“75% of the world is below replacement fertility” | Nicholas Eberstadt

Nicholas Eberstadt warns of the coming population time-bomb, where most of the world is below replacement fertility rate and family duties are increasingly outsourced to the state.
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world’s foremost thought leaders about today’s pressing social, cultural and political issues.

John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; “You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate.”

If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here:

And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here:

Follow John on Twitter:
Follow John on Facebook:
Follow John on Instagram:
Support the channel:
Nicholas Eberstadt:

Written by John Anderson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. De-population is a good thing.The world is massively overpopulated we can't keep pumping out more and more people continuously.There will be economic challenges with this but governments and individuals need to prepare for this instead of hoping the issue goes away.

    Think how much better life for people in Africa would be if there populations levels today were the same as where they were in the 1960's the challenges they face wouldn't be as severe because there would be less people to feed.

    Economists only look at depopulation from their economic perspective rather than having the broader view of how much better in so many other ways it is for the world.

  2. Not good. Even more not good is that the cultures that produced all the good stuff are so demoralised that they are failing to replace to a larger scale. On the large scale though, the planet on current technology has a carrying capacity of 2 Bn for a US level of consumption or 4 Bn for an EU level of consumption. We absolutely need to get to one of these numbers or in between, but we need to do it in a rational, and humane way that causes the least harm.

  3. I don't understand why there's on one side the politics in the mainstream culture against having kids, "the planet's overpopulated" "humans destroying climate", all the politics against child-bearing such as abortion ekhem, 'rights', the mentality to postpone having family and kids, and so on, while on the other hand there's the opposite that we're on the verge of economical and social system collapse due to low fertility rates.
    Like, what's with this bipolar messaging of the mainstream culture and politics? What's going on?

  4. We do not need more people, and we do not need to replace the ones we have, and the 25% of the peoples on Earth whose populations are not declining aren't the ones you would want more of if you could choose. If, instead of hand wringing about the fate of humanity you worried about the fate of life on Earth, the conclusions are pretty clear.

  5. The problem when you build a vast complex machine and then keep adding to it is that you need an army of people to maintain and sustain it. The massive and sudden shrinkage in population means that the infrastructure and institutions will collapse. The move towards ever bigger government and socialism means that the inevitable end will come sooner rather than later.

  6. Taking a look at some of the other animal species out there populations in which predators have been largely removed and food is available, they tend to self limit their populations. The stressors of population density actually causes mating, changes. Fecundity, care for young and so on. I guess that something like that is going on in cities around the world. It could be physiological, I don't know, cultural certainly, technological certainly with the availability of birth control. The question is is this a bad thing? Where it is a bad thing is in our economic system based on constant growth. If your company is not growing or worse if it is getting smaller it is called dying or failing. We have designed a system in which the elderly demand to be card for by the young so we need more than one working age person to support one elderly person. The economy is a consumer driven one. We are all customers. Christmas is a celebration of consumerism. A good Christmas is one in which sales were greater than the year before. In the end that model was doomed to fail and it is now failing. Just my opinion.

  7. on the women side it's the consequence of education (women can easily sustain themselves without a man in their life).
    urbanisation allows them to have any service they want (like hard labor type of things around the house), without a man in their life.
    and finally the pill gives them control of their reproductive function.

    on the men side, males no longer have a clearly defined goal or purpose, because women no longer need them as a bread winners, lack of purpose produce very weak men, me too movement and fatherless families don't help either.

  8. They were dead wrong about overpopulation (like Elrich) in the 60s and 70s. Now they have everyone utterly convinced the world is going to end through climate change. They are just as wrong about climate change as they were about the population and it is pathetic that people listen to these goons. If you believe in God you realize that God is smarter than we ever could be, and there are naturally built in mechanisms (natural feedback loops) that bring things back to balance when they get out of whack. We don't have to worry about playing God, God can do that role just fine.

  9. That is all great news and no need for anyone to worry about it!
    The latest six or seven additional billions of us have been so devastating, the current 'sixth great extinction' of flora and fauna is a direct result!
    The sooner we get back down to below three billion, the better, no matter some small inconveniences on the way.
    Stabilizing at a population of one to three billion is viable in the long run but not above.

    Even climate change will be a minor problem at that level!

  10. “Terra incognita” is right. On top of all the factors spoken of here, the #1 cause of death in people under 21 in the USA is suicide and has been for many years. Milton Friedman repeatedly said what should be common sense but is no longer regarded as such, which is that people themselves are the most valuable resource. Now the younger demographic are taught that humans are a plague. Oikophobia is rampant and if young people don’t think we “deserve” our own homeland or they adhere to environmentalism as a religion then they will not have children. They do not value human life as such.

  11. Population decline is a good thing. No marriage and kids from me!! Sorry big business, don't look to me if you want someone to provide you with consumers and wage slaves. Look elsewhere to some other hyper patriotic idiot that waves the flag and has 3 or 4 kids.

  12. Population decline is good to a degree. The world population of about the 1950's was comfortable in regard to living space. However, that is different to wealth distribution.
    The issue now is that we have a growing political class which needs to be funded by the drones of society. Where we need a significant reduction is in the political and talking class. They are largely non-productive. When they talk about replacement, they are discussing the need for more workers to fund the political and talking classes.
    The wealth devide is growing unless the political and talking class is reduced. "Stable population" is debatable , because we need to look in more detail at wealth distribution.

  13. According to the consensus of demographers China population is staring to decrease slowly and would end up 550 millions in 2100.
    That is almost 80 years away.
    I would question the word depopulation bomb to characterize the change in population of China, and everywhere else for that matter.
    Just two decades ago, we worried that the world would run out of food because the population boom. It did not happen.
    Natural depopulation is a good thing, it should be welcomed and celebrated.
    If the demographers are right, the world is a much better place to live in 2100.

  14. The planet breathes a huge sigh of relief thinking of the potential population decline. The notion that population should grow infinitely is an absurdity. If economics can't survive stagnant population or a gradual decline, then that is a problem of your economic system. If we lost 5/8 of the people on the globe, you'd go back to where we were in the 1950s or so. If you lost 99% of the people, you'd go back to biblical times. I have no doubt that population could rebuild itself no matter how low it went.

    When economics forced women into the workplace to make ends meet, they created the population decline.

  15. I am for a slow depopulation. I think it will result in a better life for us and for everything else we share this planet with. I didn't have children, but my siblings had plenty, maybe not quite replacement but ok. However my nieces and nephews along with all the other people of their generation I know of, are not having children at all. This has the potential to be devastating. Our society will not be able to cope with this dramatic decrease. People need to be secure and have a good environment to have children. We need to step up and make it so.

    In the future, societies that are successful will be those that attract immigrants as a result of being stable, offering opportunity, providing freedoms, and having supports for those early and late in life. Totalitarian and corrupt regimes will just dwindle.

Discover the untold story about the War in Ukraine in this eye-opening documentary. Are you ready to challenge what you know? “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” (


Major blow for Coles and Woolworths supply chain (