ANNOUNCER: THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHER AUGUSTE COMTE IS OFTEN QUOTED AS HAVING SAID, "DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY."

EVEN IF THAT IS AN OVERSTATEMENT, CERTAINLY DEMOGRAPHY IS IMPORTANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES, ECONOMIES, NATIONS, AND ULTIMATELY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE.

TODAY, DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS SEEM TO BE MOVING IN WHAT WOULD HAVE EVEN VERY RECENTLY BEEN CONSIDERED A SURPRISING DIRECTION-- AGING AND DECLINING POPULATIONS.

WHAT WILL THAT MEAN IN THE LATER YEARS OF THE 21st CENTURY?

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION, AMETEK, CNX RESOURCES, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIMES ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

FROM THE BRITISH SCHOLAR THOMAS MALTHUS IN THE 1790S TO THE BESTSELLING STANFORD UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR PAUL EHRLICH IN THE 1960s, THE UNCHALLENGED CONCLUSION OF DEMOGRAPHERS WAS THAT HUMAN POPULATION WOULD CONTINUE TO GROW EXPONENTIALLY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THERE WERE SIMPLY MORE PEOPLE THAN THE EARTH COULD FEED OR HOUSE.

POPULATION WOULD THEN DECLINE, IT WAS GRAVELY PREDICTED, THROUGH HORRIFYING FAMINE, WAR, AND ALL MANNER OF CALAMITY.

IN HIS 1968 BOOK, "THE POPULATION BOMB," EHRLICH WROTE, "THE BATTLE TO FEED "ALL OF HUMANITY IS OVER.

"IN THE 1970s, THE WORLD WILL UNDERGO FAMINES.

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STARVE TO DEATH."

THESE PROPHECIES, OF COURSE, PROVED WRONG.

THEY LEFT OUT OF THE EQUATION HUMAN INGENUITY AND THE ABILITY TO GROW PRODUCTIVITY, INCLUDING THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD, FAR FASTER THAN THE GROWTH OF POPULATION.

THUS, EVEN AS THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED IN MY LIFETIME, SO TOO HAS THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HUMANITY.

BUT TREND ISN'T DESTINY, AND TODAY'S DEMOGRAPHERS ARE STARTING TO POINT TOWARDS A WHOLLY DIFFERENT--IN FACT, NEARLY OPPOSITE--SET OF CHALLENGES FOR THE HUMAN FUTURE RELATED TO SHIFTS IN POPULATION.

WE WILL TAKE UP THIS NEWLY DEVELOPING PICTURE OF HUMANITY'S DEMOGRAPHIC FUTURE AND WHAT IT MEANS ON THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

JOINING US TODAY ARE DR. DARRELL BRICKER, CEO OF IPSOS PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AND DR. ZACHARY KARABELL, PRESIDENT OF RIVER TWICE RESEARCH.

GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

THIS IS A TOPIC THAT I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO DISCUSSING FOR A LONG TIME.

I'VE BEEN FASCINATED SINCE A BOY WITH THESE PROJECTIONS THAT WE READ ABOUT.

MY GRANDMOTHER REALLY FELT THAT WE WOULD ALL BE FED PILLS SOMEDAY, THAT THE WORLD WAS GOING TO RUN OUT OF FOOD.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THE GREAT SCHOLAR MALTHUS, PAUL EHRLICH, "POPULATION BOMB," 1968, FORECASTING A WORLD IN WHICH, FINALLY, HUMAN POPULATION OUTSTRIPS RESOURCES AND PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH.

THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

NOW, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE--PARTICULARLY, EHRLICH, WHO IS A SCIENTIST, OR A SOCIAL SCIENTIST IN THE LATE 1960s-- IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS MATH?

WHAT--WHAT--WE HAVE A SUNNIER PICTURE TODAY, OR WE THINK WE HAVE A SUNNIER PICTURE.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE FORECASTS?

WELL, BASICALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THE HUMAN POPULATION HAS CHANGED.

I MEAN, AND THE TYPES OF DECISIONS THAT FAMILIES ARE MAKING ABOUT THEIR FUTURE, WHICH ULTIMATELY AFFECTS WHAT THE POPULATION IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE FOR THE FUTURE HAVE CHANGED.

SO 3 BIG THINGS HAVE HAPPENED: THE FIRST ONE IS A MASSIVE LEVEL OF URBANIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE AROUND THE WORLD, AND WHEN YOU URBANIZE, THE AUTOMATIC PRESSURE IS TO HAVE SMALLER FAMILIES, SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING; THE SECOND THING IS THAT WOMEN, WHEN THEY MOVE TO MORE URBAN ENVIRONMENTS, HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFLUENCES IN THEIR LIVES AND THEY MAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE FAMILIES THEY WANT TO HAVE, WHICH REDUCES FERTILITY AS WELL; AND THEN, FINALLY, AND THE ONE BIG ISSUE THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE EMERGING OVER THE NEXT WHILE IS AGING.

SO A LOT OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION GROWTH IS NOT AS A RESULT OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THE POPULATION STILL.

IT'S PEOPLE NOT LEAVING ON SCHEDULE.

RIGHT.

WE'RE REALLY BAD AT MAKING NEW PEOPLE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING QUITE GOOD AT KEEPING OLDER PEOPLE ALIVE.

HOW MUCH HAS AGING SORT OF UPSET CALCULATIONS?

I MEAN-- BRICKER: A LOT.

A LOT?

YEAH, IT HAS, BECAUSE WE TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE POPULATION WHEN WE TRY TO LOOK AT HOW IT'S PROJECTING INTO THE FUTURE, AND WE ASSUME THAT IT STAYS STABLE...

RIGHT.

BUT ITS STRUCTURE ACTUALLY CHANGES OVER TIME, AND THE PROBLEM WITH AN AGING POPULATION WHEN IT COMES TO ITS REPLACEMENT IS IT'S INCAPABLE OF REPLACING ITSELF.

MM-HMM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROACHING A CLIFF, PROBABLY, MID-CENTURY IN WHICH WE'RE GOING TO START-- WE'RE GOING TO PEAK PROBABLY AROUND--BETWEEN 8 AND 9 BILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, AND IT'S GOING TO START TO DECLINE.

AND HOW FAR IT GOES DOWN, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.

DR. KARABELL?

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING.

YOU TALK ABOUT EHRLICH AND THIS MOMENT WHEN THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF DYSTOPIAN FEAR ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN OUR CENTURY NOW, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 21st CENTURY.

THERE WAS A GREAT-- I MEAN, "GREAT" AS IN IT WAS A PROTOTYPE OF THE MOMENT-- MOVIE WITH-- CALLED "SOYLENT GREEN" WITH CHARLTON HESTON, WHERE EVERYBODY IS LIVING AND THE POPULATION'S HEATING UP AND THEN WE'VE RUN OUT OF FOOD SUPPLY, AND PEOPLE START EATING BODIES, AND THAT REALLY TYPIFIED THIS PERCEPTION THAT WE WERE ON A RUNAWAY TRAIN, AND AS YOU SAID, THAT REALLY BEGINS WITH MALTHUS.

AND TO FOLLOW ON DARRELL'S POINT, TO SOME DEGREE, THERE IS TECHNOLOGY, RIGHT, MEANING WE HAVE THE SUPPLY PART OF THE CONCERN, OF FOOD HAS GOTTEN SO EXTENSIVE THAT EVEN IF THE POPULATION WERE TO GO TO 10 BILLION PEOPLE OR 11 BILLION PEOPLE, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM SIMPLY IN TERMS OF THE MATERIAL RESOURCES, CLIMATE CHANGE NOTWITHSTANDING.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT WELL FACTORED IN JUST HOW MUCH YIELDS AND--YES, THERE'S ALL THESE DEBATES ABOUT WHETHER THE WAYS IN WHICH WE'VE INCREASED YIELDS OF FOOD THROUGH MONOCULTURE AND GENETIC ENGINEERING IS A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING, BUT WE'VE CERTAINLY BEEN ABLE TO FEED PEOPLE.

THERE'S NO CALORIC DEFICIENCY FOR THE NUMBER OF BODIES ON THE PLANET, NOR WOULD THERE LIKELY BE, EVEN IF SOME OF THE MORE NEGATIVE OR EXTREME POPULATION PROJECTIONS HAPPEN.

GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN NOTORIOUSLY UNABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIALLY SHIFT POPULATION TRENDS, EITHER ENCOURAGING MORE BIRTHS... SURE.

OR DISCOURAGING MORE BIRTHS.

SO THESE ARE HISTOR--THESE ARE IMPERSONAL TRENDS THAT ARE LARGER THAN GOVERNMENTS.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S-- IT'S CULTURAL.

YEAH.

IT'S BASICALLY CULTURAL.

IT'S A COMBINATION OF, YOU KNOW, RATIONAL ECONOMIC DECISIONS.

YOU MOVE FROM THE COUNTRY TO THE CITY, KIDS MOVE FROM BEING LABOR TO BEING BASICALLY EXTRA MOUTHS TO FEED, PEOPLE MAKE RATIONAL ECONOMIC DECISIONS, BUT A BIG PART OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IN "EMPTY PLANET" IS HOW, CULTURALLY, ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES GO THROUGH A SIMILAR TYPE OF TRANSITION.

SOME OF THE REASONS ARE THE SAME, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE NUANCED TO THE INDIVIDUAL PLACES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

SO INDIA'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS, IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION-- THEIR "WE TOO, OUR TOO" POLICY THAT THEY HAD FOR YEARS IN INDIA.

BUT REALLY, WHAT'S HAD THE BIGGEST EFFECT HAS BEEN THE INCREASING LEVELS OF EDUCATION AMONG WOMEN.

RIGHT.

AND SO, AS WAS POINTED OUT HERE, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IMPROVEMENT IN HUMANITY TENDS TO LEAD TO INSTANCES IN WHICH PEOPLE MAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE.

KARABELL: AND, FASCINATINGLY, THAT SEEMS TO BE TRUE NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION, WHAT CREED...

CORRECT.

WHAT RACE, AND WHAT CONTINENT.

SO IT IS ONE OF THE FEW GENERALIZATIONS.

JUST AS--IF PEOPLE EAT TOO MANY CALORIES, THEY GAIN WEIGHT ACROSS-- DOESN'T MATTER, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE IN SOUTH AMERICA OR SOUTH AFRICA OR SOUTH ASIA, AND AT A CERTAIN EDUCATION LEVEL AND URBANIZATION LEVEL, WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD-- AND, THEREFORE WOMEN AND MEN AROUND THE WORLD-- ARE SIMPLY HAVING FEWER CHILDREN.

MMM.

AND WHAT'S FASCINATING-- WHAT I THINK WHAT'S FASCINATING ABOUT "EMPTY PLANET" IS-- HOW ABOUT LATIN AMERICA?

LATIN AMERICA HAS ALREADY STARTED TO GO INTO NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH... NO KIDDING?

IN BRAZIL, IN ARGENTINA.

HMM.

IN CHILE-- THE WHOLE CONTINENT, ACTUALLY.

YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYWHERE-- MAYBE COLOMBIA WILL BE AN EXCEPTION.

AT THE END OF A CIVIL WAR, LIKE, THERE CAN BE A SLIGHT BUMP THERE, AND IT'S ASTONISHING HOW QUICKLY THESE THINGS CHANGE.

AH.

SO I THINK MOST OF US GREW UP THINKING POPULATION IS THIS, LIKE, HUGE SUPERTANKER...

RIGHT.

AND IF IT CHANGES, IT WILL CHANGE VERY SLOWLY.

YEAH.

AND THAT'S WHAT GAVE THE U.N. A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE MAKING LONG-RANGE PROJECTIONS.

RIGHT.

I SEE.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS-- AHEM--WELL, THE BABY BOOM ITSELF WAS A SURPRISE, RESPONSE TO WORLD WAR II; AND AN OVER-REACTION, IN A SENSE, TO WORLD WAR II IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE REPLENISHING HUMANITY AFTER A LOSS, BUT GREATLY REPLENISHING...

RIGHT.

IN AN UNFORESEEN WAY.

"EMPTY PLANET"-- THAT'S A TERRIFIC-- THAT'S A TERRIFIC BOOK TITLE.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO READING IT.

YOU HAVE ALSO WRITTEN ABOUT A CRISIS, LOOMING CRISIS FOR CAPITALISM... YEAH.

I THINK, IN THIS.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

SO, LOOK, IT IS CLEARLY THE CASE THAT SINCE ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE 19th CENTURY TILL NOW, CAPITALISM IS A PRETTY LOOSELY DEFINED ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

IT HAS BEEN THE MOST POTENT CREATOR OF WEALTH, IT SOLVED A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS OF FOOD, OF TECHNOLOGY, OF INNOVATION.

WHAT'S GOING TO BE TESTED IS THAT ALL OF THAT "SUCCESS" OF CAPITALISM HAS UNFOLDED IN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POPULATION BOOM THE PLANET HAS EVER SEEN IN THE PAST 200 YEARS, AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW, THEREFORE, WHETHER CAPITALISM WAS SIMPLY THAT SYSTEM THAT WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE STUFF TO MORE PEOPLE, AND GIVEN THAT ITS INHERENT IMPERATIVES ARE TO PRODUCE MORE TOMORROW THAN TODAY, WHAT DO YOU DO IN A SYSTEM WHERE NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT NEED TO PRODUCE MORE TOMORROW-- RIGHT.

IF THERE ARE FEWER PEOPLE, YOU DON'T NEED MORE-- EXACTLY.

BUT YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE MORE BECAUSE THERE ARE FEWER PEOPLE.

AND THAT IS SIMPLY A QUESTION MARK THAT MOST OF US NEVER REALLY CONSIDERED, THAT THE PEOPLE DEFENDING CAPITALISM NEVER THOUGHT AS A POSSIBILITY...

RIGHT.

AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE A CRUCIAL QUESTION IN THE DECADES AHEAD.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE ALSO BEING BESET BY PREDICTIONS THAT AUTOMATION IS GOING TO MARGINALIZE WORKERS... YEAH.

WHICH MEANS THAT PERHAPS, UH, SO AUTOMATION MIGHT BE ABLE TO, WELL, I'D SAY, WITH A DECLINING WORKFORCE, AT LEAST PRODUCE MORE.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS--WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF NEEDING LESS MEANS.

JAPAN IS A SOCIETY WHICH IS ADJUSTING TO THIS OR ADAPTING TO THIS IN SOME WAY.

HOW HAVE THEY DONE THAT?

YOU KNOW, IT'S A STRANGE THING, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THAT FOR MOST PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, EUROPE, IN THE WEST, JAPAN IS USUALLY INVOKED ECONOMICALLY AS A WARNING.

"OH, WE'RE HEADING TOWARD JAPAN SYNDROME, YEARS OF ZERO GROWTH, ECONOMIC STAGNATION, RISING DEBT."

THERE'S A LOT OF HAND-WRINGING ABOUT THAT.

"HOW DO WE NOT BE JAPAN?"

IS A QUESTION.

RIGHT.

BUT IF YOU STEP BACK AND YOU THINK ABOUT HUMAN HISTORY, JAPAN HAS INCREDIBLE AFFLUENCE, LONGEVITY OF LIFE, VERY LITTLE SOCIAL STRIFE...

RIGHT.

HIGH LEVELS OF URBANIZATION.

I MEAN, IF JAPAN IS YOUR WORST-CASE SCENARIO, BY MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY, THAT'S PRETTY DARN GOOD.

RESEMBLES NETHERLANDS AND BELGIUM.

EXACTLY.

YEAH.

AND THEY HAVE CLEARLY BEEN MANAGING, NOT WITHOUT THEIR OWN CHALLENGES, THIS TRANSITION 'CAUSE JAPAN IS A DECLINING POPULA--IN BOTH ASIA AND IN JAPAN-- DECLINING?

JAPAN IS DECLINING?

BRICKER: THEY'RE LOSING ABOUT 450,000 PEOPLE A YEAR.

KARABELL: AND AGING.

JAPAN IS THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE ON WHAT THE FUTURE POPULATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

AND THEY'VE MANAGED IT EXTRAORDINARILY WELL IF, BY "EXTRAORDINARILY WELL," YOU MEAN THERE'S NOT BEEN THIS BREAKDOWN OF SOCIAL ORDER, THERE'S NOT BEEN GOVERNMENT CRISES, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN, YOU KNOW, VIOLENCE AND CHAOS THAT HAVE BEEN ATTENDING THESE PRETTY TECTONIC FACTORS.

SO IF THAT'S YOUR OUTCOME, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD, BUT JAPAN HAS CERTAIN ADVANTAGES OTHER SOCIETIES DON'T: THEY'RE RELATIVELY HOMOGENOUS; A LONG, COHESIVE HISTORY; SOME LEGACY OF A FUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT, UH, THINKING IN TERMS OF OPTIMUM POPULATIONS NOW IS OBSOLETE?

UH, IS IT-- IS IT EVEN USEFUL, IN A SENSE, TO THINK IN TERMS OF OPTIMUM POPULATIONS OR MAXIMUM POPULATIONS?

DOES ANYBODY TALK IN THOSE TERMS?

MY PERSONAL VIEW IS NO, BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, PROBABLY, SETTLED POPULATIONS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN TERMS OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE, EXACTLY AS WAS POINTED OUT HERE, GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY INEFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO INFLUENCE THE SIZE OF POPULATIONS, BUT I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PREPARE FOR WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I MEAN, YOU TALK ABOUT MALTHUSIANS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THERE'S LOTS OF MALTHUSIANS STILL STUMBLING AROUND THE WORLD TODAY.

I ENCOUNTER THEM ALL THE TIME ON TWITTER AND IN OTHER PLACES, AS THEY CRITICIZE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN "EMPTY PLANET," BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND PARTICULARLY EVEN SCIENTISTS, WHO THINK THE GLOBAL POPULATION IS BIGGER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE TODAY.

TODAY, YEAH.

YEAH, AND THEY WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THE OPTIMAL POPULATION IS BETWEEN 2 AND 3 BILLION, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION BECAUSE, EXACTLY AS WAS STATED HERE...

I HEARD IT.

THE THINGS THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO THINK THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE A SMALLER POPULATION, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, STARVATION, REALLY AREN'T THE ISSUE TODAY THAT THEY ONCE WERE.

NO.

AND YOU'VE REFERENCED TECHNOLOGY BEFORE, SO, IN THE UNITED STATES, AT THE END OF THE 19th CENTURY, NEARLY HALF OF THE AMERICAN LABOR FORCE WAS ON FARMS, WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF GROWING FOOD...

CORRECT.

SO THAT PEOPLE COULD EAT IT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MEANT MAYBE 50 MILLION PEOPLE WERE ON FARMS IN THE 1890s.

TODAY, 2 MILLION, OR LESS THAN 2 MILLION PEOPLE WHO ARE FARMERS OR IN AGRICULTURAL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES PRODUCE EXPONENTIALLY, OR MULTIPLES OF MORE FOOD THAN WERE PRODUCED AT THE END OF THE 19th CENTURY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

THE SAME THING-- YOU NO LONGER NEED A CERTAIN OPTIMAL POPULATION FOR FACTORIES BECAUSE IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ROBOTICS-- YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 100 ROBOTS WHERE YOU USED TO HAVE 5,000 WORKERS-- YOU DON'T NEED THE 5,000 WORKERS TO DO THE SAME KIND OF WORK.

AND IF THE QUESTION, THEN, IS WHAT POPULATION DO YOU NEED TO PRODUCE A MATERIAL OUTPUT THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF YOUR CURRENT POPULATION, CLEARLY, TECHNOLOGY-- YEAH.

IT COULD--- NOW, LET ME ASK YOU--ACTUALLY, WE'RE EN ROUTE, THE UNITED STATES, AND WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE DEMOGRAPHICALLY, WHICH I THINK IS GOING TO INTEREST EVERYBODY, BUT, UH, BEFORE WE GET THERE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU ALL ARE DEALING WITH PROJECTIONS-- 8, 9 BILLION PEOPLE IN SEVERAL DECADES AND SO FORTH.

ARE THERE ANY...

ELEMENTS OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC PICTURE OUT THERE THAT GIVE YOU PAUSE ABOUT THAT ESTIMATE?

IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THERE...

YES.

ARE THERE UNKNOWNS?

WHAT ARE THEY?

WELL, I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE FIND A CURE FOR CANCER, THE DISCUSSION CAN STEM-- SO EXTEND LONGEVITY EVEN GREATER?

YEAH, BUT THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING TO TURN TO HAVING, ON A GLOBAL BASIS, A LOT MORE KIDS-- YOU KNOW, FERTILITY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH AN ASTRONOMICAL INCREASE-- THAT'S A LITTLE HARDER TO SEE, GIVEN THAT THE ONLY WAY WE MAKE THEM IS THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY, AND PEOPLE ARE DECIDING TO DO THAT LESS, SO UNLESS SOMETHING FROM A TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE WAY THAT WE NORMALLY MAKE HUMAN BEINGS, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

MM-HMM.

MOST OF THE FAILURES IN PROJECTION, AT LEAST THE WAY I'M THINKING, ARE PROBABLY GOING TO COME AT THE OTHER END, WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW LONG HUMAN LIFE CAN BE EXTENDED.

MM-HMM.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, HOW ABOUT THE UNITED STATES?

WHAT, UH-- LET'S SAY, WITHOUT IMMIGRATION-- WELL, WITHOUT IMMIGRATION, WE START LOOKING LIKE WESTERN EUROPE.

YEAH.

WE DO?

I MEAN, THE UNITED STATES STARTS LOOKING LIKE WESTERN EUROPE.

SO WHAT IS OUR-- 2.1--WHAT-- WELL, THE MOST INTERESTING ONE IS THE ACTUAL MILLENNIAL FERTILITY RATE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS MEASURED BY THE CDC, AND IT'S ONE.

ONE?

IT'S ONE, AND THE IMPORTANT THING-- THAT'S LOWER THAN SPAIN, THAT'S LOWER THAN ITALY, ISN'T IT?

YEAH, IT'S COLLAPSED.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT PEOPLE GET WRONG ABOUT THE UNITED STATES IS THEY ASSUME, WELL, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT ETHNOCULTURAL GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT FERTILITY RATES.

ACTUALLY, THEY'RE CLOSER, AND HAVE BECOME CLOSER OVER TIME THAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.

SO THE HISPANIC FERTILITY RATE, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN FERTILITY RATE, ALL OF THEM ARE CONVERGING ON ABOUT WHAT THE-- WHAT THE...

THE WHITE FERTILITY RATE IS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL OF THEM ARE REALLY, REALLY LOW.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES IS THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO THINK FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE-- THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN, ALL THESE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN AND, YOU KNOW, TURN EVERYTHING OVER TO THE LEFT-- WELL, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MANY OF THEM AS YOU THINK.

AND BY THE WAY, ALL THOSE OLD PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING, ON THE RIGHT, ARE GOING TO LEAVE, WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT SLOWER... MM-HMM.

THAN I THINK PEOPLE ARE PROJECTING.

MMM.

SO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WITHOUT--OR THE AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHIC EXPERIENCE WITHOUT IMMIGRATION, WHICH HAS BEEN A MASSIVE BOON TO THE UNITED STATES, WOULD BE LOOKING VERY MUCH LIKE FRANCE OR LIKE GERMANY, AND GERMANY, BY THE WAY-- THAT HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO SLOW DOWN, HAS IT NOT?

GERMANY IS ALREADY IN DECLINE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE ISSUE IS LARGER, BUT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS SMALLER THAN IT WAS, SAY, 10, 15 YEARS AGO?

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF IMMIGRANTS.

I MEAN, IMMIGRATION IS A YOUNG PERSON'S GAME, AND THE ONLY PLACE THAT'S REALLY PRODUCING THEM, SOON TO BE PRODUCING THEM, WILL BE PLACES LIKE AFRICA, AND THEIR FERTILITY IS ALREADY IN DECLINE AS WELL, SO FOR, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF GENERATIONS, IMMIGRATION IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THE FUEL FOR POPULATION GROWTH, BUT NOT FOREVER.

AND THIS IS--YOU KNOW, BACK TO THAT CHALLENGE OF CAPITALISM, RIGHT?

SO IF YOU LOOK AT WESTERN EUROPE AND YOU LOOK AT JAPAN AND YOU LOOK AT COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH LEVEL OF AFFLUENCE AND ZERO TO NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, WHAT THEY TEND TO DO IS THEY INCREASE PUBLIC SPENDING SO THAT THE POPULATION THAT IS AGING HAS FOOD, CLOTHING, AND SHELTER, RIGHT, AND THAT BECOMES A NEGATIVE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.

NOW, FOR THE MOMENT, THAT KIND OF ZEROES OUT IN THESE PLACES, AND LITERALLY, ECONOMIC GROWTH IN MOST OF THESE COUNTRIES HAS BEEN AROUND ONE OR ZERO FOR THE PAST DECADE PLUS.

IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE UNITED STATES, IF THOSE ARE LIKELY PARALLELS, IS HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION.

THERE'S NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH THAT UNLESS YOU THINK THAT ECONOMIC GROWTH IS ABSOLUTELY KEY TOWARD PROSPERITY, BUT WHAT'S ODD ABOUT THAT-- AND AGAIN, YOU LOOK AT JAPAN, YOU LOOK AT GERMANY, YOU LOOK AT FRANCE, YOU LOOK AT ITALY, THESE MAY NOT BE "DYNAMIC" IN KIND OF AMERICAN CAPITALIST TERMS, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE PROSPEROUS BY ANY HUMAN MEASUREMENT.

YES, TOTALLY.

BUT THEY HAVE NO ECONOMIC GROWTH... NO.

AND THEY HAVE NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, PER-CAPITA GROWTH IS PROBABLY--CONTINUES TO INCREASE SOMEWHAT IN THESE COUNTRIES?

KARABELL: WELL, YEAH, IF THEY SHRINK.

MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT?

BUT WHAT YOU HAVE, MORE THAN ANYTHING, AND THIS IS WHY I THINK THE CAPITALISM QUESTION IS INTRIGUING--IS YOU HAVE STATIC AFFLUENCE.

STATIC AFFLUENCE.

THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD TERM.

I LIKE IT.

I LIKE IT.

I JUST WROTE IT DOWN.

THIS IS--I-- GOOD ONE.

I THINK I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'VE STOOD IN A TOWN SQUARE IN NETHERLANDS, AND I'VE LOOKED AROUND AND I'VE SAID, "THIS IS A COMPLETE PLACE."

[CHUCKLES] THERE'S NOTHING TO ADD TO IT.

RIGHT.

SO...LET'S APPLY SOME QUALITATIVE LABELS TO THIS.

IS THE WORLD IN A POPULATION DECLINE A BETTER PLACE THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW?

THE OVERCROWDED WORLD IS A DYSTOPIA.

WHAT KIND OF WORLD ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE?

LOOK, I-- IN MY VIEW, I THINK A LESS POPULATED WORLD WITH HIGH LEVELS OF AFFLUENCE IS IS A MUCH, MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR THE 21st CENTURY THAN THE ONE THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE HEADING INTO, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT STATEMENT IS DEEPLY AT ODDS WITH THE POPULAR PERCEPTION THAT THE WORLD THAT WE ARE HEADING INTO IS LIKELY TO BE A MUCH WORSE WORLD.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S INFORMED... YEAH.

BY A PERSPECTIVE OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THERE ARE AND THERE WILL BE SERIOUSLY NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH WILL BE SOMEWHAT AMELIORATED BY THERE BEING FEWER PEOPLE.

MMM.

AND I THINK DARRELL, IN HIS BOOK, POINTS THIS OUT BRILLIANTLY, THAT THE DEGREE TO WHICH-- THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A NECK-AND-NECK RACE, RIGHT, BETWEEN THE IMMEDIATE HARMS AND DAMAGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AMELIORATIVE EFFECTS OF FEWER PEOPLE, BUT ABSOLUTELY, A PLANET WHERE THE RESOURCE STRESS IS LESS, THE NEED TO MEET A LOT MORE BODIES' NEEDS MORE RAPIDLY DECREASES.

ALL OF THESE THINGS, I THINK, ARE QUITE POSITIVE, SAVE FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT I DON'T THINK WILL BE ABLE TO INTERPRET THOSE CHANGES...

RIGHT.

AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN NATIVE.

WELL, IT'S A FASCINATING INSIGHT, IT SEEMS TO ME, INTO CAPITALISM, THAT THERE IS A KIND OF IDEA BENEATH IT.

IT IS AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE FUTURE WHICH, I GUESS, DRIVES COMPONENTS OF THE CAPITALIST MACHINERY, SO TO SPEAK, AND THAT IS THE NEED FOR GREATER ABUNDANCE.

RIGHT.

WELL, ACTUALLY, ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT THAT I THINK IS REALLY INTERESTING AND RIGHT IN YOUR SWEET SPOT, IN TERMS OF INTEREST, IS THE EFFECT ON FOREIGN POLICY.

MMM.

YOUNG WORLDS ARE WORLDS THAT FIGHT WARS.

THAT'S RIGHT.

WHAT HAPPENS IN OLD WORLDS?

HMM.

THE CONCEPT OF A GERIATRIC PEACE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE AN OLDER POPULATION?

HA HA!

NOT A TERM FOR-- IT'S--ANOTHER SCHOLAR CAME UP WITH IT.

IT'S QUITE AN INTERESTING IDEA.

I MEAN, I WAS RECENTLY-- "I'M TIRED.

I WANT TO GO TO BED.

WHO WANTS TO FIGHT ALL THESE WARS?"

YEAH, 'CAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO FIGHT WARS, REALLY.

YOU DON'T HAVE ARMIES FULL OF OLD PEOPLE, SO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THAT AND YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT WE'VE PUT IN THIS WORLD INTO THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, MILITARY ACTIVITY, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S LESS OF AN IMPULSE WITHIN SOCIETY TO DO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS?

'CAUSE THE POTENTIAL IS THERE WITH AN OLDER POPULATION.

ABSOLUTELY.

I MEAN, THE MEDIAN AGE OF AN AMERICAN TODAY IS 38.

MM-HMM.

38 YEARS OLD.

WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN REMARKABLY ILLUMINATING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN, UM, THE SUGGESTION-- AND INTUITIVELY, I THINK THAT YOU'RE COMPLETELY CORRECT-- THAT GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS HERE HAVE REALLY NOT BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AND THAT THERE ARE FORCES OUT THERE BEYOND OUR CONTROL THAT TEND TO BE SORT OF SELF-CORRECTING IN THE WORLD AND THAT THE POPULATION PROBLEM ITSELF IS BECOMING SORT OF SELF-CORRECTING.

KARABELL: YEAH, I MEAN, IT CERTAINLY-- LIKE, IT FITS SOME OF THESE SCIENCE-FICTION-Y IDEAS OF ARE WE ALL SORT OF CONNECTED IN SOME CULTURAL, TRANSNATIONAL MEME... HA HA!

WHEREBY BIRTH RATES ARE DECREASING IN PART AS A SPECIES SELF-CORRECTIVE MECHANISM, RIGHT?

YEAH, EXACTLY.

AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY--YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK OUT INTO POP CULTURE, THAT THEME IS ACTUALLY THERE.

NOW, IT'S COMPLETELY UNPROVABLE, BUT IT'S OUT THERE.

IT'S FUN TO PLAY WITH, YEAH.

WELL, THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE ILLUMINATING, AND WE TRULY APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNDERSTANDING THIS QUESTION.

WE DO HAVE CERTAIN PERCEPTIONS, EXPECTATIONS ABOUT A FUTURE WHICH ARE... PERHAPS PESSIMISTIC AND, I WOULD SAY, PERHAPS BEHIND THE CURVE A LITTLE BIT.

ABSOLUTELY.

YOU ARE LOOKING BEYOND THE CURVE, AND WE APPRECIATE-- WE APPRECIATE HAVING YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, DAVID.

GREAT.

THAT, UH, THAT IS INTERESTING.

THE STORY OF THE CHANGING VIEWS OF THE FUTURE ARISING FROM CHANGING TRENDS IN DEMOGRAPHICS-- FROM THE PICTURE OF AN OVERPOPULATED WORLD WITH TOO FEW ADULTS TO TEND TO TOO MANY CHILDREN, TO THE EMERGING PICTURE OF A WORLD OF SHRINKING POPULATION WITH TOO FEW YOUNG PEOPLE TO CARE FOR TOO MANY ELDERLY-- SHOULD SUGGEST HUMILITY ABOUT FORECASTING, EVEN WHEN PREDICTIONS ARE BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE DATA AT THE TIME.

THE STORY OF HOW THE POPULATION BOMB BECAME THE POPULATION BUST ALSO SUGGESTS HUMANITY'S GREAT AND RAPID ADAPTABILITY.

IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT IS, OF COURSE, NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEW SET OF WORRIES ABOUT THE APPARENT NEW DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS CAN BE ASSUMED TO BE SOLVABLE WITHOUT REAL PAIN, BY SOME NEXT WAVE OF HUMAN INGENUITY.

BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THIS MATTER SEEMS TO ME TO BE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST AS MUCH REASON TO HOPE FOR A BETTER WORLD FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN THAN TO FEAR FOR A WORSE ONE.

I AM DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION... AMETEK... CNX RESOURCES... BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY...