeking to send illegal migrants to Rwanda. The British government recently announced that those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK may be relocated to Rwanda to have their claims for asylum considered and to rebuild their lives there.

The third fundamental aspect of the illegal migration dilemma concerns the profits derived. Charging high fees for their services, smugglers accrue large profits by promoting, facilitating, and encouraging the illegal migration of men, women, and children across international borders.

Once illegal migrants are settled at their desired destination, many businesses, and enterprises profit from their labor. Given their precarious status, illegal migrants are not only willing to work for below normal wages but are also reluctant to report workplace abuses as that can lead to their dismissal, arrest, and repatriation.

Faced with continuing waves of illegal migrants, many countries are building walls, fences, and barriers, increasing border guards, having more pushbacks, returns and expulsions, and establishing more detention centers. However, based on recent illegal migration levels and trends, those and related steps have not achieved their desired goals.

Similarly, faced with the presence of large numbers of illegal migrants residing within their borders, governments are struggling with how best to address this troubling dimension of the illegal migration dilemma. Governments are not inclined to grant an amnesty or path to citizenship for illegal migrants nor are they prepared to deport the illegal migrants residing within their borders. As a result, the current situation in most countries remains unresolved for most illegal migrants, who remain in a precarious status.

In sum, it appears that governments are unlikely to be able to resolve the illegal immigration dilemma any time soon. In fact, the dilemma is likely to be exacerbated by increasing illegal immigration due to growing populations, worsening living conditions, and the effects of climate change in migrant sending countries.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Approximately half of the planet’s habitable land is now being used for the production of food, which accounts for an estimated 70 percent of freshwater consumption. Credit: Bigstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 9 2022 (IPS)

People require food, with more people requiring more food and less people requiring less food. Despite that self-evident relationship, most governments appear reluctant to accept the intimate link between the supplies of food and the numbers of people and continue calling for the further growth of their populations.

The world’s population of approximately 8,000,000,000, or more than double its size at the start of the Green Revolution in the mid-1960s, is again facing a food crisis across many countries and areas. And that food crisis is expected to worsen in the near term.

The food crisis in dozens of countries, which are located primarily in Africa and Asia, is largely due to the three Cs: conflict, climate change, and COVID-19. Also, the recent conflict in Ukraine due to Russia’s military invasion has further exacerbated the food crisis.

As a result of the conflict in Ukraine, a growing number of governments are erecting new barriers to stop the exports of food products and other important commodities at their borders. Those barriers are expected to worsen the food crisis with shortages and higher prices for a variety of goods in many food insecure countries.

Today an estimated 800 million people, or 10 percent of the world’s population, are hungry. Also, projections show that the world is not on track to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture by 2030, i.e., Sustainable Development Goal 2.

The future growth of world population, which is currently increasing by approximately 80 million per year, is expected to be concentrated in regions that contain most of the countries suffering from hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition.

Of the expected growth of the world’s population of nearly 600 million over the next eight years, Africa, much of which is dependent on imported food, accounts for 47 percent of that demographic growth, followed by Asia at 43 percent (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Moreover, the projected percentage increases in the populations of Africa’s sixteen food insecure hotspot countries are among the world’s highest and well above the global average. By 2030 many of the populations of those African countries are expected to increase by no less than 25 percent.

The current population of Niger, for example, is expected to increase by 34 percent over the next eight years, i.e., from 26 million to 35 million. In contrast, the projected increase of world population of 7 percent over those eight years is a fraction of the rates of Africa’s food insecure hotspot countries (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

The expected population growth of food insecure countries by mid-century is even more striking. Whereas world population is projected to increase by about 20 percent by 2050, the populations of some African food insecure hotspot countries are expected to double in size by mid-century. A particularly rapid rate of future demographic growth is the population of Niger, which is expected to increase from its current 26 million to 66 million by mid-century.

The future growth of world population, which is currently increasing by approximately 80 million per year, is expected to be concentrated in regions that contain most of the countries suffering from hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition

Another African food insecure hotspot country whose population is expected to double in size is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, increasing from 95 million today to 195 million by 2050. The African country with the largest population, Nigeria, is also projected to increase substantially from its current 217 million to 401 million by 2050, thereby displacing the United States as the world’s third largest population.

Outside of Africa six additional countries, which have been affected greatly by armed conflicts and violence, are also considered food insecure hotspot countries. Those countries are Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen in Asia and Haiti and Honduras in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Following the Green Revolution in the late 1960s, global food production has outpaced the rapid growth of world population during the second half of the 20th century. World population has more than tripled since 1950, from 2.5 billion to 8 billion today.

At present, approximately half of the planet’s habitable land is now being used for the production of food, which accounts for an estimated 70 percent of freshwater consumption. That vital human activity has important consequences for the planet, including contributing to biodiversity loss, pollution, deforestation, and soil degradation as well as to greenhouse gas emissions.

Part of the responses to those consequences for the planet include reducing meat consumption and moving the world’s population to a more plant-based diet. In addition to the improvements to human health, eating mostly plant-based foods would contribute to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced animal waste.

In many parts of the world, especially those food insecure hotspots noted above, the effects of climate change and environmental degradation are greatly impacting the production, availability, and distribution of food with droughts, floods, high temperatures, wildfires, desertification, pests, rise in sea levels, etc.

In addition to aiming to increase the supply of food and making healthy diets affordable and accessible for populations with low household purchasing power, greater efforts are needed to reduce the overall demand for food by stabilizing the size of populations.

In addition to reducing high morbidity and mortality rates, governments should endeavor to reduce high fertility rates. Expediting the demographic transition in countries with high death and birth rates would contribute considerably to reducing the future sizes of those populations and thereby the projected demand for additional food.

For example, Africa’s future population, which has increased six-fold since 1950, could be markedly less than currently projected if the continent’s demographic transition is expedited. If the future fertility rates of African countries were to follow the United Nation’s low variant projection instead of its medium variant, the population of Africa would be 200 million less by 2050 and more than a billion less by 2100 (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Reductions in the rapid growth of populations in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere will certainly not resolve the problems of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. Other major challenges need to be addressed, including conflict, climate change, and COVID-19.

However, it is also certainly the case that lower rates of demographic growth will lead to fewer additional people in the future. Such demographic reductions will in turn lead to reduced future demand for food.

As stated at the outset, the relationship between food and people is self-evident. Namely, people require food, with more people requiring more food and less people requiring less food.

It’s well past the time for governments to embrace the relationship between food and people. To do so entails governments adopting comprehensive policies and implementing effective programs aimed at reducing high rates of population growth and stabilizing the size of their populations.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

The worldwide degradation, fragmentation, and destruction of ecosystems are accelerating and generating serious consequences for flora, fauna and human well-being. Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 25 2022 (IPS)

Since the first Earth Day observed on 22 April 1970, world conditions have worsened greatly across three critically interrelated global dimensions that portend a disastrous future for life on planet Earth.

First, CLIMATE CHANGE is certainly the most worrisome threat to human security. The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that climate change is a threat to the well-being of humans and the planet.

Global warming is resulting in unstable life-threatening changes in the planet’s climate and living conditions. Those cataclysmic changes are the consequence of human populations-caused atmospheric carbon pollution primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, the response of world leaders to climate change has largely been the Climate Change Shuffle: deny, delay, and then do little. In brief, the international community of nations is witnessing the abdication of leadership by the major countries of the world.

Some have concluded that the world is in the midst of a human-caused extinction event. Many of the impacts of global warming are undeniable and are now considered as simply irreversible.

The ten warmest years on record have happened since 2005. In addition, 2020 was the second warmest year on record, being just 0.02 degrees Celsius less than the warmest year in 2016.

The 2020 world surface temperature averaged across land and ocean was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the 20th century average of 13.90 Celsius. Also, the 2020 average was 1.19 Celsius warmer the pre-industrial period of 1880-1990 of 13.69 Celsius (Figure 1).

Source: Climate.gov.

The goal to limit global warming to well below the Paris Agreement rise of 2 degrees Celsius, or preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels is considered a losing battle.

In addition to the lack of global leadership, cooperation and enforceable objectives with explicit timetables, world leaders continue to sell out to wealthy interests and corporations that push for promised techno-fixes.

Second, WORLD POPULATION, which grew at record high rates during the 20th century, continues to grow and is greatly impacting all living organisms and natural resources on the planet.

Between 1920 and 2020, the population of the world quadrupled, increasing from 1.9 billion to 7.8 billion people. Moreover, since the first Earth Day fifty-two years ago, the human population on the planet has more than doubled, growing from 3.7 billion to nearly 8 billion today and is expected to add another 2 billion people by 2070 (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Despite planet Earth reaching 8,000,000,000 human beings, countries continue to resist population stabilization and reductions. Many government officials, economic advisors, businesses, mainstream media, and others frequently lament population slowdowns and call for more demographic growth, particularly through increased birth rates.

Environmental degradation coupled with climate change is increasingly fueling mass human migration. Growing numbers of men, women and children are moving domestically and internationally to escape difficult living conditions

In addition, human migration is at record levels and greatly impacting nations worldwide. The global number of immigrants has reached a high of around 281 million, with more than 84 million people displaced from their homes and more than 30 million refugees. In addition, millions of men, women, and children continue to attempt illegal migration.

Today’s enormous human mobility has resulted in the Great Migration Clash. The Clash is a worldwide struggle between those who desperately want out of their countries and those who vehemently want to keep others out of their countries.

More than a billion people, largely in poor and violence ridden countries, would like to move permanently to another country. At the same time, no less than a billion people, mainly in wealthy developed countries, say fewer immigrants should be allowed to enter.

Immigration is a top concern of voters in most migrant-receiving countries, with many concerned about the effects of immigration on their society and culture. Most migrant-destination countries are turning to border walls, barriers and patrols, repatriating those unlawfully resident, resisting accepting refugees and denying most asylum claims.

In addition, as the demand for migrants is a small fraction of the supply of people wishing to migrate, illegal immigration continues to be a major global challenge. The increased migration, particularly illegal migration, is contributing to the rise of right-wing populist and nativist parties.

Anti-immigrant sentiment has also spread to include refugees and asylum seekers. Many country policies to stem illegal immigration are undermining the established international rights and protections granted to refugees and asylum seekers.

Third, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION is also critically altering conditions for all living organisms across the planet. The worldwide degradation, fragmentation, and destruction of ecosystems are accelerating and generating serious consequences for flora, fauna and human well-being.

The worsening conditions across land, sea, and air have been brought about by the unsustainable numbers of humans and their ongoing damaging behavior. The extraction of oil, gas, coal, and water, the logging, mining, fishing hunting, and the ever-increasing needs and demands of 8,000,000,000 humans have ruined large areas of planet Earth.

The degradation of environment includes reduced biodiversity, deforestation, depletion of natural resources, deteriorating ecosystems, and pollution. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, the planet has experienced a catastrophic decline in global wildlife populations and the natural environment is continuing to be destroyed by humans at an unprecedented rate.

During the past five decades, for example, the world experienced an average 68 percent drop in monitored vertebrate species, i.e., mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. In addition, the decline in monitored vertebrate species over the past half century varied considerably by major region from a low of 24 percent in Europe and Central Asia to a high of 94 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean (Figure 3).

Source: World Wildlife Fund, based on 20,811 populations of 4,392 species (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish).

Biodiversity loss has largely been the result of habitat destruction due to unsustainable agriculture and logging, the continuing ruin of grasslands, forests, and wetlands, and the overexploitation of fish, mammals and natural resources. In the coming years the biggest driver of further biodiversity loss is expected to be human-induced climate change.

In addition, environmental degradation coupled with climate change is increasingly fueling mass human migration. Growing numbers of men, women and children are moving domestically and internationally to escape difficult living conditions. Those changing conditions include prolonged drought, excessive heat, rising sea levels, large-scale flooding, extreme wildfires, dying coral reefs, violent storms, and weather-produced disasters.

What needs to be done today to address climate change, world population, and environmental degradation, are not secrets, unknowns, or recent discoveries.

Over the past decades, scientists, environmental organizations, international agencies, intergovernmental panels, and many others have repeatedly warned world leaders about climate change, world population and environmental degradation. In addition, they have clearly spelled out the immediate steps required to address those critical issues.

Briefly, among those steps are: (1) adoption of energy efficiency and conservation practices and the replacement of fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables; (2) reduction of emissions of short-lived climate pollutants; (3) protection and restoration of the planet’s ecosystems; (4) shift from consumption of animal products to diets of mostly plant-based foods; (5) transition from emphasis on GDP growth toward sustaining ecosystems; and (6) the stabilization of world population, and ideally a gradual reduction, within a framework ensuring social integrity.

Unfortunately, based on the behavior of countries today and their expected actions in the future with respect to climate change, world population, and environmental degradation, objective observers are increasingly arriving at an unavoidable conclusion. Namely, it will be highly unlikely to avoid a disastrous future for life on planet Earth.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Families carry their belongings through the Zosin border crossing in Poland after fleeing Ukraine. The number of refugees worldwide has risen markedly in the recent past, reaching a record high in April 2022 of more than 30 million. Credit: UNHCR/Chris Melzer

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 11 2022 (IPS)

Twilight for the 1951 Refugee Convention is becoming a 21st century reality for an increasing number of countries worldwide.

Since the Convention’s adoption, the world’s population has more than tripled and is now approximately 8,000,000,000 people. The planet’s population growth is expected to continue and likely increase to 10,000,000,000 human inhabitants around mid-century. Nearly all of that demographic growth is projected to take place in developing countries, many of which face resource scarcity, difficult living conditions, and socio-political turmoil.

In addition, climate change is forcing increased human mobility, which is projected to worsen with global warming. And non-stop waves of men, women and children largely from developing countries continue attempting unauthorized entry mainly into developed countries.

The world is also experiencing record levels of refugees, asylum seekers and persons displaced across borders. The number of refugees worldwide has risen markedly in the recent past, reaching a record high in April 2022 of more than 30 million.

That global figure includes 21 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate and 6 million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA’s mandate as well as 4 million people as of mid-April who fled Ukraine due to Russia’s invasion. Today’s global number of refugees is rapidly approaching a three-fold increase since the start of the 21st century (Figure 1).

Source: UNHCR.

In addition to the more than 30 million refugees, 4 million Venezuelans are displaced abroad. Also, more than 4 million people are asylum seekers, with the global level of asylum claims having increased four-fold over the levels a decade ago.

In the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the cold war, the Refugee Convention was drafted and signed by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, held at Geneva from 2 to 25 July 1951.

The Convention and its subsequent 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees provide the foundation for today’s international refugee regime. They are the primary international legal documents that define the term “refugee”, outline the rights of refugees and responsibilities of countries, and indicate the institutions protecting refugees.

Article 1A(1) of the Convention defines refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

However, the term “refugee” is often used more broadly and loosely than its legal definition. For example, colloquial and media usage, general public discourse and political remarks often include individuals seeking refuge and a better life but do not meet the Convention’s criteria for a refugee.

A core refugee principle is “non-refoulement”. That principle states that a refugee should not be returned to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened on grounds of race, religion, nationality, and membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Most of the United Nations Member States, some 149 countries, have signed or ratified either the Convention, its Protocol or both. The remaining 44 countries, many of which are the top refugee-hosting countries, are not parties to them.

However, the actions of nations regarding refugees are not directly correlated with whether they are a party to the Convention or Protocol. In fact, many signatories to the Convention and Protocol do not honor their protection responsibilities regarding refugees, often believing it’s somebody else’s problem. Increasingly, refugee protections are politicized and seen at odds with national interests and priorities.

Closely related to the refugee documents is Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to seek asylum. That provision states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” However, to be granted asylum, a person typically needs to meet the standards of the legal definition of a refugee.

Poverty, the lack of employment, housing, education and health care, poor governance, climate change, and crime are generally not considered legitimate grounds for granting asylum. Therefore, in most instances, claims for asylum are denied because they do not to meet the definition of a refugee.

In the United States, for example, approximately two thirds of asylum claims were denied in the past two years. Higher rates of asylum claims in 2020 denied in the first instance occurred in some European countries, such as Hungary at nearly 90 percent, Italy at 86 percent, and France at 84 percent.

Concerns about the record numbers of refugees, asylum seekers, and people displaced across borders led to the Global Compact on Refugees, which was launched in 2018. The Compact was intended to improve and better coordinate responses of the international community and host countries. However, the Compact, which was voluntary and nonbinding, offered promises and suggestions without an implementation plan and clear measures of progress.

The record levels of displacement are straining the international refugee system. Humanitarian agencies and refugee host countries, which are predominantly in developing countries such as Turkey, Colombia and Uganda, and more recently Poland, are struggling to provide the basic daily needs to the growing numbers of men, women and children.

Nearly all of the projected 1.8 billion additional people by mid-century will occur in less developed countries. For example, whereas Africa is projected to add more than 1 billion people to its population by midcentury, Europe’s population is expected to decline by nearly 40 million over the next three decades (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Economic hardship, poverty, social unrest, and conflicts are also increasing the likelihood of future flows of refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced persons. Many people who have little chance of emigrating legally can be expected to resort to unauthorized migration.

To gain entry into their destination country, many unauthorized migrants claim asylum even though most claims subsequently turn out not to meet the legal standards for being granted asylum. Based on the experiences of the past, growing numbers of unauthorized migrants believe that claiming asylum permits them to enter and remain in the country even if their claim is eventually denied, which typically takes lengthy periods to be adjudicated.

The consequences of such migration are seriously challenging governments. Recent international survey data find that the world is becoming less tolerant of migrants, especially when the migrants differ ethnically, religiously, and culturally from the host country population. Reconciling border security, national sovereignty, cultural integrity, and basic human rights remains a major challenge for the major migrant-receiving countries.

In addition, climate-related migration is expected to become a more critical issue in the coming years. Increasing numbers of people, particularly in developing regions, will be forced to adapt to global warming and changing environmental conditions, with many becoming “climate refugees”. A recent landmark ruling by the United Nations Human Rights Committee found it unlawful for governments to return migrants to countries where their lives might be threatened by a climate crisis.

In general, the responses to today’s formidable migratory challenges of increasing numbers of refugees, asylum seekers, unauthorized migrants, and persons displaced across borders are not encouraging. Those responses include more walls, barriers, and fences, increasing numbers of border guards, sea patrols, pushbacks, and detention centers, strengthening of right-wing nationalists, increasing xenophobia, heightened fears of terrorism and crime, and, importantly, shirking protection responsibilities.

In virtually every major region, governments are behaving as though the 1951 Refugee Convention is outdated, ineffectual, and incongruent with national interests. In brief, in more and more countries, it’s twilight for the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Today, plastics are ubiquitous, pervading all aspects of human activity and invading all dimensions of the environment, with the result being the emergence of planet Plastics. Credit: Albert Oppong-Ansah/IPS.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 21 2022 (IPS)

Planet Earth is increasingly being transformed into planet Plastics. Approximately 400,000,000 metric tons of plastics are produced worldwide annually. Those plastics amount to about 50 kilograms, or 110 pounds, every year for each of the 8 billion human inhabitants living on the unfolding planet Plastics.

The Garden of Eden with all its wonderful flora and fauna did not contain plastics. None of the world’s sacred religious texts refer to or mention plastics. Also, in the great historical works of literature, drama, philosophy, mathematics, science, music, and art, one does not read, think, hear, see, or feel plastics.

Yet today, plastics are ubiquitous, pervading all aspects of human activity and invading all dimensions of the environment, with the result being the emergence of planet Plastics. From birth to death plastics have become an integral part of human daily life and infiltrated the planet’s environment. Without plastics, it is difficult to imagine how human populations would function.

Plastics can be found everywhere on the planet, including oceans, waterways, air, forests, plains, cities, towns, farms, highways, clothing, buildings, furniture, packaging, transport, factories, sewers, beaches, mountains, and animal life. Plastics have also made it to Earth’s upper atmospheres, the Moon, Mars and beyond.

Plastics first appeared on planet Earth at the start of the 20th century and with their discovery began the start of the Age of Plastics. The first fully synthetic plastic was invented by Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland in 1907. His plastic, which he named Bakelite, was a combination of two chemicals, formaldehyde and phenol, made under pressure and heat.

Facilitating the rapid growth of the plastics industries was the utilization of waste materials from the processing of crude oil and natural gas, including ethylene gas. Industrial experimentation lead to various forms of plastics, the most abundant being polyethylene. In brief, plastics are made mostly from fossil fuels, i.e., oil and natural gas, through a process that is energy intensive and emits greenhouse gases.

By the middle of the 20th century the annual production of plastics increased rapidly to about 2 million metric tons. Seventy years later the annual production of plastics worldwide reached approximately 400 million metric tons, or two hundred times the amount of plastics that was produced in1950. And by 2050 the annual production of plastics is projected to be twice the 2020 level (Figure 1).

Source: Our World in Data.

Plastics have created an alarming global throw-away culture. It is estimated that single-use plastics represent about 40 percent of the annual production of plastics.

The recycling of plastics remains at a relatively low level worldwide. Recycling is estimated to account for less than 10 percent of all plastics produced every year, with more than 10 million metric tons of plastics being dumped in the oceans annually. Moreover, without needed action to address that dumping, the amount of plastic trash flowing into the oceans every year is expected to nearly triple by 2040.

The primary reason why less than a tenth of plastics produced annually are recycled is the cost. For the plastics industries the costs of recycling are far greater than the costs of producing new plastics.

Consequently, the cumulative worldwide amount of plastics is many times more than the annual production. Since the end of World War II, it is estimated that close to 10,000 million metric tons of plastics have been produced globally (Figure 2).

Source: Our World in Data.

Most of those plastics were produced relatively recently. About two-thirds of all the plastics in the world today were manufactured since the start of the 21st century. In addition, by mid-century the cumulative amount of plastics produced is projected to nearly triple and be equivalent to the weight of all the fish in the oceans.

The consequences of plastics read like a science-fiction doomsday novel. In brief, the novel’s plot involves invisible aliens from outer space taking over planet Earth by encouraging humans to exterminate themselves through the exponential accumulation of plastics.

In addition to being a serious threat to human health and wellbeing, the increasing production and use of plastics are undermining the planet’s natural environment. Plastics are polluting the soil, air, oceans, and waterways, entering the food chain, killing and injuring wildlife and damaging habitats, producing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, and creating hazardous chemicals (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

Most plastics do not biodegrade and therefore remain in the environment for many hundreds of years. Consequently, those plastics often break down into microplastics, which are small pieces of plastics, including fibers, microbeads, fragments, nurdles, and foam. The various forms of microplastics are contaminating the planet’s land, oceans, water, air, food and increasingly living organisms.

The low level of recycling plastics has also resulted in enormous global plastic trash problems that cost the public billions to abate. Attempts to deal with the plastics trash are also contributing to contentious political issues and tensions among nations.

A global agreement adopted by more than 180 countries in 2019 aims at restricting the exporting of plastics trash from wealthy countries to poor countries. However, some countries have been able to get around the restrictions and continue exporting plastics trash.

Also, in March representatives of 175 countries agreed to begin writing a legal binding global treaty aimed at addressing the exponential growth of plastic pollution as well as its impact on climate change and biodiversity loss. In addition to improving recycling efforts and cleaning up plastics trash, the treaty is to include curbs on the production of plastics and may even include a ban on single-use plastics.

At the country level, various actions are being taken to address some of the causes contributing to plastics pollution. Some countries, for example, have banned the use of plastic bags for bagging groceries. Others have also eliminated the use of bottles, cutlery, straws, and coffee stirrers made from plastics.

In addition to the actions and policies of governments, important steps can be taken by individuals to curb the emergence of planet Plastics. People can reduce their use of plastics, particularly disposable plastics, plastic water bottles, and plastic grocery bags and support policies and programs for recycling and reusing plastics.

Public information campaigns can also contribute to responsible behavior regarding the use, reuse, recycling, and disposal of plastics. Educational programs, especially in elementary schools, can be effective in creating awareness about the detrimental effects of plastics on the planet.

Furthermore, with the aim of reducing the growing accumulation of billions of metric tons of plastics and limiting the plastics pollution of the environment, the private sector can produce and use less plastics. And very importantly, the major industries that produce and those that extensively utilize plastics should take the lead in establishing, promoting, and facilitating worldwide programs for recycling and reusing plastics.

The available indicators on the production, consumption, recycling, reuse, and disposal of plastics all point to the same outcome, namely, a ruinous worldwide transformation of the environment. However, it is not too late to take actions to arrest the transformation of planet Earth into planet Plastics and by so doing contributing to an opportunity to return to a semblance of the original Garden of Eden.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change. Credit: Bigstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

While more than a half century ago the Twist was the craze in dance halls globally, today the Climate Change Shuffle is the craze in government halls and conference sites worldwide as officials dance around the dangers of climate change.

The first step in the Climate Change Shuffle is a straightforward maneuver: deny climate change. With feet solidly on the floor, confidently dismiss any scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, including it is caused by human activities. Deny that climate change is a threat to humanity and health of the planet as long as possible (Table 1).

Source: Author’s composition.

The second step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which is highly popular and easily done, is the delay. With body swaying gently from left to right, emphasize that the true answers to environmental issues are economic growth, advanced technologies, and human ingenuity, all of which will need some time and resources. Lean forward proposing the establishment of commissions to produce lengthy technical reports and continue to delay as long as possible.

The third and final step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which should be performed effortlessly without movement, is to do nothing. Simply remain still, don’t take any steps forward and let time slowly pass waltz by as long as possible. Climate change will likely soon be forgotten, displaced by something more immediate, such as gas prices, a sex scandal, or a military invasion.

Mounting scientific evidence, including the recent Sixth Assessment Report of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), indicates that global warming is reshaping the world more rapidly and severely than was known several years ago. Nevertheless, governments, especially the major emitters of greenhouse gases, continue dancing the Climate Change Shuffle.

The top ten emitters of greenhouse gases account for two-thirds of the world’s CO2 emissions. Far in first place is China, which is responsible for about 30 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. In a distant second place is the United States at 14 percent, followed by India at 7 percent and Russia at 5 percent (Figure 1).

Source: Statista.

Environmental scientists, naturalists, and concerned citizens, including young activists, worldwide have warned that human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people and calling for needed action. Ecosystems and populations least able to cope are expected to be hardest hit by the consequences of climate change.

Also, thousands of scientists have warned governments that the future habitability of planet earth depends on immediate, large-scale action in no less than six critical and interrelated areas: energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food, economy, and population.

Their recommended actions include limiting the burning of fossil fuels, restoring ecosystems, moving to plant-based diets, curtailing consumption or degrowth, and stabilizing world population.

However, most of the recommended actions are largely unappealing to governments and their constituents. Transitioning from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy, for example, is considered a difficult task. Global greenhouse gas emissions are broadly from energy, agriculture, industry, and waste, with almost three-quarters from energy consumption.

The alternatives to fossil fuels are not readily available to meet the rising global demand for electricity. Fossil fuels account about two-thirds of global electricity generation, with coal, natural gas, and oil contributing 38, 28 and 3 percent, respectively versus renewables contributing 9 percent.

Some progress has recently been achieved moving from meat to a plant-based diet. However, curtailing consumption, or shrinking the economy, is not likely to be embraced by most populations any time soon.

Also, attempts to stabilize populations are anathema to most governments, businesses, and many others. They consider demographic growth essential for economic growth, political power, and national identity. Consequently, rather than stabilization, world population is expected to increase from 8 billion today to 10 billion by around mid-century.

When confronted by the overwhelming evidence of climate change, governments that have a major impact on global warming glide to the Shuffle’s delay step. As witnessed at the disappointing Glasgow climate change summit (COP26) last November, many countries are simply not prepared to make firm commitments on needed actions with timetables.

An important reason why many governments perform the Climate Change Shuffle is the demand for electricity and the reliance on coal-fired power stations to meet that rising demand. The top four countries, namely, China, India, the United States, and Japan, were responsible for 76 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 (Figure 2).

Source: EMBER.

With its 1,110 coal-fired power stations, China alone accounted for approximately 53 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 and those power stations provided 61 percent of China’s electricity. Following China but at a considerably lower level is India, which is responsible for 14 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity with its coal-fired power stations providing 71 percent of India’s electricity.

In third and fourth place are the United States and Japan, which accounted for 11 and 9 percent, respectively of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020. However, in contrast to China and India, the contributions of the coal-fired power stations to domestic electricity consumption in the U.S. and Japan are substantially less, 19 and 29 percent, respectively.

Another important reason why some governments continue doing the Shuffle is because climate change has become a highly partisan issue. With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change.

In the United States, for example, 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress continue to deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. Also, Democratic and Republican voters in the U.S. are far apart in their views regarding climate change.

Whereas 78 percent of Democrats said climate change should be a top priority in 2020, 21 percent of Republicans said it should be. Moreover, the gap between them has widened over the past several years, with increasing proportions of Democrats saying climate change should be a top priority (Figure 3).

Source: Pew Research Center.

When faced with the unequivocal scientific evidence about climate change and the lack of needed actions, some observers, organizations, and funds have increased their efforts to urge governments to adopt the needed climate change policies.

However, others, including many students, have become incredibly worried by years of empty promises by political leaders and are pessimistic about the outlook for future.

They note that a quarter century ago when world population was nearly 6 billion, government leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed to curb greenhouse emissions. Seven years ago, when world population had reached more than 7 billion, governments adopted the Paris Agreement’s vision of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees. And today with world population at 8 billion and expected to reach 9 billion in 15 years, few nations are living up to their commitments.

Also, others have become fatalistic about global warming as they witness a rapidly closing window to secure a livable future as governments dance the Climate Change Shuffle. Additional scientific studies, they feel, will make little difference in the near certain outcomes. They are convinced that governments will not be able to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. With direct and clear language, many have simply concluded: “we’re screwed”.

In sum, whether one is optimistic, pessimistic, fatalistic, or indifferent regarding climate change and the responses of governments, three conclusions seem warranted.

First, the widely reported scientific evidence and findings of published reports on human-induced climate change and its far-reaching effects worldwide are clear, unequivocal, indisputable, and distressing.

Second, countries will continue to experience the consequences of climate change with serious disruptions to the planet’s natural environment and severe adverse effects on human populations, including flooding, droughts, heat waves, shortages of water and food, warming oceans, storms, rising sea levels, wildfires, and melting glaciers and polar ice caps.

Third, until governments are fully committed to taking the needed actions to address climate change, which does not appear likely any time soon, government officials will continue to dance the Climate Change Shuffle, i.e., deny, delay, and do nothing.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Due to demographic pressures of growing elderly populations and the relative decline of workers paying taxes, governments are increasingly facing the need to adjust budgetary expenditures. Credit: K. S. Harikrishnan/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 23 2022 (IPS)

With the unprecedented ageing of populations worldwide, countries are struggling with the critical questions of who should be responsible for caring for the old and what should be the extent of care provided to women and men in old age.

Many believe that the government should be responsible for covering the costs and providing care, support and assistance to the old. In contrast, others, in particular social conservatives, contend that families and the old themselves should be responsible for providing the needed care, support and assistance for the old.

Similarly with respect to the extent of care to be provided to the old, some argue that given the high costs, the demands involved and the appropriate role of government in family life, only rudimentary care should be made available to the old in need. Others, however, believe that government should provide a broad array of services and care to the old, especially for those with special needs and disabilities.

For many countries the issue of caring for the old is the single most expensive domestic priority today and is expected to remain so in the years ahead. In addition to the substantial financial costs, governments are wrestling with contentious policy issues, including competing national priorities, the proper role of government and the responsibilities of individuals for their personal wellbeing in old age.

The significant increases in the proportions elderly that occurred during the past two decades are expected to continue throughout the 21st century. Among the populations of the twelve largest economies, for example, which account for approximately 70 percent of the world economy and 50 percent of the world’s population, the proportions 65 years and older have increased markedly since the start of the 21st century (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In China, for example, the proportion aged 65 years and older nearly doubled in the recent past, increasing from less than 7 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2020. That proportion is expected to more than double by 2050, reaching 26 percent. Similarly, South Korea’s proportion elderly jumped from 7 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2020 and is expected to reach nearly 40 percent by 2050, with Japan and Italy close behind at approximately 38 percent elderly.

In addition to the growing proportions of the old, men and women are living longer than ever before. Since World War II remarkable achievements have been made in reducing mortality rates and increasing the length of human lives worldwide.

Over the past seven decades the world’s average life expectancy at birth has increased 26 years, from 47 to 73 years. The gains in life expectancy at birth over that period have been even greater, exceeding 33 years, in many developing countries, including Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Oman, Peru, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Turkey.

The reductions in mortality rates are also providing additional years of life for the old. For example, by midcentury average life expectancies at age 65 among most of the populations of the twelve largest economies are expected to be no less than 20 years for men and no less 23 years for women (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Particularly noteworthy are the projected life expectancies of elderly women in France, Italy, Japan and South Korea in 2050. In those countries, women on average can expect to live well into their nineties by midcentury.

Human longevity is also reaching record levels. The numbers reaching age 100 years, for example, have grown markedly over the recent past. Worldwide the number of centenarians increased nearly four-fold since the start of the 21st century and is expected to increase nearly eight-fold by midcentury, reaching close to 5 million.

Among the populations of the twelve largest economies, the numbers of centenarians are projected to more than quadruple by 2050. The numbers of centenarians in Brazil and China, for example, are expected to increase eight-fold over the coming three decades.

Also importantly, the ageing of populations is also resulting in a declining ratio of tax-paying workers to retirees. The potential support ratio (PSR), or the ratio of working-age persons aged 15 to 64 per one person aged 65 years and older, is declining rapidly with important consequences for decision-making, resource allocations and societal wellbeing.

At the global level, the PSR declined from 9 persons in the working-ages per person aged 65 years and older at the start of the century to 7 in 2020 and is projected to decline further to 4 by midcentury. Also, by the year 2050 some countries, including China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom, are expected to have PSRs of approximately 2 persons or less in the working-ages for each person aged 65 and older (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Due to demographic pressures of growing elderly populations and the relative decline of workers paying taxes, governments are increasingly facing the need to adjust budgetary expenditures. Some political leaders advocate less spending on domestic programs and entitlements for the old and shifting more of the costs for support, caregiving and services to the old and their families, which they maintain has been successfully practiced by societies throughout much of the past.

Others, however, call for a readjustment of government expenditures including less spending on costly programs, including defense, and increased spending on the rising demands for services, support and care for the old. Increasing taxes on the wealthy, they argue, could make additional funding available for caring for the old.

Encountering increasing difficulties caring for the old, some governments, including China, India and the United States, have promoted and legislated filial obligations for elderly parents. In China, for example, Article 47 of the constitution states that adult children have the duty to support and assist their parents. Also, China passed a law nearly a decade ago requiring people to visit or keep in touch with their elderly parents or risk being sued.

Also in India, the government passed the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act in 2007, permitting needy elderly parents to seek monthly maintenance assistance from their children. In the United States, requiring children to care and provide support for their elderly parents is a state-by-state issue, with approximately half the states having filial responsibility laws.

The 21st century is one of unprecedented population aging. The increasing numbers and proportions of the old, who are living longer than ever before, are occurring with simultaneous declines in tax-paying workers who finance programs for the old in many countries.

The ageing of populations is challenging the viability of government pension systems and healthcare programs for the old. In addition, the demographic changes are increasing stress, anxiety and burdens on families, many of whom are struggling to find the resources, time and means to care for elderly family members.

Caring for the old can be particularly burdensome for women, who have traditionally provided care and assistance to elderly family members yet received limited compensation or recognition for their efforts. While many find providing care to the old emotionally rewarding, the work can be burdensome, interrupt employment and careers and harm the economic and personal well-being of caregivers.

In sum, caring for the old will increasingly be a mounting challenge for governments, communities and families throughout the 21st century. Among the central aspects of that challenge are who should be responsible for providing care for the old and what should be the nature and extent of the care to be provided to the old.

Ignoring or postponing addressing the consequences of population ageing is the typical response of governments when confronting relatively slow-moving, momentous demographic trends. Doing so, however, will only intensify the formidable challenge of caring for the old.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

The larger the population size, the greater are the consequences on climate, environment, biodiversity and pollution. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 31 2022 (IPS)

Demographic denialism is increasingly appearing in countries across the globe. Various government officials, politicians, business leaders, media commentators and others are blatantly denying demographic realities and likely future trends and advancing falsehoods.

The apparent reasons behind the denials and falsehoods include politics, profits, power, discrimination, notoriety, hopes, beliefs, contrariness, trepidation and escapism. Some of the more frequently promoted denials are considered below with information on demographic realities and likely future trends.

First, world population is NOT collapsing any time soon. World population has quadrupled over the past 100 years, from 2 to 8 billion and is expected to reach 10 billion around midcentury (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

While the rapid growth of world population in the 20th century has passed, the world’s population is expected to continue growing over the coming decades. World population is now increasing by about 80 million annually and 2 billion additional people are expected by 2056.

Second, the distribution of the world’s population across the planet will NOT remain as it has been throughout much of the past. In 1950, for example, six of the ten largest populations were developed countries. By the close of the 20th century, however, three developed countries were among the ten largest populations and by 2050 one developed country is expected to be among them.

Today some populations, largely in developed regions, are declining mainly due to more deaths than births and will likely be considerably smaller over the coming years. Other populations, mainly in developing regions, are increasing rapidly with substantially more births than deaths.

For example, of the projected 1.8 billion increase in world population by 2050, 1.1 billion, or about 60 percent, is expected to occur in Africa and about a 0.6 billion, or 32 percent, in Asia. In contrast, the populations of Northern America and Europe, are projected to increase by 52 million, a 3 percent increase, and decrease by 37 million, a 2 percent decline, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Third, international migration is NOT being resolved by high walls, long fences, sea patrols, immigrant visas or calls for people not to come. Immigration is a 21st century crisis with the numbers wishing to migrate far exceeding the levels acceptable to destination countries.

Governments, international agencies and regional organizations have not come up with workable solutions to address immigration. Authorities appear at a loss at what to do about the waves of migrants desiring employment, claiming asylum, seeking refuge, escaping climate change and risking their lives for decent living conditions.

International migration is NOT being resolved by high walls, long fences, sea patrols, immigrant visas or calls for people not to come. Immigration is a 21st century crisis with the numbers wishing to migrate far exceeding the levels acceptable to destination countries

Also, most unauthorized migrants are not being repatriated. Once unauthorized migrants are in the country, governments encounter difficulties sending them back to their home countries. After a lapse of time, an amnesty or a path to citizenship may be offered to those who are established. However, such actions can also serve as an incentive for others to migrate illegally.

Fourth, population size is NOT inconsequential for climate change, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and pollution. The larger the population size, the greater are the consequences on climate, environment, biodiversity and pollution through increased demands for energy, water, food, housing, land, resources, material goods, machinery, transportation, etc.

Government leaders as well as many of their economic advisors are not prepared to acknowledge that population stabilization and degrowth are essential for addressing climate change. As witnessed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, limiting population growth was not part of climate change negotiations.

In contrast to most country leaders who favor the continued growth of their respective populations, thousands of scientists worldwide are urging governments to stabilize or reduce the size of their populations along with other critical actions related to energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food and the economy. Such actions would contribute significantly to efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation.

Fifth, the ageing of human populations is NOT a temporary phenomenon, and most governments are ill-prepared to deal with its wide-ranging consequences. For most countries and much of the world, youthful populations are the past and significantly older populations are the inescapable future.

Population ageing is the result of lower birth rates and increased longevity. The world’s fertility rate is half the level of the 1950s, 5 versus 2.5 births per woman, and life expectancy at birth has increased by more than 50 percent since then, from 47 to 73 years.

Population ageing is increasingly affecting fundamental aspects of human societies, including economics, taxes, employment, housing, pensions, healthcare and disabilities. Rather than hoping for a return to youthful age structures, government officials, business leaders and others need to prepare for population ageing.

Sixth, the vaccinated and unvaccinated for the coronavirus do NOT have similar mortality and morbidity rates. Being vaccinated substantially decreases the chances of death and illness from the virus.

Remaining unvaccinated unequivocally results in higher rates of mortality and morbidity. Unfortunately, those higher levels have contributed to declines in life expectancies at birth and heavily burdened communities where large numbers remain unvaccinated.

In brief, being unvaccinated increases the chances of death and illness from the coronavirus. In contrast, the coronavirus vaccines, like past vaccines for major diseases, such as smallpox, tetanus, hepatitis, rubella, pertussis, pneumonia, measles, and polio, are effective in reducing mortality rates, illness, the virus’ spread and societal costs.

Seventh, women do NOT want to remain in the home. During the 20th century, significant social, economic, and political progress was achieved in women’s equality. That progress has been greatly facilitated by improvements in women’s health, education, employment, urbanization, delayed marriage and childbearing, and declines in family size.

The traditional stay-at-home mom is increasingly being replaced by the working mom. Growing numbers of women are seeking higher education, careers, economic independence and personal social identity.

Also, many women do not want to return to matrimonial inequalities where husbands were household heads, made major decisions and controlled finances and property. However, some conservative groups are resisting attempts to achieve gender equality and seek to maintain traditional roles and lifestyles. Simply stated, those groups want women to remain in the home and love, honor and obey their husbands.

Eighth, couples do NOT want to have many children. Despite public hissy fits, policies and incentives by officials, business leaders and others aimed at raising fertility, birth rates are not likely to return to the comparatively high levels of the past.

In country after country, most couples who decide to have children are having one or two. As fewer women are giving birth to four or more children, fertility rates have fallen in every major region. Except for sub-Saharan Africa, the fertility rates of most countries will likely be below replacement in the coming decades (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Ninth, most nations are NOT against induced abortion. Countries vary in their policies concerning abortions depending on the specific grounds. Abortions are permitted in 98 percent of countries to save the life of the woman, 72 percent for a woman’s physical health, 60 percent for rape, incest or fetal impairment, and 34 percent at the woman’s request (Figure 4).

Source: United Nations.

Over the past five decades, an unmistakable trend has taken place in the liberalization of abortion laws. The trend has coincided with a decline in abortion rates worldwide.

Making abortions illegal, however, does not prevent abortions from occurring. Even when abortions are severely restricted, illegal abortions take place in relatively large numbers. Approximately 8 percent of maternal deaths globally are the result of complications from unsafe abortions, with nearly all taking placing in developing countries.

Tenth, the traditional family is NOT the overwhelming societal norm worldwide. A working father, stay-at-home mom, several children, and a marriage “until death do us part” are increasingly characteristics of families in the past.

In many countries being married has become less of a necessity for financial survival, social interaction and personal fulfillment. More people are cohabiting, increasing proportions of couples are having births outside marriage, and many governments help single-parent families. In addition, same-sex marriages are now performed and recognized in 31 countries.

In conclusion, it is worrisome that demographic denialism is spreading in countries worldwide. Some are not only denying demographic realities but also advancing falsehoods. Presenting demographic realities and likely future trends openly, accurately and objectively can contribute to debunking demographic denialism.

* Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Credit: Bigstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 17 2022 (IPS)

Yes, it’s unequivocally true: Americans are the most likely to be in the jailhouse now. The United States is the world’s leader in incarceration both in terms of the total number of people in prisons and jails and the rate of prisoners per capita.

The U.S. national incarceration rate, prisoners per 100,000 population, plainly stands out as the world’s highest at approximately 630. The countries with incarceration rates closest to the U.S. are Rwanda, Turkmenistan and El Salvador at around 575. The incarceration rate for the world at 140 as well as the rates for nearly all developed countries, in contrast, are a fraction of the United States rate (Figure 1).

Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research.

Moreover, the incarceration rates for the U.S. states are greater than those of most developed democracies. For example, the lowest state incarceration rate of 109 in Massachusetts is significantly greater than the rates for Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, which are below 90 prison inmates per 100,000 population.

Despite having slightly less than one-twentieth of the world’s population, the United States has approximately 20 percent of the world’s prison population

The high incarceration rate is a relatively recent phenomenon for the United States. Between 1925 to 1975, for example, the U.S. incarceration rate was relatively stable at around 110 prisoners per 100,000 population. In the late 1970s the rate increased significantly, more than quadrupling since then, following the get tough on crime movement that swept across the country

Despite having slightly less than one-twentieth of the world’s population, the United States has approximately 20 percent of the world’s prison population. At the end of 2019 the number of prisoners held in the U.S. was the world’s largest at about 2.2 million.

That number of U.S. prisoners is about 10 percent lower than the peak level of inmates in prisons and jails of about 2.3 million in 2008. However, the current number of prisoners is substantially higher than it was in the mid 20th century. Fifty years ago, for example, the number of U.S. prisoners was 200,000, or close to 2 million less than it is today.

Following the United States in a distant second place is China with 1.7 million prisoners, or about 16 percent of the world total. It is followed by Brazil, India and Russia with approximately 0.8 million, 0.5 million and 0.5 million, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research.

It is important to recognize that while the estimated total global prison population is over 11 million, that number is likely to be an underestimate of the world total. For example, if the numbers of underreported and political prisoners as well as those held in detention centers in various countries around the world, such as China, Eritrea, Indonesia, Myanmar, North Korea and Somalia, are included, the total worldwide prison population is believed to be more than 12 million.

In many parts of the world, prison populations are continuing to rise. For example, since the start of the 21st century, the prison populations have tripled in South America, more than doubled in south-eastern Asia and has nearly doubled in Oceania.

In the United States, in contrast, the number of prisoners in recent years has declined. The U.S. imprisonment rate in 2019 was at the lowest level since 1995. From 2009 to 2019, for example, the number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction dropped by 11 percent and the incarceration rate fell by 17 percent.

In some countries, including the U.S., the COVID-19 pandemic has also contributed to declines in prisoner numbers. Court operations, delays in trials and sentencing of persons led to a 40 percent decrease in admissions to U.S. state and federal prisons from 2019 and spurred a 25 percent drop in inmates held in local jails.

As is the case worldwide, the overwhelming majority of prisoners in the U.S. are males. In 2019, for example, females made up about 10 percent of those held in U.S. prisons and jails, or about 0.2 million, and constituted the highest female incarceration rate worldwide. Also, U.S. male prisoners are mostly under age 40, come from disadvantaged communities, are disproportionately minorities and often have drug and alcohol addictions.

U.S. incarceration rates also vary considerably by region and state. The states with the highest incarceration rates are typically located in the south. The top three states, for example, were Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma, all with rates above 600 in 2019. In contrast, the three states with the lowest rates, all around 150 or less, were Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island.

At the end of 2019 slightly less than half, or about 46 percent, of sentenced federal prisoners were serving time for drug trafficking and 8 percent for a violent offense. Similarly among sentenced state prisoners, the most common offense was drug-related and about one out of seven, or 14 percent, were serving time for murder or manslaughter.

America’s high level of incarceration has raised various issues, including the civil rights of poor people and minorities, the crowded facilities with health risks and the financial strains on state budgets. Some contend that incarceration dehumanizes individuals, does little to increase public safety and is damaging to marginalized communities.

Also, many prisoners after being released encounter serious challenges. Among those challenges are reentering the labor force, finding suitable housing, reestablishing familial, social and community relationships, accessing public assistance and avoiding criminal activities.

Spending on prisons and jails also varies considerably across the United States. Those costs typically involve providing security, food, housing, recreation, education, maintenance and healthcare for prisoners.

The annual costs per inmate range from lows of below $20,000 in states such as Alabama, Kentucky and Oklahoma to highs of more than $50,000 in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. Also, invariably across U.S. states, the annual costs of keeping an inmate imprisoned are significantly greater than government monies spent to educate an elementary/secondary school student in an academic year.

Various explanations or factors have been offered for why the United States has the world’s highest incarceration rate. Prominent among those explanations is the war on drugs, which over the years incarcerated a lot of people. Many experts contend that treatment for drug offenders would be a better option than incarceration.

Other factors and practices believed to contribute to the high U.S. incarceration rates include: harsher sentencing laws; longer prison sentences; greater likelihood of imprisonment; higher rates of violent crime; easily available firearms; a legacy of racial discrimination; the U.S. temperament; the lack of a social safety net; inadequate reentry services; employment discrimination; jail time for misdemeanors or low-level offenses; and the lack the funds to cover bail.

Also, most U.S. state judges and prosecutors are elected and consequently tend to be sensitive to public opinion about appropriate responses to crime. In contrast, criminal justice professionals in other developed countries are civil servants who are less likely to be pressured for lengthy jail time.

In sum, little disagreement exists about who are the most likely to be in the jailhouse now: residents of the United States. The reasons behind this lamentable incarceration achievement, however, are less indisputable. Also, the policies, changes and programs needed to address it remain contentious issues among U.S. elected officials, criminal justice professionals, law enforcement officers and the public.

Consequently, it seems that at least for the foreseeable future, the United States will retain its title as the world’s incarceration leader both in terms of the total number of people in prisons and jail and the rate of prisoners per capita.

* Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Governments and the public need to recognize, understand and respond to the ageing of human populations in the 21st century, which is the inescapable demographic future of nations worldwide. Credit: Maricel Sequeira/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 5 2022 (IPS)

The ageing of human populations is an inescapable demographic future. That evolving and universal future is increasingly challenging governments and the public, who are by and large ill prepared for that certain future.

Whereas the 20th century was one of record setting rapid population growth with world population nearly quadrupling, the 21st century is one of unprecedented population ageing with its economic, social and political consequences reverberating across countries worldwide.

Whereas the 20th century was one of record setting rapid population growth with world population nearly quadrupling, the 21st century is one of unprecedented population ageing with its economic, social and political consequences reverberating across countries worldwide

In addition to influencing the existing world order, population ageing is affecting fundamental aspects of human societies. Among those aspects are economic activities, investments, taxes, budgets, labor forces, politics, defense, education, housing, household structures, transportation, recreation, retirement, pensions, disabilities and healthcare.

Population ageing, which is taking place at a much faster pace than in the past, is basically the result of lower birth rates and increased longevity. While in the 1960s the world’s total fertility rate and life expectancy at birth were 5 births per woman and 50 years, current levels are 2.4 births per woman and 73 years for average life expectancy at birth.

Due to the fundamental changes in the levels of fertility and mortality, the age structure of the world’s population has aged significantly. In the 1960s, for example, the median age of world population was 22 years and the proportion aged 65 years and older was 5 percent; today the median age has increased to 32 years and the elderly are 10 percent of world population.

In addition, the proportion of the elderly aged 80 years and older has tripled since 1960, increasing from about 0.6 to 2 percent and is expected to double to 4 percent by 2050. Increased longevity has also resulted in significantly more centenarians. The number of centenarians is expected to more than quintuple over the coming thirty years, growing from approximately 600 thousand today to 3.2 million by mid-century.

Worldwide the current number of persons aged 65 years and older worldwide is approximately 750 million. That number is expected to more than double over the next three decades, reaching 1.5 billion older persons by 2050. As a result, the world’s proportion of older persons is projected to increase from 10 to 16 percent, or about one of every six people in the world will be in the age group 65 years and older.

At the national level, nearly all the G20 countries, which together account for more than 80 percent of world GDP, 75 percent of global trade and 60 percent of world population, are expected to have no less than one-quarter of their populations aged 65 years and older by 2100. And eight of those countries, including Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, are expected to have one-third or more of their population aged 65 years and older by the close of the century (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Due to the increasing elderly retired population coupled with the relative decline of workers paying taxes and contributing to pension retirement systems, many countries are confronting difficult choices. Governments are being challenged by budgetary allocations, taxation levels, retirement benefits and provision of social and health services, especially for the growing numbers of those aged 65 years and older.

Aiming to avoid controversial budgetary reforms and unpopular tax increases, some governments are reducing expenditures and entitlements for the elderly and shifting more of the costs for support, care giving and health services to the individual and their families. In many instances, however, most households are unable or reluctant to take on the time-consuming responsibilities and considerable costs involved in caring for elderly family members.

The proportion of older persons who live alone has grown steadily over the recent past. Also, those 65 years and older are in the age group that is most likely to live alone. The average proportion of older persons living alone among OECD countries is about 33 percent, with highs of more than 40 percent among some countries, such as Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden (Figure 2).

Source: OECD.

Like the influenza pandemic in the early part of the 20th century, the current COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in declines in life expectancy and significant increases in the numbers of deaths, especially among the elderly and those with health problems.

Although it is difficult to say precisely when the current pandemic will end, international population projections generally expect mortality levels to continue their declines in the coming years resulting in higher life expectancies during the 21st century.

The ageing of populations, especially among the militarily powerful nations, may possibly contribute to efforts to secure world peace. As governments face growing numbers and proportions of their citizens aged 65 years and older, the needs, concerns and perspectives of the elderly men and women may lead to reductions in military expenditures and increased spending on benefits, assistance and care for those in old age.

Given the population ageing of nations, governments need to adopt policies and establish programs to address the growing consequences of population ageing. In doing so, it is important to note that immigration is not a solution to population ageing.

Immigration can certainly increase the size of labor force and significant proportions of the labor forces in many countries are immigrants. However, immigration is not a solution to population ageing because the immigrants also age over time and eventually add their numbers to the retired elderly population.

In contrast, raising the retirement age for government benefits is an effective policy to address population ageing. Raising the retirement age to 70 years would increase the size of the labor force. At the same time, a higher retirement age would also reduce the number of recipients receiving government pension benefits.

The use of robots, artificial intelligence and advanced technology to assist and provide services, information and companionship to the growing numbers of older persons should also be expanded. Such an expansion would that reduce labor demands and costs of providing such care and assistance. Also, it would be more efficient and effective in addressing common health conditions of people in old age.

Public programs are also needed to educate and provide information to people about the need for life-long learning and preparing for retirement, especially developing a savings plan to meet their needs in old age. Such programs should also promote healthy ageing and encourage older persons to keep active and physically fit and remain socially engaged with others.

In sum, governments and the public need to recognize, understand and respond to the ageing of human populations in the 21st century, which is the inescapable demographic future of nations worldwide.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Over the coming decades the proportion aged 65 years and older in countries with below replacement fertility will increase substantially. Credit: K. S. Harikrishnan/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 8 2021 (IPS)

Many low fertility countries are having future fertility fantasies. It’s time for them to end those fantasies and prepare for a future of below replacement fertility with demographic ageing and without immigration declining populations.

Over the past 50 years the general fertility pattern has been unmistakable: once a nation’s fertility rate falls below the replacement level, it tends to stay there. Despite this demographic pattern, the governments of many countries with below replacement fertility believe that they can persuade couples to have additional children.

Today the fertility rates of approximately 80 countries and territories are below the replacement level, i.e., less than 2.1 children per woman. Together those countries represent nearly two-thirds of the world’s population of nearly 8 billion people (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations Population Division.

Countries with below replacement fertility are all the developed countries as well many developing countries, including Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Cuba, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, South Korea, Thailand and Turkey. The latest addition to this group is India, which recently announced that its fertility rate had fallen just below the replacement level at 2.0 births per woman.

Many of those countries have fertility rates that are more than a half child below the replacement level. For example, the total fertility rates for China, Italy and Japan are 1.3 births per woman. An even lower fertility rate is that of South Korea, which at 0.8 births per woman is the world’s lowest (Figure 2).

Source: National surveys and United Nations Population Division.

Largely the result of sustained below replacement fertility levels, many countries are experiencing or facing population decline. By midcentury, for example, the populations of nearly 40 countries are expected to be smaller than they are today, including China, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain and Ukraine (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations Population Division.

In addition to population decline, the age structures of those countries will undergo rapid demographic ageing. Over the coming decades the proportion aged 65 years and older in countries with below replacement fertility will increase substantially.

Largely the result of sustained below replacement fertility levels, many countries are experiencing or facing population decline. By midcentury, for example, the populations of nearly 40 countries are expected to be smaller than they are today, including China, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain and Ukraine

By 2050, for example, many nations, including Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, France, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, are expected to have approximately one-fourth of their populations aged 65 years and older. Also in some countries, such as Greece, Italy, Japan, Poland, Singapore and South Korea, the proportion elderly will be no less than one-third of their populations.

Rather than turning to international migration to increase or stabilize the size of their populations and labor forces, as some countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States are doing, many countries want to raise their low fertility levels. Those governments maintain that the only truly sustainable solution to population decline and demographic ageing is to raise the fertility rates of their own indigenous populations to at least the replacement level.

While immigration may increase the size of the population and labor force as is occurring in some countries, it will not reverse population ageing, which is the result of low fertility levels and increased longevity. In addition, the numbers of immigrants needed to offset population aging in most cases would not only be unacceptably large, but also over the longer term the immigrants themselves would age and eventually join the elderly population.

Of course, fertility rebounds in the near future are certainly possible and cannot be ruled out. However, population projections for countries over the 21st century generally expect that once fertility rates fall below the replacement level, they will remain there.

Virtually every country’s fertility rate is expected to remain below the replacement level once its fertility rate has fallen below 2.1 births per woman. In addition, by the close of the century only about 20 countries, virtually all in Africa, are projected to have fertility rates slightly about the replacement level, or about 2.2 births per woman.

Some countries believe that the demographic consequences of below replacement fertility constitute threats to their economy, society and culture. Those countries have attempted to return to at least replacement level fertility through pro-natalist policies, programs and various incentives, including reduced taxes, subsidized care for children, parental leave and financial bonuses, as well as limiting access to contraceptives and abortion. However, governmental pro-natalist attempts have by and large failed to raise fertility back to the replacement level.

Powerful forces are responsible for bringing about and maintaining fertility rates below replacement levels. In addition to urbanization, education, employment and modern contraceptives, other important forces influencing the fertility decisions of women and men include the costs of living, pressures and demands of childrearing, improved status of women, decline of marriage, increased divorce and separation, career aspirations, childlessness and independent lifestyles.

Given the likely trends in fertility rates, many countries should anticipate and prepare for a demographic future of smaller and older populations. Official retirement ages, for example, will need to be raised, perhaps to 70 years, which will not only increase the size of the labor force, but also reduce the numbers of retired persons.

In addition, countries will need to turn to and invest in advanced robotics, androids and artificial intelligence. Not only will existing and emerging technologies help to address the shrinking labor forces, but they will also contribute to meeting the needs of elderly persons.

Besides programs promoting healthy ageing, preparing people for old age and making services and assistance readily available will be required for the growing numbers and proportions of elderly persons. To meet the increasing demands, governments will need to seriously reconsider their budgets, taxes and priorities, particularly expenditures on healthcare and defense.

The era of relatively high fertility, which was most recently experienced during the mid-20th century, is largely over. It is increasingly being replaced by low fertility rates, typically below replacement levels.

In all likelihood, world population is projected to add billions more in the coming decades, likely reaching 10 billion around mid-century. At the same time, countries need to acknowledge the realities of today’s fertility levels and their likely trends and major consequences in the coming decades.

In sum, many governments of low fertility countries need to dismiss their fantasies about returning to the comparatively high fertility levels of the past. They need to prepare their countries for a future of sustained below replacement fertility with demographic ageing and without immigration declining populations.

Joseph Chamie is an international consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

The planet with 8 billion humans and continuing to grow must be seriously addressed in climate change negotiations, argues the author. Credit: UNHCR

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 23 2021 (IPS)

With world population approaching 8 billion humans, the demographic growth of nations is unfortunately largely ignored by governments whenever climate change is considered.

Government leaders at COP26, for example, did not address limiting the global demand for energy, water, food, housing, land, resources, material goods, machinery, transportation, etc. by reducing the growth of their respective human populations. By and large, the officials as well as their economic advisors are not prepared to acknowledge that population stabilization and degrowth are essential for addressing climate change.

Moreover, many countries, including Canada, China, European Union members, Iran, Israel, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States, continue to push for the further growth of their populations. China, for example, has moved from a one-child policy to a three-child policy to increase its population of more than 1.4 billion.

Many countries, including Canada, China, European Union members, Iran, Israel, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States, continue to push for the further growth of their populations. China, for example, has moved from a one-child policy to a three-child policy to increase its population of more than 1.4 billion

Russia has adopted a number of policies to increase its low birth rate, including maternity capital program, Procreation Day, state funding for new mothers, welfare benefits to families with young children and tax breaks for larger families. The United States relies heavily on immigration, more than one million immigrants annually, to increase its population, which is projected to reach 400 million by around midcentury.

Rather than immigration, most European Union Members aim to increase their populations by raising below replacement fertility levels. The mood in many parts of Europe is reflected in the German poster saying: “Wir können unsere eigenen Babys machen, wir brauchen keine Ausländer” (We can make our own babies, we don’t need foreigners). Hungary, in particular, has been outspoken in its opposition to immigration and foreigners, and straightforward in its policies, programs and financial incentives aimed at helping Hungarians have all the babies they want.

Also, Iran recently adopted a bill that limits sterilization, abortion and free distribution of contraceptives in the public health care system unless a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health, all aimed at raising its birth rate and increasing its population of 85 million by tens of millions over the coming decades. And Israel promotes population growth of its Jewish population and expansion of settlements as a prerequisite for security and economic development and its current population of 8.7 million could increase to 15 million by 2050.

Throughout most of human history demographic growth was relatively slow. The rapid growth of world population is relatively recent, having occurred largely during the second half of the 20th century with record breaking rates of growth and population increases. World population reached 1 billion around 1804, doubled to 2 billion in 1927, doubled again to 4 billion in 1974 and will double again to 8 billion by 2023 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations Population Division.

World population’s 10 billion mark is expected to occur around mid-century, with much of the growth taking place in less developed countries. Africa’s current population of about 1.4 billion, for example, is expected to double to 2.8 billion by 2056. Particularly noteworthy, Nigeria’s population, which increased more than fivefold over the past 70 years, is projected to double again, reaching 423 million by around midcentury and displacing the United States as the world’s third largest population.

It’s time to end the charade and acknowledge the disastrous consequences of a world with 8 billion humans is having on climate change. For example, based on the performance to date of Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, the United States, the top 7 emitters of greenhouse gas emissions accounting for nearly two-thirds of global emissions and half of the world’s population, the world is unlikely to achieve the goals needed to address climate change nor respond effectively to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Figure 2).

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

Additional insight into greenhouse gas emissions is offered by per capita comparisons of major countries. While in 2018 the world average of tons of CO2 equivalent per person was approximately 6, the United States and Russia had the highest per person levels of 19 and 18, respectively. The per person levels for the world’s billionaire plus populations, China and India, were considerably lower at about 8 and 2, respectively (Figure 3).

Source: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

It also appears unlikely that the world will achieve the global goal adopted by 196 parties in 2015 in the legally binding international treaty on climate change, the Paris Agreement, to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Moreover, to preserve a livable climate on the planet, the world community of nations will not likely be able to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions net 0 by 2050.

While it is widely recognized that climate change is a global emergency, the international system of nations is failing to deal with this challenge as well as related global problems due to national ambitions. To effectively address this failing, some believe that a new worldview of planetary politics is called for, with the survival of the biosphere to be designated an international objective relevant to all nations. However, moving away from the primacy of national sovereignty to a planetary approach appears unlikely any time soon.

One significant demographic response to climate change is human migration, both internal and international. Increasingly, people are migrating to escape climate change’s disastrous consequences, including rising sea levels, lengthy droughts, deadly heat, polluted air, devastating floods, raging wildfires and violent storms.

The planet is all but guaranteed to see 5 feet of sea level rise in the coming decades. This rise is especially threatening to no less than a dozen island nations, including Fiji, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. In addition, by the end of the decade approximately 50 percent of the world’s population will live in coastal areas that are exposed to storms, tsunamis and floods.

Also, exposure to extreme heat, which has tripled from 1983 to 2016, now impacts roughly a quarter of the world’s population. Longer and hotter heat waves have become a regular feature of climate change. Low income communities, especially in developing countries, are most vulnerable with more than two-thirds of global households lacking access to air conditioning.

Governments will need to decide on how best to address climate-induced population displacement, which is already a reality for millions worldwide. Over the next several decades, tens of millions of “climate migrants” are expected to be displaced by extreme heat, droughts, sea-level rise, or other severe climate events within and across countries. Some are calling for a United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and climate change.

Other expected demographic responses to climate change are reduced fertility and increased morbidity and mortality. Hot weather, for example, can worsen reproductive health and maternal health outcomes as well as lead to later birth rates and harm to infant survival.

Also, climate change is considered the single biggest health threat facing the world’s 8 billion humans. Changes in the planet’s climate are expected to have serious consequences on the social, economic and environmental determinants of health, including air, water, food and shelter.

WHO reports that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause 250 thousand additional deaths annually from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. Also, others estimate that global warming could lead to the premature deaths of more than 80 million people over the remainder of the century.

Whenever climate change is discussed, written about, or mentioned, the demographic growth of nations can no longer be ignored or dismissed by governments. The planet with 8 billion humans and continuing to grow must be seriously addressed in climate change negotiations.

In brief, the stabilization and degrowth of human populations are essential for limiting the ever-increasing demographic created demands for energy, water, food, land, resources, housing, heating/cooling, transportation, material goods, etc. that are responsible for the planet’s climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”