Likely Massively Wrong UN Population Estimates for China and India

by

Yi Fuxian, a senior scientist in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has been citing evidence that the United Nations world population projection group has been massively wrong on global population projections and on the population of China and India. This is hugely important because population projections are the foundation upon which economic and business projections are made. Population projections feed into all national and regional planning for the future. They are the basis of policy planning. The false UN population projections are like temperature reports given to frogs sitting in a frying pan.

If the degree of error is proven, then it is the difference between a world population of 11 billion in 2100 and a world population of 6 billion. How would that much error effect some climate change projection?

India is completing a delayed population Census in 2024. If the UN is massively wrong about India’s population then it will show that the UN’s projections for global population are completely broken. The UN was biased into inflating forward population estimates to encourage a policy of population control.

India’s National Family Health Survey indicated a fertility rate of 1.99 in 2017-19, in contrast to the WPP’s estimate of 2.16. If a population estimate is off by 10% on the key metric of current fertility rate and is overestimating future fertility as 1.8 instead of 1.2 then the projected population will be double the correct projection.

China’s fertility rate (births per woman) fell to 1.0-1.1, well below the official forecast of 1.8. The number of births in China dropped sharply to 9.56 million, the fewest since 1790, despite China’s shift to a two-child policy in 2016. The UN projections for China to have a population of 767 million assumes that China’s fertility rate will recover to 1.5. The prior UN forecast was China to have a population of 1.05 billion in 2100.

A sample survey from 2016 in China showed a fertility rate of 1.25 and only 13 million births, which was later inflated to 18.83 million.

If the number of births in China is half what was estimated then by 2040-2050, there will be half as many fertile women as the prior estimate. What was already a rapidly declining population becomes insanely low. The high UN estimate of 767 million could be hiding an actual realistic projection in the 300-440 million range.

All real data from China and India indicate that the UN World Population Prospects group has been massively overestimating the current and past few years of fertility. the UN World Population Prospects group has been massively overestimating the future population of China, India and other countries.

The WPP projects that India’s fertility rate will bounce back to 1.78 in 2050 before declining to 1.69 by 2100. But in countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, the fertility rates of Indian populations are barely higher than those of Chinese communities. For example, between 2000 and 2022, the average fertility rate for Indians and Chinese in Singapore was 1.19 and 1.09, respectively. Similarly, from 2016 to 2021, the average fertility rate in Malaysia was 1.1 for Chinese and 1.23 for Indians.

The UN has financially supported both countries’ population-control policies in the 1970s. There is description of how China ended up adopting the One Child Policy by Susan Green Halgh. China adopted Western Science in a flawed way. Some of the key people involved in the new population policy were influenced by the Club of Rome, limited population dogma. The Club of Rome had been discredited in the West but the criticism of the population control dogma did not reach into China.

A recent survey in China showed declining interest in childbearing. If this survey is right then China will struggle to stabilize its fertility rate at 0.8, and its population will fall to less than 1.02 billion by 2050 and 310 million in 2100. If China succeeds in increasing its fertility rate to 1.1 and prevents it from declining, its population will likely fall to 1.08 billion by 2050 and 440 million by 2100.

26 thoughts on “Likely Massively Wrong UN Population Estimates for China and India”

  1. From fifty years ago this year:

    Title: Seventy Years of Decpop
    Author: Philip Jose Farmer
    Genre: Science Fiction
    Type: Novella
    Nominated for the Locus Award (1973 – Best Novella: 10th).

    A tale of a future Earth where the population is decimated by an idealist Malthusian scientist who invented a viral aerosol that is then spread all over the world. It induces infertility in males and females, with only a few in each 100,000 remaining fertile. Children born after the release are unaffected. Yet the protagonist is the owner of a baby food factory, a wealthy and powerful man who may soon have a great deal of time on his hands. He does the math and realizes that humanity may fall all the way back to a single city before it can expand again. He then dedicates his life to easing the transition while the novella deals with what happens to the world and its societies in such a situation. Smaller countries are forced to merge. Some countries try to kidnap the “breeders” of other countries. Ghettos are bulldozed as even expensive housing can’t be given away. Cities are leveled and returned to wilderness, their constituent components left recycled or in deep storage for a human race that might someday re-expand enough to need them. Ending with his death at a ripe old age, the story still manages to end on an upbeat note.

  3. It’s worth putting this demographic projection idea together with the ideas about AI, automation and humanoid robots taking over the entire economy and eliminating most jobs + ideas about aging reversal and much greater human longevity + projections about energy and carbon emissions and their effects on climate and sustainability + human expansion into the solar system.

    The mix is very messy but obviously suggests the possibility of a soft landing where population stabilizes with long healthy lives and low birth rates on earth while excess population moves off planet. The economy becomes sustainable, climate is stabilized, and the outcome in a century is more utopian than dystopian.

    Just as the population explosion was a reaction to various advances that lowered childhood mortality and improved lives – the demographic transition was a reaction to improved education and opportunity for women – that may turn out to be just as transient an effect. Both are evidence of cultural behavioral flexibility of humans in adapting birth rates to changes in opportunities and circumstances.

    • Well said, Ludus, almost all of it, except that I don’t believe offworld migration will ever be much of an outlet (especially for “excess” population) from a quantitative standpoint, even though we will certainly seek to massively exploit offworld resources.

      First, the people that do choose to live off planet will likely be far less organic in both body and brain, and simultaneously exist within a rich VR environment in their off-duty hours. Augmenting that might be the usual bunch of religious zealots seeking to live apart at any price so they can do whatever zealots do.

      Secondly, the numbers just don’t work from a cost/benefits standpoint, not even with immense wealth generated by near total automation (and wealth inequality becoming, somehow, less extreme).

  4. I do not get the surprise. Most estimates side on a scale closer to worse than to best. We humans tend to plan ahead when we fear a problem. Which scenario you think works best for the global population? On the one hand the UN reports low birth rate and thus we choose to push the ideas off about how can we self-sustain our population in an overcrowded situation. We later found out we underestimated and now we have to deal with a problem that is fast approaching. Or we believe the problem will approach sooner and start the planning process only to later discover the population growth was over estimated? I don’t know about you but I would rather take the latter. Go camping for a day but prepare for 5. It is always best to over prepare then under prepare.

    • What we have discovered is that this is not true. It’s not true for many species humans have tried to breed, it’s not true for humans.

    • This is not even true about mice and is even less true of humans. No society without a high degree of social welfare has managed to bring birth rates down. Children are your pension plan in a primitive society; it is the only thing you can rely on so you better have as many as possible; especially if some may die from diseases.

      In a society with welfare systems and pension systems, children are an economic liability to you personally; they are not an investment and you’re not allowed to put them to work as child labourers and capture any economic benefits from that. There is no expectation that they will economically support you or need to when you are old and frail. Parents don’t want to be mooch of their children when they get old; that’s socially awkward in modern society.

      This is how birth rates went from 8 kids to <2 everywhere and will be how Africa also ends at below 2. The biggest problem now is getting birth rates up closer to 2. A bit less or a bit more than 2 is fine, but 1 is a disaster.

      • It’s not about social welfare. It’s only been an indecently short time since opponents of social welfare claimed it created welfare moms who would birth large numbers of children to get more welfare.

        Correlation does not imply causation.

        Per Wikipedia: The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that “correlation implies causation” is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc (‘with this, therefore because of this’). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one.

  6. During the year of my birth there were an estimated 3.8 billion people on the planet. How long before we get back to that?

  7. Imagine that, projections out over 75 years might not be 100% accurate. Heck, many counties on the lists might not even exist in 75 years.
    Countries growing furiously because there are oil resources, like some African countries, could easily have major reversals as those supplies are depleted or the demand for oil plummets. There can also be major migrations. Even migrations to space stations, lunar colonies, and Mars. New large cities will be built on Earth. Subterranean cities are likely as we learn how to make cities where we only need energy as an input and everything else is recycled/reprocessed. Built because they would be more secure, and have better climate control.
    Are AI Robots part of the population? They will certainly be part of the labor force, if not the bulk of the labor force.
    And what of children who emerge, rather than being born, from gestational chambers. Just as politicians pull the levers of monetary policy, future politicians/bureaucrats may increase or decrease the production of humans by machines.
    All I am saying is that 75 years is a long time. The only way anyone can be right about population is by chance. The assumption of planning in the article? Since when does the US plan?
    My guess? 180 billion in the Solar System, counting humans and active operating humanoid robots.

  8. It would be wildly hilarious if, 80 years from now, the US had a larger population than China. But I think this is unlikely, because it requires, in the face of declining fertility in the US, a sustained determination to force levels of immigration the US citizenry are strongly opposed to.

    I’m not sure how much longer the political class can maintain huge levels of immigration in the face of public opposition. Surely at SOME point public opinion has to have some effect, in a democracy?

    • Ah I see you’ve committed a common fallacy, which is assuming YOUR beliefs about immigration are broadly shared by a majority of this country.

      In reality, the median American is pro-(legal) immigration, so the “huge” immigration you seem to have an issue with is not going to abate any time soon. This of course is all to the good since the US’s fertility rate is below replacement level and if the country’s economy is to continue growing it’ll need more people from elsewhere. Don’t worry–this is a very good thing! And anyway, by the time the people you don’t like comprise a majority of the country, you’ll be dead!

    • I would NOT have immigration in the hands of the politicians. The amounts, ages and skill levels should be determined by demographers with an eye toward making Social Security work, and well into the future. Also, taking into consideration the need for labor rather than momentary level of demand for labor.
      Obviously, none of this works if you don’t have secure boarders. As far as crowded cities, we just need to build some well planned, cities.

      The Latinos were theirs for the Republicans, to, well, make Republican. And there was considerable question in the early 1990s whether they should try to get them, or not.

      Democrats did have an early lead, because of their association with unions and Cesar Chavez, but it was far from a done deal. Latinos are, for the most part, pretty conservative. They are mostly Christian, with strong family values, and a strong work ethic. They don’t like heavy regulation.

      There were some minor differences back then. They were not heavily anti-homosexual or anti-pot, while the Republicans were.

      But the Republican Party chose the dark side. Not heavily at first. Anti-illegal immigration, but not necessarily against the people. But especially with Trump, and his refusal to shun bigots, and embrace them as much as he could get away with, it is possible Republicans will never win the White House again. He used the Party like a diaper. And if the Democrats think they can’t lose, they will have a parade of odd Presidents, more eager for firsts than quality leadership. Abuses always accompany monopoly.

      Latinos are not going anywhere. They are just going to grow even if you secure the boarder.

      Mexicans are the hardest workers in the World.
      All the stuff about criminality…rubbish. What there is, is mostly impoverished people. Every group when impoverished has issues. But Mexicans work hard and don’t stay impoverished for long.
      Right next to me is Chula Vista. It is heavily Latino. And it has very low crime, 4th lowest out of the top 100 cities by population, in property crime. Second-lowest murder rate. Total crime, 4th lowest. They also use health services much less, eat healthier, and live years longer.

      • So….
        To write your comment in a shorter format. Republicans are bad, mexicans are hard working and have low criminality. Was that correct?

        • Your improvement is just a series of assertions with no points of support. No sequence of how things are as they are. Great for people incapable of reason. I have more respect for the ability of people clicking on an advanced topic. It also provides transparency of thought, and if I am wrong, some places, where I might be.
          And your reading comprehension needs some work.
          A more accurate summary for lazy brains:
          1. Politicians are inferior to future-looking demographers at regulating immigration, and inferred but not stated, politicians getting involved in this topic are virtually guaranteed to get themselves in hot water somehow, and are better off allowing experts to deal with it.
          2. We need new planned cities to accommodate growing populations (not stated: I would actually expect mostly wealthier or higher earning people to move to these cities).
          3. Republicans blundered, not going after the Hispanic vote. And it is such a large blunder, it is urgent that it be corrected, possibly too late.
          4. I am not happy about the prospect of Democrats running amok, because they have no competition.
          5. The accusations leveled at Hispanics are not fact based, so no rational reason for Republicans to continue with these positions.

          What I haven’t said is that if you take Hispanics out of the equation, California is more Republican than Democrat. There is no state that could not happen in, even if you closed the boarders today. Either win over Hispanics or go the way of the Wiggs.

      • “They are mostly Christian”
        I have seen articles on that, claiming that as with most ethnic groups, there are more and more ex-religious among them.

    • Is it not possible to change the outcome with internal policies? The policies would change the culture and the culture would change the outcome.
      Say that you did implement tax reductions on two parent families where the two parents live together… Something crazy like setting you total tax percentage be inversely proportional to the number of kids squared. And you let this rule be in place for a few decades.

      Don’t you think that this would eventually drive up the total fertility? (Not saying it would be easy to sell this policy..)

  9. The probability of such a forecast (80 years into the future) being correct is near zero. This is true for the forecast of the UN as it is for your criticism.

  10. The UN is biased towards higher estimates because most of its higher-ups are neo-Malthusians. They are also tied in with organizations such as WEF, Soro’s Open Society, and Bill Gates Foundation; all of which are also heavility neo-Malthusian. It is worth noting that the WEF is the business-oriented outgrowth of the original Club of Rome from the early 1970’s, which was the birthplace of the current wave of neo-Malthusian world view.

    I am neither pro or anti natal. I believe over population was a legitimate fear back in the 1970’s. But plain old third world economic development coupled with female education had resolved these fears by the 1990’s. Promote free markets and individual self-empowerment and the problems of the world will solve themselves on their own.

  11. Is there a reliable source for current TFRs. I’ve seen widely different estimates, of current tfr for a single countries. for example 1.3 (population collapse) to 2.4 (growing strongly ) for Jamaica. Similar for other countries. Hard to get a sense of current TFR let alone projections 50 years into the future.

Comments are closed.