Worldwide Demographics

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

They're too few to make much difference in the grand scheme of things. Lots of rural and more "native" regions of France have TFR above the national average (Centre-Val de Loire, Hauts-de-France, Normandy, Pays de la Loire).

As 2024, 65.9% babies had both French-born parents; 19.0% had two foreign-born parents. Very similar to other Western European countries.

A cursory search puts France at about ~14% foreign born which means they are outpacing French born in birthrates but yeah, your rural regions gonna be more fertile than urban areas. That's the case here, them rednecks be having lots of kiddos.

[Crawford]

I don't understand the focus on whether the population growth is via immigration or babies. Growth is growth.

Germany is extremely crowded and dense and has been growing. The population is heavily concentrated in a north-south western corridor. And I don't think Germany would be a better place with, say, 100 million people. It's the size of a U.S. state.

Of course you need some fertility. No one wants a Children of Men-type situation. But Western Europe has pretty normal fertility for secular first world nations. Really only South Korea is demographically fragile.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand the focus on whether the population growth is via immigration or babies. Growth is growth.

Germany is extremely crowded and dense and has been growing. The population is heavily concentrated in a north-south western corridor. And I don't think Germany would be a better place with, say, 100 million people. It's the size of a U.S. state.

Of course you need some fertility. No one wants a Children of Men-type situation. But Western Europe has pretty normal fertility for secular first world nations. Really only South Korea is demographically fragile.

Because they signify demographic shifts. Immigrants from non-western/ east asian countries tend to have higher birth rates which is reflected across the board in western Europe, the US and Canada.

SK is the most extreme case but Japan and China are not in a good position either.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because they signify demographic shifts. Immigrants from non-western/ east asian countries tend to have higher birth rates which is reflected across the board in western Europe, the US and Canada.

Poor or religious countries have higher birth rates. When they immigrate to rich countries, the birth rates are same as new country after the first generation.

Rich countries like Germany can maintain population indefinitely, as long as they remain desirable places to work and live. Germany is very likely to remain desirable.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand the focus on whether the population growth is via immigration or babies. Growth is growth.

Germany is extremely crowded and dense and has been growing. The population is heavily concentrated in a north-south western corridor. And I don't think Germany would be a better place with, say, 100 million people. It's the size of a U.S. state.

Of course you need some fertility. No one wants a Children of Men-type situation. But Western Europe has pretty normal fertility for secular first world nations. Really only South Korea is demographically fragile.

German cities are not that dense and I guess they would be a more pleasant places being a bit denser. 100 million could perfectly fit in already built up areas. In fact, if Germany had grown at same pace of the neighbouring Netherlands (a much denser place) since WWII, Germany would have 150 million inh.

Regarding to keep stable population, it would be harder and harder as years go by: Germany is now on a need of 350k a year and this number will keep growing. Europe as a whole reached in 2024 a negative natural growth of 2.2 million. Even if we exclude the former Soviet European parts, we still have -1.3 million. It's lots of people.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Poor or religious countries have higher birth rates. When they immigrate to rich countries, the birth rates are same as new country after the first generation.

Rich countries like Germany can maintain population indefinitely, as long as they remain desirable places to work and live. Germany is very likely to remain desirable.

Urbanization rates are probably even more important: cities have always forced low fertility rates, even in Sumeria. And now the majority of world's population live in urban areas.

Regarding growing forever, that will be increasingly more difficult in a declining world. Tokyo-Osaka axis fed on the rural Japan and still grows despite Japan had lost 5 million inh. However, they're now about to decline as well as those regions cannot provide enough people to counter their increasingly negative growth.

And as I mentioned before, not adapting to a shrinking world might be a liability. In that sense, mass-immigration might mask the transition making harder for societies to make the much needed adaptation.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Yuri

German cities are not that dense and I guess they would be a more pleasant places being a bit denser. 100 million could perfectly fit in already built up areas. In fact, if Germany had grown at same pace of the neighbouring Netherlands (a much denser place) since WWII, Germany would have 150 million inh.

I think part of the charm of Germany is that while it's dense, it's not overly so. It would be a fundamentally different vibe if it was built up like Japan (same size in land area)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think part of the charm of Germany is that while it's dense, it's not overly so. It would be a fundamentally different vibe if it was built up like Japan (same size in land area)

But they got plenty of very charming neighbourhoods with density ranging from 10,000/km2 to 15,000 people/km2 all over the country, whereas the average urban density there is around 4,000/km2. They could house 100 million people with only a marginal increase on the overall density of their urban areas. It would go unnoticed.

[Crawford]

German cities are overwhelmed, now. Every big West German city has recorded robust population growth in recent decades, but they're all basically the same as when I was a kid. They haven't physically expanded, transit networks are the same, housing is the same, so everything is really expensive and overcrowded. Munich is still built like a collection of villages, while housing is in the millions. Meanwhile East Germany is emptying out and has ghost towns.

The only way you can add people w/o wrecking quality of life is by forcing people to live in rural Germany and East Germany. But the existing residents would hate that, and so would the immigrants. My dad's village has maybe 1,000 residents and no non-Germans. Meanwhile nearby Frankfurt is maybe 30% German background, or lower.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

German cities are overwhelmed, now. Every big West German city has recorded robust population growth in recent decades, but they're all basically the same as when I was a kid. They haven't physically expanded, transit networks are the same, housing is the same, so everything is really expensive and overcrowded. Munich is still built like a collection of villages, while housing is in the millions. Meanwhile East Germany is emptying out and has ghost towns.

The only way you can add people w/o wrecking quality of life is by forcing people to live in rural Germany and East Germany. But the existing residents would hate that, and so would the immigrants. My dad's village has maybe 1,000 residents and no non-Germans. Meanwhile nearby Frankfurt is maybe 30% German background, or lower.

German cities have a very decent transit. I'd say one of the best in the world. Munich, for instance, is barely above 2 million inh. and have a very dense U-Bahn, S-Bahn, trams network. Frankfurt, Berlin and Hamburg the same. I didn't ride Cologne's but it seems to be very comprehensive too. All of them seem were better than either Amsterdam or Brussels.

I counted 10 cities in Germany with neighbourhoods above 10,000 people/km2 and they seem nice places to live in. If New York manages a much higher density of a much bigger area German urban areas could easily afford density going up from 4,000 people/km2 to 4,500 people/km2 or so. And that's if they don't want any new greenfield development whatsoever.

[Crawford]

Munich, and many other German cities, basically ban large-scale core redevelopment. They are essentially metropolitan areas that function as villages. And Deutsche Bahn has something like a 50% growth in ridership alongside plummeting investment. Germans are furious at Deutsche Bahn (which yes, compared to U.S., and most places outside Japan, is still a dream system).

The end-result of massive population growth would just be much higher urban prices, more crowded transit, and people commuting huge distances like they're in California. I don't think I've ever met a German who wants a much higher population.

[iheartthed]

Germany as a US state would be the sixth most densely populated state. The density of Germany is comparable to the densely populated states with small land areas along the Northeast Corridor.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand the focus on whether the population growth is via immigration or babies. Growth is growth.

Germany is extremely crowded and dense and has been growing. The population is heavily concentrated in a north-south western corridor. And I don't think Germany would be a better place with, say, 100 million people. It's the size of a U.S. state.

Of course you need some fertility. No one wants a Children of Men-type situation. But Western Europe has pretty normal fertility for secular first world nations. Really only South Korea is demographically fragile.

Immigration-based growth is not sustainable. The immigration source countries are mostly below replacement fertility too. China will lose half its population this century (even if one believes the Chinese data).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Immigration-based growth is not sustainable.

For rich places like Germany and the U.S. (assuming U.S. maintains democracy), it's sustainable for centuries, as long as there's a developing world producing degree holders and massive gaps in compensation and living standards. This wouldn't work for Slovakia, obviously.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Crawford

For rich places like Germany and the U.S. (assuming U.S. maintains democracy), it's sustainable for centuries, as long as there's a developing world producing degree holders and massive gaps in compensation and living standards. This wouldn't work for Slovakia, obviously.

But there won’t be massive gaps in compensation and living standards. Living standard gaps have already significantly evaporated as globalization has brought more amenities to formerly poor countries. Middle income countries have low wages for degree holders because they are producing gluts of people with those degrees that middle income countries are going to allow to leave. That will not be the case as global population collapses. Local wages will go up and/or emigration restrictions will increase.

[Steely Dan]

If people wanna talk about racism, take it to CE.

This is an actually useful and worthwhile thread.

Please dont fuck it up.

[New Brisavoine]

Why were my posts in response to Yuri suppressed from the thread? I'm referring to those mentioning the borders of the French Republic and giving the number of births in France and Germany in 2026.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But there won’t be massive gaps in compensation and living standards. Living standard gaps have already significantly evaporated as globalization has brought more amenities to formerly poor countries. Middle income countries have low wages for degree holders because they are producing gluts of people with those degrees that middle income countries are going to allow to leave. That will not be the case as global population collapses. Local wages will go up and/or emigration restrictions will increase.

I don't see any of this. In my lifetime, places like Mexico have risen, but the gap with the richest countries hasn't closed. The relative economic benefits of a Mexican moving to the U.S. in 2026 isn't different from 1970. Emigration is much easier with affordable, frequent flights, smart devices and mobility options. Middle income countries have a longstanding glut of degree holders, and rising college attainment will mask nativity declines for a long time.

And just like MIT isn't worried about declining numbers of U.S. grads (but the local community college is), the richest countries don't need to worry about nativity for a long, long time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see any of this. In my lifetime, places like Mexico have risen, but the gap with the richest countries hasn't closed. The relative economic benefits of a Mexican moving to the U.S. in 2026 isn't different from 1970. Emigration is much easier with affordable, frequent flights, smart devices and mobility options. Middle income countries have a longstanding glut of degree holders, and rising college attainment will mask nativity declines for a long time.

And just like MIT isn't worried about declining numbers of U.S. grads (but the local community college is), the richest countries don't need to worry about nativity for a long, long time.

Mexican immigration was already falling before Trump showed up. Migrants who arrive from Mexico are increasingly not Mexican. Mexican immigration in the US peaked in 2010. And Mexico isn’t the best example as US drug money and guns have caused an extra layer of motivation to leave beyond economic considerations.

It isn’t random degree holders countries want as immigrants, it is specific degree holders in specific fields. Those who hold such degrees have a lot more options than they used to. An Indian architect might want to go to the U.S., but may also see more value in going to the UAE, Singapore, Eastern Europe, where housing opportunities might be better, crime is lower, etc.

A more concrete example. The Philippines has long been a source of nurses for many countries. In 2009, 70,000 nurses passed those exams. In 2023 it was 25,000.

[New Brisavoine]

A comparison of Réunion and its sister island Mauritius.

Both islands used to be French islands: Réunion was called Bourbon Island, whereas Mauritius was called the Isle of France. Both islands were conquered by Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, and at the 1815 Congress of Vienna Great Britain gave Bourbon Island back to France, but it kept the Isle of France (due to its excellent port, Port Louis, whereas Bourbon Island had no safe anchorage).

The Isle of France was renamed "Mauritius" by the British, but French and French Creole remained the main languages there, and the society remained dominated by French planters. Bourbon Island was renamed Réunion in 1848 when the French Republic was (re)established, because the Bourbon name irked the Republicans, but the name "Bourbon" is still associated with Réunion (for example Bourbon vanilla, perhaps the best vanilla in the world, which is produced in Réunion).

The Isle of France (Mauritius) was the most developed of the two islands under French rule, and after British conquest it remained the most developed and most populated of the two islands. The British (French planters in fact) imported lots of Indian indentured laborers, which swelled the population of the island. In Bourbon (Réunion), the planters imported less indentured laborers than in Mauritius, so the population of Mauritius largely outpaced that of Réunion.

Today, the fortunes of the two islands seem to be changing, with Réunion now the most prosperous of the two islands.

Population on July 1, 1990 :
- Mauritius Island: 1,022,000
- La Réunion : 603,000

Population on July 1, 2025:
- Mauritius Island : 1,199,000
- La Réunion: 908,000

1990-2025 growth:
- Mauritius Island: +17.2%
- La Réunion: +50.6%

At current rates, Réunion should pass the 1 million mark in 2038.

Number of births between 1974-1983 (10 years):
- Mauritius Island: 228,564
- La Réunion : 124,967

Number of births between 2015-2024 (10 years):
- Mauritius Island: 121,386
- La Réunion : 132,507

Population density on July 1, 2025 :
- Mauritius Island: 642 inh. per km²
- La Réunion : 362 inh. per km²

For comparison:
- Oahu: 646 inh. per km²
- Puerto Rico: 361 inh. per km²

Mauritius:





Réunion:

[Yuri]

South Korea, world's lowest fertility rate released their 2025 numbers:

Births ------------- 258,242
Deaths ------------ 366,149

Fertility Rate ---- 0.799 children/woman

Natural Growth -- -107,093

Population: 51,609,121 (2026)

Number of births has grown for the 2nd year straight, after an all-time low of 230,028 births back in 2023. In 2000, there were 640,089 births in South Korea. That's one of the steepest decline recorded everywhere.

TFR also bottomed in 2023, with 0.721 children/woman. Population has been falling every single year since 2020, when it peaked at 51,836,239.

South Korea fertility rates has been much lower than Japan's since the turn of the century. Its population is still younger due the demographic echo from the 1980's, but very soon South Korea population decline will surpass that of Japan, plunging very fast as those big cohorts of women leave the childbearing age.