The rising number of centenarians and older individuals raises important questions and issues, such as retirement ages, healthcare, pensions, living expenses, and elder care. Credit: Maricel Sequeira/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 5 2026 (IPS)

Throughout human history, reaching the age of 100 was considered an exceptional accomplishment. However, in recent decades, the number of centenarians in the world has been on the rise.

The increases in longevity for both men and women are welcomed developments. This remarkable accomplishment in human longevity, reaching 100 years or more, also poses challenges for the long-living individuals, their families, communities, and societies.

The rise in the number of centenarians can be attributed to a number of key economic, social, and scientific factors. These factors encompass public health initiatives, sanitation, environmental enhancements, medical advancements, improved access to healthcare, enhanced nutrition, medical treatments, vaccines, antibiotics, decline in infectious diseases, higher living standards, education, better management of chronic conditions, preventive care, social connections, and lifestyle choices.

In 1950, there were nearly 15,000 centenarians worldwide, representing a very small fraction of one percent of the global population of 2.5 billion. By 2026, the number of centenarians had increased by 45 times, reaching 672,000. This figure continued to represent a small, but larger fraction of one percent of the world’s current population, which had tripled to 8.3 billion.

The number of centenarians is expected to continue rising. It is projected that by 2050, the number of centenarians will almost quadruple, increasing from today’s 672,000 to 2.6 million. Furthermore, by the end of the century, the number of centenarians is expected to be approximately twenty-seven times greater than it is today, reaching 18 million by 2100 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Of the world’s 672,000 centenarians, nearly two-thirds reside in the more developed regions. The country with the largest number of centenarians is Japan with 126,000, accounting for nearly one-fifth of the world’s total. Following Japan, the next four countries and their number of centenarians are the United States (77,000), China (53,000), India (43,000), and France (35,000) (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

In these various countries, the large majority of centenarians are women. For example, in Japan, women make up nearly 90% of centenarians. Similarly in the United States, nearly 80% of the centenarians in 2024 were women.

The oldest, documented centenarian to have ever lived is Jeanne Calment of France. She died at the age of 122 years and 164 days. Her age is verified through reliable birth, marriage, and death records in Arles, France, with her life spanning from 1875 to 1997. Calment’s father lived to the age of 94 and her mother lived to the age of 86.

The longest-lived man in recorded history was Jiroemon Kimura of Japan who died at the age of 116 years and 54 days. He was born in 1897 and died in 2013, making him the only man in history confirmed to have reached the age of 116. Kimura credited his longevity to living an active life and practicing the concept of hara hachi bunme in Japan, which involves eating until he was only 80% full.

Healthy aging and increased longevity in both men and women are influenced by a combination of genetic and non-genetic factors. In addition to genetics, major contributors to long life include access to healthcare, a healthy and nutritious diet, regular physical activity, not smoking, moderate alcohol consumption, maintaining a healthy body weight, strong social connections, managing stress and chronic conditions, getting sufficient quality sleep, maintaining a sense of purpose, and engaging in vigorous exercise (Table 2).

Source: Author’s compilation.

Medical research is continuing to explore ways to extend healthy lifespan and increase human longevity. Some of this research is focused on anti-ageing interventions, which include targeting biological mechanisms of ageing, delaying the onset of chronic diseases, and prolonging the period of healthy life. These interventions aim to enable individuals to live long enough to become centenarians. Unlike in the past, centenarians are no longer exceptional societal outliers. This significant change in human longevity is impacting not only centenarians but also reshaping the ways individuals, families, communities, and societies approach aging, retirement, and healthcare

Some believe that advancements in medicine and biotechnology may further promote the increase in human longevity. However, others argue that humanity has reached an upper limit of longevity, with the maximum reported age at death plateauing at around 115 to 122 years.

Unlike in the past, centenarians are no longer exceptional societal outliers. This significant change in human longevity is impacting not only centenarians but also reshaping the ways individuals, families, communities, and societies approach aging, retirement, and healthcare.

Living to 100 years or more is a goal that many people aspire to achieve. The rising number of centenarians and older individuals raises important questions and issues, such as retirement ages, healthcare, pensions, living expenses, and elder care.

To reach the age of 100 or beyond, long-term planning, including advance care planning, is crucial for individuals, families, and governments. This planning essentially involves ensuring that there are enough resources available for pensions, healthcare, living expenses, and elder care needs.

Unfortunately, individuals, families, and governments tend to neglect long-term planning. As a result, the gaps between retirement funds and the expenses for individuals living longer lives are significant and increasing.

Most older individuals have limited savings, a financial shortfall that is becoming increasingly common among older women and men. This issue is exacerbated by the demographic ageing of populations, with decreasing numbers of people in the workforce able to contribute to pensions and healthcare for retirees.

These financial gaps are not only causing economic challenges for older individuals and families, but also leading to a reevaluation of government policies and programs related to retirement ages, pension benefits, and health care for seniors.

In conclusion, the increase in human longevity and the rise in the number of centenarians are positive trends. However, they also bring about significant challenges for older individuals, communities, and societies.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

The question of who should be responsible for meeting the rapidly growing need and expenses for elderly care remains a contentious issue in many countries. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 15 2026 (IPS)

Who should be responsible for providing care and covering expenses for the elderly? Should it be governments, the elderly themselves, their families, a combination of the three, or a new societal arrangement?

As populations age and more elderly individuals live longer lives, there are relatively fewer workers and less tax revenue, causing governments to struggle with the challenge of providing care for the elderly. This struggle is particularly notable in the provision of nursing care and health services.

The challenge is mainly driven by the growing demand for care, workforce shortages, and rapidly rising costs. These issues are expected to become increasingly difficult to sustain in the upcoming years.

Furthermore, this challenge is complicated by age discrimination towards elderly individuals. This discrimination is increasingly prevalent and has a negative impact on older people’s physical and mental well-being. It is associated with earlier death, poorer physical and mental health, and slower recovery from disability in older age.

The proportion of the world’s population aged 65 years or older has doubled from 5% in 1950 to 10% today and is expected to reach 16% by 2050. Most of the world’s elderly are below the age of 75, with 41% in the age group 65 to 69 and 29% in the age group 70 to 74 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The increase in the proportion of elderly individuals is significantly greater in many countries. For example, in Japan, the proportion of elderly has increased six-fold since 1950. Similarly in Italy and China, the proportion of elderly has tripled since 1950. By 2050, it is projected that approximately one-third of the populations of Japan, Italy, and China will be elderly (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to population ageing, life expectancy at birth for the world’s population has increased from 46 years in 1950 to 74 years in 2026. It is projected that by 2070, the global life expectancy at birth will nearly reach 80 years, with many countries, such as France, Japan, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, expected to reach life expectancies at birth of around 90 years.

Elderly individuals in need of care are more likely to be women, 80-years-old and older, and live in single households. Many of them experience social isolation while living at home, which negatively impacts their mental and physical health. Additionally, these individuals typically have lower incomes than the country’s average.

The cost of providing care for elderly individuals varies drastically across countries. Costs for care are mainly driven by labor costs, healthcare infrastructure, and government subsidies.

Governments, especially those leaning towards political conservatism, are hesitant to cover the increasing expenses associated with care for the growing numbers of elderly. In the United States, for example, the president recently announced that it’s not possible for the federal government to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and child care costs. Instead, he argued that the one thing the federal government must take care of is the country’s military spending

Many high-income countries rely on migrant workers with irregular work contracts, to fill labor gaps, often operating with limited legal protections and standardized training. The situation is further complicated by poor working conditions, comparatively low salaries, and a lack of recognition making recruiting and retaining care workers difficult.

High-income countries have relatively high annual costs for care, while low-to-middle-income countries typically rely on family members to provide assisted care for the elderly.

For example, in the United States, the average annual cost in an assisted living community is approximately $75,000. Care in Switzerland is also expensive, with nursing home costs averaging over 100,000 Swiss francs annually. Similarly in Germany, the average annual cost for nursing home care is roughly between 36,000 to over 48,000 Euros.

Among OECD countries, publicly funded elder care systems still leave nearly half of older people with care needs at risk of poverty, especially those with severe care needs and low income. Out-of-pocket costs represent, on average, 70% of an older person’s median income across OECD countries.

Governments, especially those leaning towards political conservatism, are hesitant to cover the increasing expenses associated with care for the growing numbers of elderly.

In the United States, for example, the president recently announced that it’s not possible for the federal government to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and child care costs. Instead, he argued that the one thing the federal government must take care of is the country’s military spending.

Conservative and authoritarian governments typically do not see much economic benefit from government spending on elderly care, as they perceive the elderly as a societal burden. They argue that health care costs for the elderly is negatively correlated with economic growth and tend to oppose publicly funded efforts for life extension, advocating for limited government spending in these areas.

Furthermore, these conservatives and government officials often stress the importance of individual responsibility and solutions from the private sector. They believe that the costs of caring for the elderly should be borne by the elderly and their families.

However, the total cost of care for the elderly is often unaffordable for most families. In many OECD countries, elderly individuals risk falling into poverty without substantial financial assistance from their governments.

Some countries, such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the Netherlands, have implemented mandatory enrolment in elder care insurance. These programs are typically funded through mandatory payroll contributions.

In many countries, however, informal care for the elderly is still provided by family members, with the majority being women. This informal care is facing increasing strain due to factors such as urbanization, declining fertility rates, dual-career families, workforce mobility, and rising financial costs, all of which are putting pressure on the capacity of families to care for elderly relatives.

Although the need for elder care is rapidly increasing worldwide, the ability of existing systems to respond to current and rising needs remains limited in many countries. Most individuals in need of care rely on families and informal caregivers for support, while care services remain expensive, unstable, and difficult to access. These circumstances place significant strains on families, caregivers, and health care systems.

Further complicating care systems is the fact that elderly individuals often suffer from chronic health conditions. Some common health issues experienced by the elderly include Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, asthma, back and neck pain, cancer, cataracts, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, diabetes, frailty, falls and injuries, heart disease, hearing loss, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis, stroke, and urinary incontinence. Furthermore, as individuals age, they are more likely to experience multiple health conditions simultaneously (Table 1).

Source: World Health Organization.

In conclusion, as a result of population ageing and increased longevity, countries are facing the challenge of providing care for their elderly citizens. The question of who should be responsible for meeting the rapidly growing need and expenses for elderly care remains a contentious issue in many countries.

The general public believes that the government should take on the responsibility of providing care for the elderly. In contrast, many governments, concerned about the escalating fiscal burden, prefer that the elderly and their families themselves provide the necessary care and be responsible for the expenses. Still, others believe that a new societal arrangement is needed to provide care for the elderly.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

Life expectancies at birth reveal significant disparities in death rates. Some of the lowest life expectancies at birth, around 55 years, are seen in sub-Saharan African countries, such as Nigeria, Chad, and South Sudan. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

As stated in Hamlet, “Thou know’st ’tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity.” Although death is inevitable for all living beings, human mortality, which is expected to reach approximately 64 million individual deaths worldwide in 2026, is not evenly distributed across populations.

While mortality is a common fate for all humans, the timing, causes, and circumstances of death vary greatly across and within countries. This discrepancy often leads to a gap in death rates between privileged and marginalized groups.

Inequalities in human mortality are evident worldwide. Premature death is particularly prevalent in low-income regions due to limited access to healthcare, poverty, and conflict. This results in a world where some individuals pass away at young ages while others enjoy a long life.

From the first year of life, significant differences in the likelihood of death among human populations become apparent. Countries such as Iceland, Japan, and Finland have some of the lowest infant mortality rates, with less than 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In contrast, nations like Niger, Somalia, and Nigeria have some of the highest rates, with more than 62 infant deaths per 1,000 births, which is 30 times higher than the lowest rates (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The disparities in infant mortality rates are also evident in maternal mortality rates. In 2023, some of the highest maternal mortality rates are found in sub-Saharan African countries, such as South Sudan, Chad, and Nigeria, with more than 1,000 maternal deaths per 100,000 births. In contrast, countries like Norway, Poland, and Iceland have rates of less than 3 maternal deaths per 100,000 births.

Similarly, life expectancies at birth in 2025 reveal significant disparities in death rates. Some of the lowest life expectancies at birth, around 55 years, are seen in sub-Saharan African countries, such as Nigeria, Chad, and South Sudan. Conversely, countries like Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland have relatively high life expectancies at birth, approximately 30 years greater at about 85 years (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Disparities in death rates persist when comparing life expectancies at age 65. In 2025, life expectancy at age 65 is around 12 years in Nigeria, Chad, and Togo, while it is approximately 23 years in Japan, France, and Australia.

Mortality variations exist not only among countries but also within countries. For instance, in 2022, life expectancy at birth in the United States varied from highs of about 80 years in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to lows of approximately 73 years in Kentucky, Mississippi, and West Virgina (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. National Vital Statistics System.

Differences in life expectancy at birth exist among the major ethnic groups in the United States. In 2021, life expectancies at birth for these groups varied considerably, approximately 84 years for Asians, 78 for Latinos, 77 for Whites, 72 for Blacks, and 64 for Native Indians.

Furthermore, differences in life expectancy at birth also exist based on income and education. Generally, individuals from working-class backgrounds and those with lower levels of education can expect to live shorter lives compared to wealthier and more educated individuals.

For example, in the United States, working-class individuals can expect to die at least 7 years earlier than their wealthy counterparts. Higher education is also linked to higher income, lifestyle improvements, increased access to health-care, and longer life spans.

In addition to deaths caused by illness, disease, accidents, violence, conflict, and war, voluntary human death is becoming a significant global issue.

Inequalities in human mortality exist both among nations and within them, spanning various social and economic dimensions. While death is a natural part of life, the distribution of human deaths is unequal, with some individuals passing away at a young age while others enjoy a long life

Medically assisted death, also known as death with dignity, voluntary assisted dying, or medical aid in dying (MAID), is a topic of debate in many countries. This practice can involve assisted suicide, where the individual takes the lethal medication themselves, or euthanasia, where a doctor administers the medication.

While MAID is not legal in most countries, it is permitted in a growing number of countries under certain circumstances. Definitions and eligibility for medically assisted death vary across countries and states or provinces within countries.

Although laws vary in scope from place to place, jurisdictions that allow medically assisted death generally permit mentally competent, terminally ill, or suffering adults to end their lives with medical assistance. To qualify for voluntary assisted dying, individuals must meet certain criteria, which often include having a terminal or incurable illness with a short-term prognosis, being of sound judgment, voluntarily deciding to end their life, repeatedly expressing their desire to die, and self-administering the lethal dose.

Approximately twenty countries and various states or provinces within countries permit medically assisted death. These places include Austria, parts of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and parts of the United States. In a number of other countries, including France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and Great Britain, legislators are considering bills on laws or rules on medically assisted death.

Among those who choose to take a lethal dose of medication, some key concerns for many of them include the loss of autonomy, control, bodily functions, and dignity; minimizing severe pain and intense emotional distress; inability to engage in enjoyable or meaningful life activities; reduced quality of life; fear of becoming a burden on family and caregivers; anxiety over future suffering; and avoidance of financial implications of treatment.

Additionally, some of the most common medical conditions in euthanasia requests include cancer in a terminal phase, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, constant suffering, and advanced cardiovascular disorders.

Those opposed to medically assisted death offer several arguments against it. They believe it creates the potential for abuse; leads to a slippery slope towards involuntary euthanasia; normalizes death as a solution; and undermines medical ethics and the sanctity of life.

They also argue that assisted suicide poses risks to vulnerable populations by influencing societal attitudes and policies towards older adults, the seriously ill, and the disabled. They believe it could lead to placing pressure on those considered a societal burden, jeopardizing funding and provision of palliative care. Additionally, there are concerns about ensuring that individuals’ decisions to end their lives are genuinely voluntary.

In summary, inequalities in human mortality exist both among nations and within them, spanning various social and economic dimensions. While death is a natural part of life, the distribution of human deaths is unequal, with some individuals passing away at a young age while others enjoy a long life.

The unequal distribution of resources often leads to a mortality gap between privileged and marginalized groups. Premature death is particularly prevalent in low-income regions, primarily due to factors such as limited access to healthcare, poverty, and conflict. Additionally, the contentious issue of voluntary human death, also known as medically assisted death, is receiving global attention. There are strong arguments both in favor of and against this policy, with around twenty countries allowing it under specific circumstances.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

The world’s population is currently at a record high of 8.3 billion and is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 23 2026 (IPS)

On planet Earth, world population in 2026 is 8.3 billion people, which is four times larger than it was a hundred years ago.

Despite this record number of humans living on the planet, world population is expected to continue increasing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.

Over the past two hundred years, the human population on the planet has experienced unprecedented growth rates. For example, it took thousands of years for world population to reach the one billion mark at the beginning of the 19th century, in 1804.

In the subsequent centuries, the growth of world population accelerated with record high rates of demographic growth. It took approximately 123 years for the world’s population to increase from one billion to two billion and 47 years for the world population to double again, reaching four billion in 1974.

The time required for the subsequent billion additions to the world population was relatively short, approximately twelve years. In summary, the human population on planet Earth has increased five-fold since the beginning of the 20th century (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

United Nations population projections anticipate that world population will continue to grow throughout the 21st century. By around 2060, world population is expected to reach 10 billion, which is ten times the size it was in 1804. Furthermore, world population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2084 and then slightly decrease to 10.2 billion by the end of the century.

As the world population has grown rapidly, the geographic distribution of billions of people across the planet has also significantly changed since the beginning of the 20th century.

Particularly notable are the changing proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe. At the start of the 20th century, the proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe were 8% and 25%, respectively. By the end of the 21st century, those proportions are projected to be 37% for Africa and 6% for Europe (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Another significant change involves the proportion of the world’s population living in Asia. At the beginning of the 20th century, around 60% of the world’s population lived in Asia. However, by the close of the 21st century, that proportion is expected to decrease significantly to 45%.

The proportions of the world’s population living in the other three major regions have been relatively stable, remaining in single digits. The proportions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania are approximately 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

The shifts in the global distribution of world population have led to significant economic, political, social, and environmental implications. Despite these important consequences, much attention in the media, business boardrooms, and government offices is focused on low fertility rates and the resulting population decline in many countries.

It is the case that more than half of the countries worldwide have fertility rates below replacement levels, leading to population decline and demographic ageing. However, the media often portrays a stable or smaller population in a negative light.

The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize

In such reporting, terms like “weak” or “anemic” are used to describe moderate population growth, while “flat” or “stalled” are used for stable population. Additionally, those who warn of depopulation often predict a future crisis instead of discussing any positive relief from current environmental and climate concerns or the benefits for women and working families.

Many people, especially traditional economists and right-wing politicians, assume that population growth is essential for a flourishing economy. These individuals advocate for population growth because they believe it drives economic growth, increases the labor supply, and stimulates consumption.

The concern about the birthrate crisis is often fueled by those who benefit from a growing population. These individuals often provide information or central messages, such as population collapse, failing economies, demographic crisis, and human extinction, which are then picked up by the media and lead to misleading headlines.

Moreover, many government officials are calling for increased population growth through higher fertility rates and implementing policies and actions to support such outcomes. These calls, policies, and actions are primarily driven by concerns over demographic ageing, declining workforces, and economic sustainability.

In essence, their message is that a growing population leads to a larger economy, more entrepreneurs, market expansion, and innovation. Additionally, some government officials choose to focus on women and blame them for their country’s low birth rates.

In contrast, a stable population is often viewed as stagnant. The demographic ageing of populations and increased human longevity are seen as problematic, leading to a “demographic winter” with significant financial stresses on government budgets for pensions and health care for older individuals.

While the world’s population of 8.3 billion is projected to continue growing throughout most of the 21st century, low fertility rates and demographic ageing are seen as challenges rather than accomplishments.

Additionally, as the planet’s environmental and climate crises accelerate, large portions of society continue to ignore the fact that a world with more than 8 billion people is a critical factor driving them. These groups typically dismiss research findings indicating that a world population of 8 billion, which is continuing to increase, drives climate change, ecological disruption, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, resource scarcity, and food insecurity.

For example, global wildlife is currently facing a worsening crisis. The most recent United Nations assessment warns that nearly half of the world’s migratory animal species are declining due to human activity, habitat destruction, and climate change.

Moreover, melting glaciers in Antarctica are hastening sea-level rise in coastal cities. The Thwaites Glacier, in particular, is melting at an alarming pace. If it were to break apart completely and collapse today, it could raise global sea levels by 2 feet in the next few decades, affecting tens of millions of people worldwide.

In summary, the world’s population is currently at a record high of 8.3 billion and is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.

The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize. These problems include resource strains, increased conflict, environmental damage, climate change, sea level rise, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, increased unauthorized migration, and greater societal vulnerabilities.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

From George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2024, each U.S. president has left their mark on the nation and the world in various ways. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 17 2026 (IPS)

Throughout its 250-year history, following the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the United States has elected 47 presidents. From George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2024, each U.S. president has left their mark on the nation and the world in various ways.

Some presidents are celebrated for their foresight, character, and achievements, while others are criticized for their negligence, immorality, and failures during their time in the White House. Ranking these 47 presidents is a worthwhile endeavor as it contributes to an understanding of the past and also provides insight into the current and likely near-term policies and actions of the United States.

Three presidents have been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives: Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1998), and Donald Trump (2019 and 2021). All three were acquitted by the U.S. Senate and remained in office. However, Trump is the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice, first for his dealings with Ukraine and second for the incitement of insurrection.

According to rankings by presidential historians, political scientists, scholars, and other experts based on a president’s achievements, leadership qualities, and failures during their presidential tenure, the top five presidents on the list are: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt (Table 1).

Source: According to various surveys, including the Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll, “American Presidents: Greatest and Worst”, C-Span 2021 Survey, U.S. News & World Report 2024 surveys, and Yahoo/YouGov Poll.

The five U.S. presidents consistently ranked at the bottom of the list are: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Donald J. Trump.

Routinely ranking at the bottom of the list of the worst presidents is Donald Trump. His lowest ranking is largely due to his presidency challenging democratic institutions and breaking longstanding constitutional norms, particularly the peaceful transfer of power, a U.S. precedent that had not been broken since George Washington first set it.

Routinely ranking at the bottom of the list of the worst presidents is Donald Trump. His lowest ranking is largely due to his presidency challenging democratic institutions and breaking longstanding constitutional norms, particularly the peaceful transfer of power, a U.S. precedent that had not been broken since George Washington first set it

A major factor contributing to Trump’s ranking as the worst president is his efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome, including pressuring election officials and spreading false claims of widespread fraud. This culminated in the January 6, 2021 mob attack or insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, which aimed to prevent the certification of the 2020 election results.

Other major factors contributing to Trump’s continued low ranking include three notable abuses: 1. violation of his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution; 2. using the power of the federal government to threaten and punish his critics; and 3. shocking corruption and lack of moral authority.

Furthermore, other important factors include his failure to unite the country, his politicization of government, use of inflammatory rhetoric, especially against political opponents, his incompetent handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, his weakening of international alliances, alienation of close allies, and conflicts of interest with the use of the presidency to enrich himself. Additionally, his xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic remarks and tweets have been widely criticized.

The troubling statements made by the presidency include: suggesting people should inject bleach to cure Covid-19; claiming windmills cause cancer; stating that climate change is a hoax invented by China; and asserting that Tylenol use in pregnancy causes autism.

Also among the explanatory factors for his ranking include Trump’s vilification of immigrants as violent criminals, his self-promotion, and his normalization of dishonesty with 30,573 reported false and misleading statements during his first presidential term. These statements are believed to have significantly damaged public trust in democratic institutions.

His most recent claim during his 2026 State of the Union address that his second term as president should be his third term has also drawn criticism. Moreover, Trump’s quantitative claims not only push the limits of factual truth but also of mathematical possibility.

Additionally, Trump will be remembered for leaving the country worse off than he found it and rewriting the rules of the liberal international order that the U.S. itself created. In particular, as a result of his policies and actions, the populations of the closest allies of the U.S. have lost faith in the country. Pluralities in Germany and France, as well as a majority of Canadians, view the U.S. as creating more problems than solving them (Figure 1).

Source: Politico Poll with Public First.

Trump continues to insist incorrectly that tariffs are not primarily paid by importers and consumers, but by foreign governments. He has also claimed that his tariffs and related efforts have generated $18 trillion in new investments in the U.S. This highly exaggerated figure amounts to approximately 59% of the country’s gross domestic product in 2025 of $30.6 trillion U.S. dollars. This represents a rate of economic growth that surpasses the greatest periods of post-World War II expansion in the U.S. (Figure 2).

Source: New York Times.

In a national survey conducted by Quinnipiac University in 2018, U.S. adults were asked to identify who they believed were the worst presidents since World War II. Out of the 13 presidents who have served since the end of World War II, Donald Trump was found to be the worst. Similarly, in 2024, an expert survey conducted by the American Political Science Association (APSA) also ranked Donald Trump in last place among U.S. presidents.

According to an NPR/Marist poll in 2026, Trump’s approval rating is low, with only 39% of U.S. adults in the national survey saying they approve of the job he is doing overall, while 51% strongly disapprove. Additionally, the incomes of Trump’s working-class MAGA supporters have stagnated, while the wealthy have seen exponential returns on their investments.

A majority of U.S. voters oppose the actions of the Trump administration, particularly in areas such as the economy, foreign policy, and immigration enforcement. According to the NPR/Marist poll, two-thirds of those surveyed believe that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has exceeded its authority.

While it is possible for Donald Trump to achieve success in his remaining three years in office, this outcome seems unlikely based on his past and current policies, actions, and behavior. A more probable outcome is that at the end of Trump’s second presidential term, he will continue to be viewed as the worst president in U.S. history.

In summary, out of the 47 U.S. presidents, the top five according to scholarly rankings, presidential historians, and expert opinions are: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. The bottom five presidents are: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and Donald J. Trump, with the lowest ranking among the five being Donald J. Trump.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

Chronic loneliness and social isolation have been consistently linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of early death. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

Loneliness is a significant health concern on planet Earth. It affects virtually every aspect of human wellbeing and development worldwide.

As loneliness knows no borders and impacts individuals of all ages and socio-economic background, it has become a major public health issue. Social isolation is now being taken seriously enough to prompt intervention by governments, international agencies, institutions, and communities.

Chronic loneliness and social isolation have been consistently linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of early death. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized loneliness as a pressing global health threat and a defining challenge of our time.

To address this problem, WHO launched an international commission on social connection in November 2023. The commission aimed to have loneliness recognized and resourced as a global public health priority.

The commission issued a report in June 2025 that highlighted three messages. First, social disconnection is widespread, across all regions and age groups. Second, its impacts are severe, affecting health, well-being, and development. And third, solutions exist and should be scaled up urgently.

Additionally, in a 2023 report, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that loneliness increases one’s risk for cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, and premature death. Persistent loneliness was reported to be worse for your health than being sedentary or obese and is similar to smoking more than half a pack of cigarettes a day.

The complex interactions among societal changes, technological advancements, especially artificial intelligence, and the Covid-19 pandemic, which reduced economic and social activities, have contributed to increasing levels of loneliness and social isolation. People are meeting in person less frequently than in the past, while self-reported feelings of connection have recently shown signs of worsening.

According to a 2023 Meta-Gallup global survey encompassing 142 countries, 24% of those aged 15 and older, totaling 1.5 billion people worldwide, reported feeling very lonely or fairly lonely on a regular basis. Additionally, 27% or 1.7 billion people reported feeling a little lonely, while 49% or 3 billion people reported not feeling lonely at all (Figure 1).

Source: Meta-Gallup Survey.

Those surveyed who reported feeling lonely were 36 percentage points more likely to experience sadness than those who did not feel lonely. They were also 30 percentage points more likely to experience worry and stress compared to their counterparts who did not experience loneliness. These findings underscore the significant physical and mental health effects of frequent feelings of loneliness and social isolation.

The level of loneliness reported in the 2023 Gallup poll varies significantly across countries, ranging from a high of 45% in Comoros to a low of 6% in Vietnam. In 22 countries, the percentage of adults who felt lonely the day before exceeded 30%, with more than half of them located in Africa (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup Survey.

While loneliness varies significantly among countries, no country is immune to it. Loneliness is not just seen as a personal challenge, but also as a matter of public policy.

Loneliness affects all age groups, but young adults seem to be the most vulnerable. Around 30% of them report feeling lonely every day, with about 63% experiencing significant symptoms of anxiety and depression related to loneliness

Loneliness affects all age groups, but young adults seem to be the most vulnerable. Around 30% of them report feeling lonely every day, with about 63% experiencing significant symptoms of anxiety and depression related to loneliness.

Among older adults, feelings of loneliness decrease, with about 17% of those aged 65 and older reporting loneliness. However, many older adults face isolation due to factors such as declining health, loss of social connections, or decreased mobility. Loneliness is also linked to increased risks of developing dementia, coronary artery disease or stroke.

A follow-up international survey conducted by Gallup in 2024 found that 23% of respondents felt lonely “a lot of the day” just the day before the survey. Additionally, approximately one in five employees worldwide reported experiencing loneliness a lot the previous day.

Moreover, loneliness is more prevalent among employees under the age of 35 than those aged 35 and older. Loneliness also contributes to significant economic and social strain, reducing productivity, and impacting education.

The Gallup survey found that financial status has a strong effect on loneliness worldwide. Men and women who are struggling financially, meaning they find it difficult to get by on their present income, are about twice as likely as those who are better off financially to say they felt lonely a lot the previous day. Additionally, unmarried individuals are more likely to feel lonely than those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Social isolation and chronic loneliness have long-term negative consequences on the physical and mental health of individuals. Health studies have found that the risk of mortality among people who lack community and social ties is two times greater than that of people who have many social contacts. A WHO report found that loneliness is linked to an estimated 100 deaths every hour, totaling more than 871,000 deaths annually.

Other effects of loneliness and social isolation include a shortened lifespan, cognitive decline, exacerbated mental illness, reduced quality of sleep, higher stress and anxiety levels, adoption of unhealthy habits, and self-loathing thoughts. Strong social connections can lead to better health and reduce the effects of loneliness (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation based on health studies.

A variety of factors can contribute to an individual experiencing loneliness, and the scope, duration, and intensity of loneliness can vary. In many cases, there is no single cause, but rather a number of factors that can overlap and intensify each other.

Some of the factors contributing to loneliness are internal, while others are external. Internal factors often involve the way people see themselves and the world around them. They can also include shyness, introversion, low self-esteem, lack of communication skills, and social withdrawal. On the other hand, external factors include physical isolation, relocation, bereavement, divorce, physical disabilities, social exclusion, and over-reliance on social media.

Interacting with another person, even a stranger, can significantly reduce loneliness. Conversely, doing nothing to address social isolation tends to increase loneliness.

Some studies suggest that interacting with an AI companion can reduce loneliness.

Advocates argue that the latest AI chatbots might provide better company than many real people and societies should consider the benefits that AI companions could offer to those who are lonely. Soon, some believe, the most interesting, and maybe the most empathetic conversation that an individual could have will be with AI on almost any topic.

Instead of reacting with horror, advocates of AI chatbots suggest that societies should consider the benefits that AI companions could provide to those who are lonely. Some AI promoters maintain that an inability to relate to humans should not be viewed as a defect, but rather as a virtue.

AI chatbots are becoming increasingly popular as preferred confidants and companions. For example, a study of younger individuals discovered that one-third of teenagers use AI chatbots for social interaction. These teenagers have stated a preference for AI companions over humans for serious conversations, finding them more fulfilling than conversations with actual people.

Nevertheless, there are concerns about using AI companions to address loneliness. Health experts are warning that many individuals, particularly the youth, are developing emotional connections to AI chatbot companions.

Despite these concerns, individuals, especially young people, are seeking companionship and emotional support from AI chatbots. Some fear that relying on AI companions may result in younger generations forming emotional bonds with entities that lack the ability to empathize and care.

By recognizing the signs of loneliness, engaging in meaningful activities, and seeking professional assistance, individuals may be able to reduce their feelings of loneliness and social isolation. A combination of behavioral changes, social intervention, and professional support can be helpful in dealing with loneliness.

Additionally, managing stress resulting from loneliness can be facilitated by exercising, eating healthy, and getting enough sleep. Pursuing enjoyable hobbies and activities may also offer a distraction from loneliness.

Communicating one’s loneliness to family, friends, and colleagues can strengthen existing relationships and provide emotional support. To manage feelings of loneliness, it is also helpful for individuals to remain open to making new connections, stay healthy, and seek professional assistance.

Loneliness is a complex and pervasive issue that exists worldwide. However, there are ways to manage and address it. Methods aimed at reducing loneliness exist at the national, community, family, and individual levels. These methods include increasing awareness and modifying government policies to strengthen social infrastructure, foster inclusivity, and provide psychological support.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

Women perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS)

The global struggle for equality for women and girls has been ongoing for centuries, with no single country having achieved full equality. In many countries, women and girls continue to face discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, injustice, domestic violence, and a lack of security and safety.

One of the primary goals of this struggle is to dismantle systemic discrimination and secure basic human rights for women and girls. These rights include economic freedom, social independence, voting power, and bodily autonomy.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women

While some progress has been made, the current global situation regarding women’s equality remains concerning. Many women and girls still struggle for their lives, their rights and their dignity.

It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that countries began passing legislation to ensure women the right to vote and stand for election. The first country to permit women to vote was New Zealand in 1893. Approximately a decade later, Australia, Finland, Denmark and Iceland followed suit.

By the middle of the 20th century, more than half of all countries had granted women the right to vote and today, none of the world’s nearly 200 countries bar women from voting. However, some countries effectively or practically deny women this right through the absence of elections or restrictive regimes.

National surveys across different regions of the world find large majorities of the public supporting women’s equality and saying it is very important for women in their country to have the same rights as men. The majority of the public supporting women’s equality varies from highs of 90 percent or more in countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom to lows of approximately 55 percent in Kenya, Russia and South Korea.

In contrast, a minority of misogynists consider women inferior to men. This minority often treats women as their personal property, denying them control over their lives and bodies. They restrict women’s political, social and economic rights, and frequently ridicule, intimidate and physically abuse them.

Various indexes and metrics have been used to measure the extent and progress of women’s equality among countries. For example, the Women, Peace and Security Index, based on thirteen indicators of women’s status in 181 countries, focuses on inclusion, justice, rights, security, and safety.

The top five countries that rank high on the Women, Peace and Security Index are Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Together, these five countries account for approximately 0.3% of the world’s female population. European countries hold nine of the top ten rankings on the index, with the Nordic countries consistently ranking in the top ten for many years.

In contrast, the five bottom countries that rank low on this index are Afghanistan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria, and Sudan. Among the ten lowest ranked countries on the index, only one country, Haiti, is not in Africa or Asia (Table 1).

Source: Women, Peace and Security Index.

It is noteworthy that the ten countries with the largest economies are not among the top ranked countries on the index. Among these ten countries, Canada and Germany have the highest rankings of 16 and 21, respectively. In contrast, China and India, which each have about 17% of the world’s female population, are ranked significantly lower on this index, with scores of 89 and 131, respectively.

Another metric used to assess countries’ progress in achieving women’s equality is the United Nations Gender Inequality Index (GII). The GII is a composite metric that measures maternal mortality, teen births, secondary education attainment, share of parliamentary seats, and labor market participation.

No single country has achieved full equality, with women still facing the threat of discrimination, harassment, and gender-based violence. In many developing countries, women and girls continue to experience serious injustices, including forced marriage, and high levels of domestic and sexual violence.

According to the GII, the five countries with the highest ranking in terms of women’s equality are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Conversely, the five countries with the lowest ranking on the GII are Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Chad and Afghanistan. Other rankings, such as the Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum and the Best Countries of U.S. News, also produced similar rankings of countries with the highest and lowest levels of women’s equality.

Various factors contribute to the lack of women’s equality and discrimination against women and girls. Notable among these factors are restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence risks, and unequal education that value men and boys over women and girls. These misogynistic barriers are reinforced by unconscious bias, weak policy enforcement, economic disparities, and structural disadvantages (Table 2).

Source: Amnesty International.

Men and boys are often given more education, power, resources and opportunities than women and girls. Additionally, traditional or religious norms typically depict males as dominant and females as subordinate. While these norms generally affirm the spiritual equality of men and women, they often perpetuate social and institutional inequality on Earth due to traditional interpretations of sacred religious texts.

Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, women also perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. They face lower pay for equal work and are often concentrated in lower-paying occupations. In many countries, women also have restricted access to land ownership, credit, financial services, and unequal legal protection.

Humanitarian crises, climate change, and pandemics have a tendency to disproportionately affect women, exacerbating existing inequalities. Fragile states and those experiencing conflict also tend to rank poorly in terms of women’s equality.

Women’s inequality also varies within countries. For example, while women make up 50% of the U.S. population, women ‘s inequality persists across social, economic, and political sectors. According to 17 various key indicators of women’s equality in the U.S., one study found that the top five states are Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, Maine, and Oregon, while the bottom five states are Utah, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Table 3).

Source: WalletHub.

There are only about five years left for the world to fulfill the promises made to girls and women for gender equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Realizing gender equality is not only the right thing to do, but it is vital for sustainable development.

Women’s equality is a fundamental human right and a foundation for a peaceful and sustainable world. Progress has been achieved over the last several decades. However, the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.

During the remaining years, eleven of the biggest challenges have been identified and need to be addressed in order to advance women’s equality. These challenges include discrimination, inequalities, inadequate access to education and healthcare, lack of women in political leadership, violence against women and girls, poverty, and lack of economic opportunities (Table 4).

Source: UN Women.

Women and girls face discrimination that hinders their access to education, employment, healthcare, and legal protections. Treating women unfairly and depriving them of their basic human rights leads to the creation of unjust societies.

Approximately 1 in 3 women – estimated at 840 million globally – have experienced partner or sexual violence in their lifetime. In the last 12 months alone, 316 million women –which is 11% of those aged 15 or older – were subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.

Major factors contributing to the lack of women’s equality include restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence and safety risks, weak enforcement policies, unequal education, economic disparities, inadequate healthcare, lack of political representation, employment segregation, pay gap, unpaid care burden, and unequal household responsibilities.

Achieving women’s equality requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes ensuring their basic human rights, enforcing legal protections against discrimination and violence, ensuring equal pay, education access, economic empowerment, and opportunities, promoting women in leadership roles, dismantling misogynistic stereotypes, advancing inclusive policies, supporting women-led institutions, and encouraging shared domestic responsibility.

Additionally, this multi-faceted approach involves promoting proactive efforts by governments, non-governmental institutions, businesses, schools, community organizations, families, and individuals to ensure equal opportunities, freedom from violence, and fundamental human rights for women and girls.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.

Most major destination countries are shifting from a policy of expanding migrant labor to one of selectivity and restriction in order to manage immigration within their borders, especially unauthorized immigration. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

The delicate balance of international migration relies on the high demand for labor and the enforcement of stricter immigration controls. This equilibrium is especially crucial when considering the international migration of students and skilled workers.

International students and skilled migrant workers play essential roles in economic development and addressing labor shortages in many countries. However, these individuals are facing increasing obstacles in entering and integrating into destination countries.

Essentially, most major destination countries are shifting from a policy of expanding migrant labor to one of selectivity and restriction in order to manage immigration within their borders, especially unauthorized immigration.

A notable exception to this global trend is Spain, which is granting legal status to half a million undocumented migrants. This policy aims to reduce labor exploitation in Spain’s underground economy and meet the need for around 300,000 migrant workers annually to sustain its economy.

The stricter immigration controls in many destination countries are primarily driven by political shifts to the right, national security concerns, public pressure, unauthorized migration, unlawful border crossings, visa overstays, and anxieties about changing population composition and social integration. These controls are also limiting asylum seekers and low skilled migrants while favoring highly skilled migrants.

Major destination countries have also implemented stricter immigration controls in terms of international student migration.

These controls include stricter visa rules and entry requirements, fixed-term visas, limited years of study, work permit restrictions, higher financial costs, and restrictions on bringing dependents. These measures are driven by high net migration, efforts to curb visa misuse, university enrollment caps, housing pressures, higher financial requirements, and restrictions on bringing family dependents.

In 2024, there were approximately 304 million international migrants worldwide, representing about 3.7% of the world’s population of 8.2 billion. This figure is nearly double the number of international migrants in 1990, which was approximately 154 million, representing 2.9% of the world’s population of 5.3 billion at that time (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The top five migration destination countries and their percentage of all migrants are the United States (17%), Germany (6%), Saudi Arabia (5%), the United Kingdom (4%), and France (3%) (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In contrast, the top five emigration countries and their percentage of all emigrants are India (6%), China (4%), Mexico (4%), Ukraine (3%), and Russia (3%) (Figure 3).

Source United Nations.

As of 2024–2025, there were approximately 7 million internationally mobile students globally. The key destinations for these international students were the United States (17%), Canada (12%), the United Kingdom (11%), France (7%), and Australia (6%). Other major destination countries were Germany, Russia, South Korea, China, and Spain (Figure 4).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to internationally mobile students, there were approximately 168 million migrant workers in 2022, accounting for about 5 percent of the global labor force. About two-thirds of all migrants of working age are in the labor force, with 60% of them being men.

In many of the more developed countries, the percentage of migrant workers in the labor force is significantly higher. For example, in the United States, approximately 20% of the labor force, totaling over 30 million people, consists of immigrants and foreign-born workers who are concentrated in the construction, farming, and service sectors. Canada has an even higher proportion of 30%, with many migrant workers represented in the tech sector, manufacturing, and healthcare.

Migrant workers can be found across all skill levels. Despite many possessing higher qualifications, they are often concentrated in lower-skilled industries such as services, agriculture, construction, and tourism. However, sectors and occupations related to high-skilled information technology and professional work often rely on skilled migrant labor to address labor shortages.

Migrant workers can be found across all skill levels. Despite many possessing higher qualifications, they are often concentrated in lower-skilled industries such as services, agriculture, construction, and tourism. However, sectors and occupations related to high-skilled information technology and professional work often rely on skilled migrant labor to address labor shortages

The populations of most developed countries and many developing countries are experiencing declining, ageing, and diversifying trends in the 21st century. These three profound demographic changes present significant social, economic, political, and ethical challenges.

As populations rapidly evolve during the 21st century, changes in fertility, mortality, and migration are shaping the demographics of many regions. These changes are based on past trends, current data, and projected future patterns over the next eighty years.

Projections suggest that population decline will persist because of low fertility rates remaining below the replacement levels of about two births per woman. Many countries have experienced low fertility rates for an extended period. The population of the more developed countries is expected to decrease by 14 million by 2050, while the least developed countries are projected to grow by 733 million during the same period.

Regarding mortality rates, life expectancies are anticipated to continue rising throughout the century. For instance, the current life expectancy at birth of 80 years in more developed countries is projected to reach approximately 84 years by 2050 and 90 years by the end of the 21st century.

In addition to declining populations and increasing life expectancy, many countries have experienced a “historic reversal” in their age structures. By 2025, 55 countries and areas had experienced this reversal, with more countries expected to undergo the same soon.

This significant demographic milestone occurs when the percentage of individuals aged 65 and older exceeds the percentage of those aged 17 and younger. In simpler terms, it is when older adults outnumber children in a population.

Population ageing is expected to continue throughout the remainder of the 21st century. The median age for more developed countries currently at 42 years is projected to increase to 45 years by 2050 and 48 years by 2100.

Additionally, the proportion of elderly individuals is projected to continue rising. For example, Europe’s elderly population is expected to increase to approximately 30 percent by mid-century.

Major destination countries are also becoming more ethnically diverse due to increasing levels of international migration. For instance, the estimated number of foreign-born individuals in Europe, which was around 57 million at the beginning of the 21st century, has risen to approximately 87 million by 2020.

The population compositions of many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, are becoming significantly more ethnically diverse. Population projections suggest that the US and the UK populations will become “minority white” around 2045 and 2065, respectively.

In addition to high levels of legal migration, increasing levels of unauthorized migration pose mounting challenges for many destination countries and for international students and skilled migrant labor.

Notable among these challenges are the negative attitudes and hostilities towards immigrants and their families, as well as the increasing political influence of far-right nationalist parties advocating anti-immigrant policies. These parties are concerned that the growing numbers of immigrants will have a negative impact on their traditional culture, shared values, and national identity. They believe that immigration, especially unauthorized migration, undermines their way of life, national security, ethnic heritage, and social cohesion.

A significant factor fueling the unprecedented high levels of unauthorized migration to many destination countries is the rapid demographic growth of sending countries. Many of these countries, which are struggling with poverty, political instability, civil strife, and climate change, are in the less developed regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The number of people desiring to emigrate permanently is approximately 1.3 billion. This number significantly exceeds the number of immigrants countries are willing to admit, leading many individuals to migrate without authorization.

Of particular note is Africa’s population, which currently includes 33 of the 46 least developed countries in the world. Africa’s population is expected to more than triple during the 21st century, increasing from approximately 800 million to nearly 4 billion.

In summary, the major demographic features of traditional destination countries for the 21st century are declining, ageing, and diversifying. In contrast, the populations of most sending countries are increasing and remain relatively young, with many of them wishing to emigrate to a developed country.

These potent, pervasive, and differing demographic trends are creating a delicate balance of high demand for labor and the implementation of stricter immigration controls. This balance is especially relevant for international students and skilled migrant labor as it impacts their entry and integration into destination countries.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.

Finland tops the world happiness rankings again. The US drops to its lowest position ever. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 27 2026 (IPS)

The United States is not so happy. Its population has received a lower happiness ranking compared to previous years. The factors contributing to this decline have significant implications for the United States, both domestically and internationally. As Dostoevsky noted, “The greatest happiness is to know the source of unhappiness”.

According to Gallup’s 2025 World Happiness Report, the United States was ranked 24th out of 147 countries, marking its lowest ranking to date (Table 1).

Source: 2025 World Happiness Report.

The top five countries in the happiness ranking were Finland, followed by Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Finland has maintained the top position for the eighth consecutive year, believed to be due to high levels of social support, healthy life expectancy, high GDP, and low corruption.

Furthermore, the populations of the United States neighbors, both to the north and south, had higher happiness rankings than the US. Despite having smaller economies and lower per capita incomes than the United States, Mexico ranked 10th and Canada ranked 18th on happiness among the 147 countries.

In contrast to the Nordic countries, the world’s unhappiest country was once again Afghanistan, with its population reporting particularly poor individual life evaluations. The government dominated by the Taliban continues to make life difficult for women and girls, limiting their access to education and employment.

Sierra Leone ranked as the second least happy country, believed to be a result of significant human rights violations. Lebanon followed closely behind in the 145th position due to its ongoing economic crisis and involvement in regional conflicts.

Happiness rankings vary significantly among the world’s largest economies. Among the top ten countries with the largest economies, Canada held the highest ranking at 18 in 2025, followed by Germany at 22, the United Kingdom at 23, and the United States at 24 (Table 2).

Source: 2025 World Happiness Report.

Since 2012, the mood among the population of the United States has been declining, dropping from 11th to 24th in the global happiness rankings (Figure 1).

Source: World Happiness Reports.

One of the important factors contributing to the low and declining happiness score of the United States is that many of the country’s population feel disconnected, experience financial insecurity, and are socially isolated from those around them.

The disconnection, insecurity, and social isolation are thought to result from the country’s political polarization, votes against “the system”, and general mistrust. The decline in social trust among the US population contributes a large share of the political polarization occurring across the country.

The drop in social trust in the United States arises from the growing despair among the population, frustration with the government, and striking wealth inequalities, which contribute to misperceptions among the country’s voters, leading to a worrisome “us vs. them” mentality.

Despite its national wealth, overall trends across the United States indicate eroding social bonds, increasing political polarization, worsening mental well-being, declining social trust, and rising loneliness. As a result, the country’s population of 343 million is becoming unhappier with each passing year

Additionally, there is a generational divide among the US population, with younger individuals below the age of 30 reporting significantly lower levels of happiness and social connection compared to older generations. This generational gap contributes to dragging down the overall happiness ranking of the United States.

Moreover, despite being a wealthy nation with the world’s largest economy, economic inequalities, the high cost of living, and feelings of financial insecurity are factors contributing to the country’s relatively low happiness ranking. In stark contrast to the United States, Nordic populations have strong social safety nets with support systems that reduce financial insecurity, provide healthcare, and emphasize connection and collective well-being.

Another significant factor believed to be contributing to a not-so-happy United States is the increasing number of people in the population feeling lonely. The United States is considered one of the top five loneliest countries in the world, with 21% of the population reporting feeling lonely always or almost always.

Several years ago, a national survey of the US population found that more than three in five people reported feeling lonely, with increasing numbers experiencing feelings of being left out, misunderstood, and lacking companionship.

In 2025, approximately one in five people in the United States reported that they typically eat their meals alone. Eating alone in the US has become increasingly common across all age groups, particularly among young people. Eating with others is closely linked to well-being, as social connections are crucial for young adults and can help mitigate the negative effects of stress.

The epidemic level of loneliness in the United States, coupled with the rise of single-person households over the past two decades, has exacerbated feelings of disconnection among the country’s population. In contrast, populations in countries with higher levels of happiness have stronger family bonds, a sense of belonging, and more social interactions than the population of the United States.

In summary, despite its national wealth, overall trends across the United States indicate eroding social bonds, increasing political polarization, worsening mental well-being, declining social trust, and rising loneliness. As a result, the country’s population of 343 million is becoming unhappier with each passing year.

Lastly, there is an intriguing political question regarding the consequences of the United States’ unhappiness on its government’s domestic and international policies. If the United States were happier, perhaps its voters would not have elected its current leaders, who are implementing contentious policies, controversial programs, and vindictive schemes.

These policies, programs, and schemes involve taking harsh actions against the country’s immigrants, U.S. citizens who protest these actions, and the media that report on these events. They also include capturing the president and the wife of another country, investigating political opponents and dissidents, promoting false claims, dismissing established facts, pardoning convicted insurrectionists, threatening with tariffs and economic blackmail, attempting to purchase, acquire, or take control of Greenland, dismantling the post-World War II international system, and turning allies into enemies.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Global life expectancy at birth has increased from 46 years in 1950 to 74 in 2025, with a growing number of individuals reaching centenarian status. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 16 2026 (IPS)

Ageing and shrinking populations are becoming more prevalent in many countries around the world.

A growing number of governments are now grappling with these dual demographic challenges, which are becoming increasingly apparent. The demographic challenges posed by ageing and shrinking populations have significant impacts on society, affecting various economic, social, and political issues.

Governments are increasingly being forced to address the economic impact of supporting a growing number of retirees who are living longer with a decreasing number of workers. These changes are starting to have noticeable effects on pension programs, healthcare systems, and social safety nets.

In approximately 63 countries and areas, which make up about 28 percent of the world’s population of 8.2 billion in 2024, the size of their population has peaked before 2024 and is now shrinking. In 48 countries and areas, representing 10 percent of the world’s population in 2024, the population size is projected to peak within the next fifty years (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In the remaining 126 countries or areas, accounting for 62% of the world’s population, their populations are expected to continue growing until 2055, potentially reaching a peak later in the 21st century or beyond.

In addition to populations shrinking, many countries have experienced a “historic reversal” in their age structures. This significant demographic milestone occurs when the percentage of individuals aged 65 and older exceeds the percentage of those aged 17 and younger. In simpler terms, it is when older adults outnumber children in a population.

The first historic reversal took place in Italy in 1995 during the 20th century. Five years later, it occurred in six more countries: Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Japan, Portugal and Spain.

By 2025, 55 countries and areas had experienced a historic reversal, with more countries expected to undergo the same soon. Particularly striking are the demographics of Italy and Japan, where besides having shrinking populations, the percentage of people aged 65 and older is roughly twice as large as the percentage of those aged 17 and younger (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

The primary demographic forces driving the ageing and shrinking of populations are fertility rates below replacement levels, increased longevity, and limited immigration.

Globally, more than half of all countries and areas have a fertility rate below 2.1 births per woman, which is considered replacement level fertility.

In many cases, the fertility rates of countries in 2024 have dropped significantly below replacement levels. For example, South Korea (0.73), China (1.01), Italy (1.21), Japan (1.22), Canada (1.34), Germany (1.45), Russia (1.46), United Kingdom (1.55), United States (1.62), and France (1.64) all have fertility rates below replacement levels (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Global life expectancy at birth has increased from 46 years in 1950 to 74 in 2025, with a growing number of individuals reaching centenarian status. In 50 countries and areas, immigration is expected to mitigate future declines in population size.

One action to address ageing and shrinking populations is to recognize demographic realities and tailor governmental policies and programs accordingly.

However, many governments are hesitant to accept the ageing and shrinking of their populations. These governments have implemented strategies aimed at combating these significant demographic trends.

Around 55 countries have adopted policies and incentives aimed at increasing their fertility rates in hopes of reversing the ageing and shrinking of their populations. However, considering recent global trends and various economic, social, developmental, cultural, and personal factors, it seems unlikely that today’s low fertility rates will return to the replacement level any time soon.

Various policies have been implemented to address ageing and shrinking populations. These policies are wide ranging and include increasing taxes, raising retirement ages, enhancing productivity, increasing female labor force participation, permitting medically assisted suicide, relying on immigration of workers, promoting equality between men and women, and reducing expenditures on pensions and healthcare for older adults (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

Most governments are investing significant financial resources in pensions and healthcare for older individuals. Some government officials argue that spending money on the elderly, while their workforce populations are declining, is not economically sound.

They believe that excessive expenditures on the older adults yield little on investment and is an unadvised economic practice. They suggest raising the retirement age to receive pensions and encouraging people to continue working in old age, particularly those who currently rely on government pensions, healthcare, and support.

By 2025, 55 countries and areas had experienced a historic reversal, with more countries expected to undergo the same soon. Particularly striking are the demographics of Italy and Japan, where besides having shrinking populations, the percentage of people aged 65 and older is roughly twice as large as the percentage of those aged 17 and younger

Instead of depending on government-funded programs to take care of older adults, some government officials believe families should care for their elderly and frail relatives as has been the case throughout much of the world’s history.

For the many older adults who currently rely on government pensions and assistance, some government officials believe these individuals should be encouraged to join the workforce and achieve financial independence.

While many governments provide or regulate pensions and healthcare, the government’s role remains a subject of political and economic debate in numerous countries with the level and type of government programs varying significantly across nations.

In contrast to the debate among governments, most citizens in these countries believe that their government should continue to provide pensions, healthcare, and assistance to older adults.

A survey conducted in six European countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain) and the United States found that the majority of their populations recognize the future financial difficulties facing government pensions.

Most people in the surveyed countries felt that the value of the state pension is too low and opposed common reform options such as raising the retirement age or reducing funding for services for older people. Additionally, most non-retired individuals were not confident that they will live comfortably in retirement.

Ageing and shrinking populations are two significant demographic trends for the 21st century. These powerful and widespread demographics are presenting formidable challenges for many countries worldwide.

Instead of trying to revert to past demographic levels, governments should acknowledge the ageing and shrinking of their populations and act accordingly to address the many challenges that arise from these trends.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 7 2026 (IPS)

While death is inevitable for everyone, the timing of “The Appointment in Samarra” varies significantly among and within populations. Fortunately, mortality levels of human populations have declined significantly worldwide in recent years, leading to increased survival rates and delayed appointments in Samarra.

For example, in the mid-20th century, life expectancies at birth for males and females were 45 and 48 years, respectively. Today, males and females have life expectancies at birth of 71 and 76 years, respectively, which is an increase of more than 25 years. Additionally, females generally have higher life expectancies than males across countries (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Despite impressive global declines in mortality rates, life expectancies at birth vary significantly among countries. Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Inequities in life expectancies at birth persist across different age groups. For example, by the age of 65, country differences in life expectancy remain substantial. In Japan and Italy, life expectancies for males and females at age 65 are approximately 20 and 24 years, respectively. In contrast, the life expectancies for males and females at age 65 in Nigeria and the Central African Republic are about 12 and 13 years, respectively.

Similarly, infant mortality rates vary greatly among countries around the world. The mortality rates of infants range from lows of approximately 2 deaths per 1,000 births in Japan and Italy to highs over 30 times greater, with about 68 deaths per 1,000 births in Nigeria and the Central African Republic.

Longer life expectancies for the world’s population have also led to an increase in the number of centenarians.

In 1950, there were nearly 15,000 centenarians worldwide, making up 0.001% of the global population. Today, there are approximately 630,000 centenarians, accounting for close to 0.01% of the world’s population. By 2050, the number of centenarians is projected to reach 2.6 million, representing around 0.03% of the world’s population (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

There are many important factors that influence when and how the appointment in Samarra will occur. These factors include place of birth, residence, sex, socio-economic status, housing, healthcare, nutrition, diet, education, friends, exercise, genetics, disease prevalence, economic stability, public health, injuries, mental health, environmental conditions, political stability, human rights, social support, sanitation, substance use, lifestyle choices, parenting, personal habits, poverty, and violence (Table 1).

Declines in fertility rates have followed mortality rate declines, commonly described as the demographic transition. The fertility rate of the world’s population has fallen from a high of about 5.3 births per woman in the early 1960s to 2.2 births per woman today.

More than half of all countries and areas worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In many of these countries, deaths outnumber births, resulting in negative rates of population growth.

For example, in China, deaths began outnumbering births about five years ago. This trend is expected to continue for the rest of the 21st century, leading to population decline and the demographic ageing of the Chinese population.

The timing and circumstances of appointments in Samarra differ among the populations of more developed and less developed countries. People in the latter group are more likely to die from communicable diseases than from noncommunicable diseases, which are chronic conditions typically associated with older, aging populations and lifestyle factors.

Among more developed countries, major causes of death include heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. Other leading causes are Alzheimer’s and other dementia, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, and external causes and injuries.

Currently, life expectancies at birth for males and females range from highs of about 82 and 87 years, respectively, in Japan and Italy, to lows of approximately 55 and 57 years, respectively, in Nigeria and the Central African Republic

Additionally, in many countries, cancer has replaced heart disease as the leading cause of death. The most common cancers are breast, lung, colon, rectum, and prostate cancer.

Approximately a third of cancer deaths are due to tobacco use, high body mass index, alcohol consumption, low fruit and vegetable intake, and lack of physical activity. Air pollution is also an important risk factor for lung cancer. Many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.

In many less developed countries, major causes of death include lower respiratory diseases, stroke, heart disease, malaria, and pre-term birth conditions. Other important causes include diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, birth trauma, and HIV/AIDS.

Another major cause of death in recent years has been the coronavirus or COVID-19. The World Health Organization declared it a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, and it ended in May 2023, but remains an ongoing health threat. The pandemic resulted in over 7 million officially reported deaths worldwide, but the estimated excess morality is significantly higher, ranging between 18 and 35 million.

A crucial factor influencing the timing of appointments in Samarra is the availability of universal health coverage. According to the World Health Organization, universal health coverage ensures that every individual in a country has access to a wide range of health services, from emergency treatments to palliative care, without facing financial difficulties.

As of 2024, 73 out of the 195 countries worldwide were reported to offer some form of universal health coverage, which covers around two-thirds of the global population of 8.2 billion.

Among more developed nations, the United States stands out as a notable exception for not providing universal health care to all its citizens. In 2024, private health insurance coverage remained more prevalent than public coverage, with 66% of the U.S. population being covered. Additionally, the U.S. was noted for having the highest healthcare spending figure per capita in the world.

A significant debate surrounding the appointments in Samarra revolves around the right to die or medically assisted suicide. The differing perspectives about assisted suicide focus on the balance between individual autonomy and the sanctity of life.

Some believe that individuals experiencing unbearable suffering, often due to a terminal illness or incurable condition, should have the legal right and control to decide on medically assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. In contrast, others argue that assisted suicide devalues human life and opens the door to potential abuse. They also emphasize the importance of palliative care for those facing illness or personal struggles.

Medically assisted suicide is legal under specific circumstances in a limited number of countries. Those places include Australia, Austria. Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, and twelve states in the United States.

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, an individual typically must meet certain criteria. These criteria may include having a terminal illness or disability, being of sound mind, expressing a voluntary desire to die, and being capable of self-administering the lethal dose.

While the appointment in Samarra is inevitable for every human being, the timing of when this appointment will occur remains a topic of debate among the scientific community.

Some believe that there is a fixed limit to human life span, largely attributed to the gradual processes of biological ageing. They stress the implausibility of radical life extension for humans in the 21st century.

On the other hand, some argue that there is no conclusive evidence that the limit of human life span has been reached. The oldest supercentenarian on record, Jeanne Calment of France, lived to be 122 years and 164 days. Some experts predict that this current record of 122 years will be surpassed by the end of the 21st century, possibly even reaching 130 years.

In conclusion, the mortality rates of human populations have decreased globally in recent years, leading to improved chances of survival, longer life expectancies, and a growing number of centenarians. However, the timing and circumstances of the inevitable appointment in Samarra vary, with populations in more developed countries continuing to experience lower death rates and longer life expectancies compared to populations in less developed countries.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Currently, more than half of all countries and areas worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 15 2025 (IPS)

Will low fertility rates return to the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman any time soon? A simple answer to this vital demographic question is: unlikely.

A detailed answer about future fertility rates involves the complex interaction of various economic, social, developmental, cultural, and personal factors that influence fertility levels.

Among those factors are economic insecurity, financial pressures, marriage rates, childbearing ages, child mortality levels, contraceptive use, higher education, labor force participation, lifestyle choices, personal goals, concerns about the future, and finding a suitable spouse or partner for family life.

During the recent past, the world’s fertility rate declined significantly from 5.3 births per woman in 1963 to 2.3 births in 2023.

Currently, more than half of all countries and areas worldwide have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Among these low fertility countries are the world’s ten largest national economies (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In contrast to countries with low fertility rates, sub-Saharan African countries have high fertility rates. Together these countries account for about one-third of the world’s current annual births, with that proportion projected to increase to nearly 40% by the mid-century.

Currently, two dozen countries in sub-Saharan Africa have fertility rates of 4 or more births per woman, with half of them having rates of 5 or more births per woman. Some of these countries, such as Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia, have the world’s highest fertility rates at about 6 births per woman (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In countries with low fertility, many young adults choose to prioritize economic security over starting a family. This shift in priorities reflects the financial burden that comes with household expenses, such as housing, food, transportation, childcare, and education.

The average annual costs of raising a child can vary significantly from country to country because of differences in income, family structures, living expenses, and government subsidies. However, couples generally perceive raising children as a challenging and costly endeavor, given the expenses associated with housing, food, childcare, and education.

Besides the increasing age at which couples are choosing to marry, there has been a global decline in early childbearing. In more developed regions and in many less developed countries, such as China and India, the mean age of childbearing has risen by approximately three years since 1995.

Decreases in teenage pregnancies have also played a role in contributing to low fertility rates in many countries. For example, between 1994 and 2024, the worldwide adolescent birth rate declined from 74 to 38 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19 years.

Considering recent global trends and significant economic, social, developmental, cultural, and personal factors, it appears unlikely that today’s low fertility rates will return to the replacement level any time soon

In addition to delaying childbearing, many women are having fewer babies, with a significant number choosing not to have children at all. Although figures vary by region and generation, childlessness levels are rising, with approximately 40% or more of women by age 30 in developed countries remaining childless.

Using contraceptive methods is another significant contributor to low fertility rates. Various contraceptive options are available to prevent unintended pregnancy, including temporary or reversible and permanent methods. Worldwide, about half of women of reproductive age in 2022 were estimated to be using contraceptives, with 90% of them using a modern contraceptive method.

Higher education and increased female labor force participation are two additional factors contributing to low fertility rates. These factors raise the opportunity costs of childbearing, encourage delayed marriage and childbearing, and shift personal life priorities to career and personal development.

Over the past fifty years, the enrollment of women in higher education has increased worldwide. Women currently make up the majority of higher education students in 114 countries, while men out-number women in 57 countries. With respect to earning a bachelor’s degree, women have reached parity with men.

In many low fertility countries, there has a notable rise in the number of women joining the workforce. This trend is clear in more developed nations, where the percentage of economically active women has seen a significant increase in recent times. For instance, in Spain, the proportion of women in the labor force has more than doubled over the last fifty years, growing from around one in four to over half.

Another major factor contributing to low fertility rates is the significant global declines in infant and child mortality. Over the past fifty years, the global infant mortality rate has decreased from approximately 90 deaths per 1,000 births to 27 deaths and the mortality rate of children under age 5 has decreased from 132 deaths per 1,000 live births to 36 deaths.

Because of low fertility rates, many countries are experiencing more deaths than births, resulting in negative rates of population growth. These sustained negative rates of population growth are leading to population decline and demographic ageing.

The governments of many low fertility countries are implementing pro-natalist policies, incentives, and programs to increase birth rates. While these policies and programs may have some success in increasing low fertility rates slightly, historical data show that once a fertility rate drops below the replacement level, particularly to 1.5 births per woman or less, it remains low.

Population projections for countries with low fertility rates do not expect a return to the replacement level in the near future.

The world’s fertility rate is expected to continue declining throughout the 21st century. By 2100, the global fertility rate is projected to be below the replacement level at 1.8 births per woman.

The country population projections made by national governments and international organizations assume that fertility rates will remain below the replacement level. Consequently, many countries are projected to experience population decline by the mid-century (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

In 50 countries and areas, immigration is expected to help reduce the projected population decline caused by low fertility rates. However, without international migration, some countries, like Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are also projected to see a decrease in population by 2050.

While many countries are experiencing a demographic struggle over international migration, the proportions of immigrants in these countries are reaching record highs. In the European Union, for example, the proportion of the foreign-born population is about 14%, a significant increase from 10% in 2010.

Similarly, in the United States, the foreign-born proportion is at a record high of nearly 16%, several times greater than the low of 5% in 1970. Additionally, in Canada, the foreign-born proportion has risen to a record high of close to a quarter of its population, surpassing the previous record of 22% in 1921. Australia also has a significant foreign-born population, especially recently from India and China, reaching close to a third of its population, substantially higher than the 24% in 2004.

Along with population declines, coupled in many instances with increased immigration, countries are also experiencing demographic ageing. The once youthful populations of the recent past are now being replaced by much older populations with increasing proportions of these individuals in retirement. Once again, as with population decline, the projected populations of many countries by the middle of the century would be older without international migration (Figure 4).

Source: United Nations.

In summary, considering recent global trends and significant economic, social, developmental, cultural, and personal factors, it appears unlikely that today’s low fertility rates will return to the replacement level any time soon.

As a result, ongoing low fertility rates are leading to population decline, demographic ageing, and, in many instances, the politically contentious issue of increased levels of the foreign-born population. Instead of hoping for a return to the demographics of the recent past, countries need to recognize the probable future demographics and confront the many challenges that arise from them.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population matters.

Recently, President Donald Trump made an unexpected and stark reversal from his previous position of opposing the release of the Epstein files. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 19 2025 (IPS)

With the longest shutdown of the U.S. government now over, the White House, Congress, the media, and the public have shifted their attention to the contentious and highly political issue of releasing the files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The White House’s resistance to releasing Epstein-related documents brings to mind the famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet that the U.S. president “doth protest too much, methinks.”

For many, the president’s continued denials of any wrongdoing suggest the opposite is true.

According to a Marist poll conducted in October, 77% of the U.S. public support the release of all files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Another 13% want some of the Epstein files released, while only 9% don’t want any documents released (Figure 1).

Source: Marist poll.

According to other polls, a majority of the U.S. public, 67%, believe that the government is covering up evidence and 61% think the Epstein files contain embarrassing information about the president (Figure 2).

Source: Polls of The Economist/YouGov, the Washington Post, and University of Amherst.

A similar percentage, 63%, believe the president is hiding important information, while 61% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Epstein files. Additionally, 53% believe the files are sealed because the president is named in them.

Much of the country’s population believes that the president does not want the Epstein files released because the information contained within is criminal or embarrassing. In a national poll conducted in July, a majority of the U.S. public, 61%, thought that the Epstein files contain embarrassing information about the president.

Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans in Congress are pushing for the release of all Epstein files and actively working towards a Congressional vote to make it happen.

Furthermore, a bipartisan group of Congressional lawmakers believes that releasing the Epstein files is a moral imperative that will help bring justice to more than a thousand victims and prioritize truth over political convenience. In addition, a group of Epstein’s victims are featured in a new ad calling on Congress to pass the pending legislation.

In addition to acknowledging its widespread support among the U.S. public, the president’s reversal also seems to recognize that supporters of the measure to release the Epstein files have enough votes to pass it in the House. However, the president never truly needed the approval of Congress, as he has the power to release the files himself

Recent news reports indicate that the White House is now in panic mode. In addition to criticizing Democrats who are pushing for a Congressional vote, the president has spoken out strongly against Republican lawmakers who support the release of the Epstein files.

Further complicating matters are the newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate that contain several messages referencing the U.S. president. Additionally, a review by the Wall Street Journal found that the U.S. president was mentioned in more than 1,600 of the 2,324 email threads.

Despite this, the president continues to object to the release of the Epstein files, claiming it is a Democrat-manufactured hoax. He further asserts that there is nothing in the Epstein files that would incriminate him. The president’s supporters argue that the issue is merely a fake narrative intended to smear and slander him.

The Epstein files refer to the extensive collection of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the pedophile ring that victimized hundreds of children.

On August 10, 2019, prison guards claimed that Epstein had apparently committed suicide in his prison cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Initially expressing suspicion about the suicide, the country’s attorney general described Epstein’s death as “a perfect storm of screw-ups,” Subsequently, Epstein’s death unleashed conspiracy theories online suggesting that he was killed to prevent him from incriminating others.

For example, in 2011, Epstein wrote the following to Ghislaine Maxwell, his associate and aide: “I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is trump … (victim) spent hours at my house with him.” In 2018, Epstein further wrote, “I am the one able to take him down and you see, I know how dirty donald is”.

The president’s name also appeared in Epstein’s correspondence, indicating that he was aware of Epstein’s activities. Despite previously praising Epstein as a “terrific guy”, the president now claims that they barely knew each other.

National polling data from mid-2025 shows that nearly half of the U.S. public, about 46%, believed the president was involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

A growing number of the U.S. population support the release of the Epstein files to ensure all information is available, allowing the innocent to go free, and ensuring the guilty face judgment.

After months of attempting to delay or prevent a vote and a discharge petition by Democrats, joined by four Republicans, the House of Representatives reached the 218-signature threshold. On 18 November, the House voted on legislation to compel the Department of Justice to release all its case files tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

After the legislation passed 427 to1 in the House, the Senate considered mandating the release of the files. Similar to the House, the Senate decided to pass the bill by unanimous consent without any objections raised. The legislation is now on track to reach the president’s desk for his signature, despite his previous attempts to kill it.

Recently, the president made an unexpected and stark reversal from his previous position of opposing the release of the Epstein files. The president called on House Republicans to support a proposal to release files connected to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, stating that “we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax”.

In addition to acknowledging its widespread support among the U.S. public, the president’s reversal also seems to recognize that supporters of the measure to release the Epstein files have enough votes to pass it in the House. However, the president never truly needed the approval of Congress, as he has the power to release the files himself.

Furthermore, the president’s reversal allows him to claim support for transparency. It is also seen as a strategic move that shifts the responsibility onto Congress, limits politically damaging defections by Republican lawmakers, and avoids a likely political setback.

This move also has the potential to use the ongoing investigation as a way for the administration to control the timing and extent of future document releases, especially those concerning the president’s ties to the sex offender. The situation is further complicated by the president’s call for the U.S. Attorney General to investigate several Democrats, with these investigations serving as a justification for withholding the files.

With both the Senate and the House having passed bills for the release of the files, the legislation is now being sent to the president for his approval or veto. However, it is unclear when the files could be released and whether they would satisfy those advocating for the complete release of the Epstein files.

In a significant change to his political strategy, the president recently announced that he would sign the Epstein files bill if Congress passed it. However, as he has done in the recent past, the president could change his mind upon reviewing the legislation and decide to veto it.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the president will veto the legislation as Congress has the power to override his veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

If all the files related to Jeffrey Epstein are released, the information they contain has the potential to trigger the largest scandal in the history of the United States presidency. Such a scandal could compel the president to say something similar to the line from Hamlet: “Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me.”

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications.

Dating apps generated over $6 billion in 2024, with North America accounting for 50% of global revenue, Europe 23%, and adoption climbing across Asia-Pacific and Africa. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 6 2025 (IPS)

Dating websites, mobile apps, social networks, and cell phones offer numerous opportunities for dating, developing relationships, having encounters, and finding partners with more and more people relying on these platforms. However, modern technologies with their scale, speed and easy have also brought about dating challenges for both men and women.

These challenges include unrealistic expectations, emotional disconnection, feelings of inadequacy, superficiality, choice paralysis, decision fatigue, misrepresentation, privacy concerns, harassment, stalking, threats, scams, situationships, catfishing, orbiting, benching, pocketing, love bombing, cushioning, ghosting, submarining, and breadcrumbing.

Dating has evolved significantly from face-to-face social encounters, often within a family-centric process, to today’s technologically driven individualistic experiences. In much of the past and continuing in some traditional societies, courtship was typically a structured process focused on finding a suitable marriage partner for the purpose of family building.

The estimated total number of people worldwide using dating apps, which has become the most common way couples meet, is approximately 400 million, or about 5% of the world’s population. On an average day, over 25 million people are actively using dating apps, which includes casual browsing and engaging in online conversations

In contrast, many people now view dating as a means to discover themselves and experience personal growth, rather than solely as a path to marriage and starting a family. These individuals prioritize personal development, career advancement, and diverse experiences before thinking about settling down. With casual dating becoming more common and accepted, there is also a greater focus on authenticity and forming connections with others, including potential partners.

Dating apps, websites, and mobile phones, combined with the growing use of generative artificial intelligence, chatbots, and virtual reality, have contributed to the rapid rise of online dating. It has become an increasingly mainstream and popular way to meet someone and potentially find a significant other. These modern technologies offer unprecedented access to a diverse array of people, breaking down geographical and social barriers.

These developments have made dating and courtship both easier and more complicated. In particular, modern technologies are contributing to new dating norms, behaviors, expectations, benefits and frustrations.

Among the growing numbers of dating app users are those desiring a romantic relationship and others seeking a long-term companion or marital partner. In contrast, many individuals simply want to date casually or “hook up” with someone, meaning they have informal encounters without emotional ties but leading to sexual involvement.

Many men and women often struggle to form genuine connections with others when their interactions are confined to online messaging. The abundance and convenience of available dating options can also make it difficult to commit to one individual, leading to a cycle of constantly searching for the next best person to date.

Social media platforms encourage users to showcase or highlight the best parts of their lives. These enhanced presentations often create unrealistic expectations and disappointments in dating.

The estimated total number of people worldwide using dating apps, which has become the most common way couples meet, is approximately 400 million, or about 5% of the world’s population. On an average day, over 25 million people are actively using dating apps, which includes casual browsing and engaging in online conversations

The dating app market reportedly made more than $6 billion in revenue in 2024. North America remains the largest dating app market, contributing 50% of global revenue in 2024, followed by Europe at 23%, with adoption levels climbing in the Asia-Pacific and Africa regions. Financial projections for the dating app market show that its global revenue could reach nearly $9 billion by 2030.

Globally, the total number of dating app platforms is estimated to be in the thousands. The global market is diverse, with various dating apps attracting and catering to different interests ranging from serious long-term relationships to casual hookups.

Among the most popular dating apps downloaded are Tinder, Badoo, Bumble, and Momo. In 2024, Tinder was reported to be the most downloaded dating app, with more than 6.1 million user downloads during the month of June. Other popular dating apps include eHarmony, Hinge, Match, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish, each with its unique user base and focus (Table 1).

Source: Business of Apps and Statista.

The number of dating app users, their usage, and the social norms surrounding them vary considerably among countries due to cultural attitudes towards dating, relationships, and technology. Each country has its favorite or most popular dating app in terms of the number of downloads.

The numbers of men and women using dating apps also differ significantly across countries. In 2024, China had the largest number of dating app users, with nearly 83 million. The United States followed with approximately 61 million dating app users. India came in third place with about 27 million dating app users, followed by Brazil with 17 million dating app users (Figure 1).

Source: Statista Market Insights.

In 2024, the United States had the highest percentage of its population using dating apps, at around 18%. Following the US was France, with over 11% of its population using dating apps. South Korea came in third place among these selected countries, with nearly 11% of its population engaging in dating apps, followed by Germany at 9% (Figure 2).

Source: Statista Market Insights.

However, among single populations, the usage of dating apps is significantly higher. For instance, the proportions of single individuals using dating apps in North America, Europe and Asia are 45%, 30%, and 25%, respectively.

Guidelines, rules, and general behavior for dating through modern technologies vary based on gender, age, experience, and social norms. According to the most popular dating apps in 2024, approximately 62% of users are men.

The percentage of male users is notably higher in most countries and regions. For instance, in the United States and India, about 70% of dating app users are men, while in Europe, the percentage rises to 85%.

A disparity in what men and women seek while using dating apps complicates finding the right match. Because of this gender imbalance, men often express dissatisfaction with low match rates and lack of messages. In contrast, women frequently report feeling overwhelmed by too many choices, an abundance of messages, and disrespectful comments.

When it comes to motivation for using dating apps, men are more inclined towards casual encounters and easy communication, while women tend to prioritize safety and seek long-term relationships, aiming to avoid harassment.

Gender roles in dating have undergone significant changes. Shifting societal attitudes and the feminist movement have resulted in more egalitarian relationships. While these changes have led to more balanced relationships, they also require navigating new expectations and social dynamics.

In terms of the age of dating app users, the largest group, accounting for around 35%, consists of relatively young individuals, typically under the age of 25. These young users often have more time to explore various dating options before committing to a long-term relationship. Older users, aged 55 and above, represent a smaller but increasing percentage of users, typically around 10%.

Some dating apps estimate that approximately one third of relationships now begin through the use of a dating app. In the US, 10% of partnered adults met their spouse or partner on a dating site or app, with the proportion at 20% among those aged 18 to 29. In the UK, more than one-quarter of couples who married between 2017 and 2023 are said to have met online.

Moreover, there is a growing trend of partnered adults, particularly in Latin America and Western countries, choosing to cohabit without officially getting married.

Dating patterns today are significantly different from practices in the recent past, which relied mainly on face-to-face social encounters and family-centric processes. Dating in the modern era is a complex and multifaceted experience influenced by culture, technology, and norms.

Dating apps and websites accessed through cell phones have become a mainstream method for meeting new people. This new method has surpassed traditional avenues, such as meeting through friends or at social gatherings.

These modern technologies offer numerous opportunities for dating, developing relationships, finding partners, and even engaging in casual encounters. However, they have also presented challenges for both men and women, leading to the establishment of new dating norms, expectations, privacy concerns, benefits, and frustrations.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

Available data and research over several decades have consistently reached the same conclusion: Far-right extremists are more open to political violence, more likely to commit it, and responsible for far more homicides than far-left extremists. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 6 2025 (IPS)

Following the murder of Charles Kirk, a U.S. conservative activist, in Orem, Utah on September 10, various remarks, commentaries, and accusations have been made regarding politically motivated murders occurring across the United States.

In order for elected U.S. officials, policymakers, the country’s population, and others to have an informed understanding of politically motivated domestic murders, it is essential to consider the relevant facts, statistics, and research findings surrounding these homicides.

Although politically motivated murders represent a relatively small fraction of the overall number of homicides in the United States, these murders have a disproportionately large effect on the country. In particular, their symbolic impact, high visibility, media coverage, and threats to democracy make these murders especially significant for the United States

The starting point for this understanding is to define these types of homicides. Politically motivated domestic murders involve killings of people where the perpetrator’s primary motivation is ideology, politics, partisan affiliation, beliefs about government, or bias. Examples of such motivations include white supremacy, anti-immigrant sentiment, religious extremism, and political extremism.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 22,830 homicides in the United States in 2023. Domestic politically motivated murders were relatively rare, with an estimated number of 20 extremist-related murders, representing about one-tenth of one percent of all homicides that took place across the country.

Additionally, between January 1, 2020 and September 10, 2025, 79 politically motivated murders were reported to have occurred in the United States. These murders accounted for approximately 0.07 percent of all murders during that time period, or 7 out of 10,000.

Although politically motivated murders represent a relatively small fraction of the overall number of homicides in the United States, these murders have a disproportionately large effect on the country. In particular, their symbolic impact, high visibility, media coverage, and threats to democracy make these murders especially significant for the United States.

Some political figures have suggested that left-wing groups are a greater threat than right-wing groups. However, research based on empirical data does not support these claims.

In recent decades, right-wing extremism, such as white supremacist, anti-immigrant, and anti-government ideologies, has been the most frequent ideology when it comes to politically motivated domestic homicides in the United States.

In contrast, while left-wing extremism, such as environmental or anti-police violence, is present in the United States, it is much less frequently associated with homicides.

Overall, domestic politically motivated violence in the U.S. is rare compared to total violent crime, but right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the majority of domestic terrorism fatalities over the past several decades.

For instance, a study by the U.S. National Institute of Justice found that since 1990, far-right extremists have killed more than six times as many people in ideologically motivated attacks (520 people) as far-left extremists (78 people).

In the last five years, approximately 70% of politically motivated domestic homicides in the United States were committed by individuals with right-wing ideology, compared to about 30% by those with left-wing ideology (Figure 1).

Source: Cato Institute.

Furthermore, there has been a noticeable increase in plots or attacks in the United States targeting government officials, political candidates, party officials, or staff. The number of domestic attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years.

The available data and research over the past several decades have consistently reached the same conclusions regarding domestically politically motivated homicides. In simple terms, far-right extremists are more open to political violence, more likely to commit it, and have been responsible for far more homicides than far-left extremists.

The rising threats and politically motivated domestic murders across the United Staes warrant countering the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, one-sided narratives, and violent rhetoric that have motivated many of the attackers and killers.

Political violence in the United States has risen in recent months taking forms that often go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all states reported threats against election workers, including social media death threats, intimidation and doxxing.

The recent murder of Charles Kirk is just one in a series of politically motivated domestic killings that includes the June assassinations of Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman.

Almost 75% of the U.S. public views politically motivated violence as a major problem for the country. Additionally, a majority of the U.S. public, 62%, believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, while a minority of 38% believe it is moving in the right direction.

Threats and violence are increasingly seen as acceptable means to achieve political goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society. In October 2025, almost a third of the U.S. public, 30%, strongly agreed or agreed that violence may be necessary in order to get the country back on track. This figure is a significant increase from the 19% who strongly agreed or agreed in April 2024 that violence may be necessary (Figure 2).

Source: PBS News/Marist Poll.

The population of the United States should reject political violence in all its forms and reaffirm that democracies depend on peaceful participation. Public discourse and government rhetoric should aim to reduce tensions, not inflame them.

Furthermore, elected officials and political leaders of the United States need to emphasize that differences should be resolved through civic debate and elections, not by violence.

If violence becomes acceptable or inevitable in politics, then political outcomes may be determined not by votes or debate but by intimidation or force. The primary message to the U.S. public should be zero tolerance for political violence, vigilance against radicalization and societal polarization, and commitment to peaceful democratic engagement.

In summary, politically motivated domestic murders across the United States remain a small fraction of overall homicides in the country and are disproportionately driven by right-wing extremist ideologies. However, their symbolic impact and threats to both human lives and U.S. democracy make them especially significant.

Countering and preventing politically motivated domestic homicides must be achieved without infringing on the constitutional rights of free speech, religion, or political expression. Elected officials, political leaders, and the courts should prioritize preventing and prosecuting criminal acts, reducing radicalization, and lessening societal polarization, rather than undermining the democratic principles, rights, and liberties of the United States.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

As androids edge closer to reshaping how we work, interact, and manage conflict and resources, the absence of clear regulations leaves human rights, jobs, and social bonds unprotected. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 23 2025 (IPS)

Despite anxieties, concerns, and warnings, androids or humanoid robots that rely on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and advanced robotics are increasingly being integrated into the modern lives of human populations. This integration raises serious challenges regarding humanity’s future in an era where androids are emerging rapidly.

Some have expressed concerns that GAI and robots are embedding and intensifying existing societal biases, stereotypes, misogyny, and discrimination in the development of these new technologies.

Soon, androids are expected to change the nature of work, social interactions, conflict resolution, and resource management. However, guidelines, regulations, and protocols for their usage and protecting human rights, employment, and social relationships have not been established yet.

Growth

In response to the increasing need for automation in various sectors of society, coupled with declining production costs and increasing corporate investments, the use of androids is evolving rapidly. Breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence have accelerated the development of androids.

At the start of the 21st century, the world’s population of humans was about 6.2 billion and, except in science fiction novels and movies, androids were essentially non-existent. By 2025, the world’s human population had increased to 8.2 billion, with the number of androids estimated to have grown to about 10 thousand.

By 2050, the global population of humans and androids is projected to reach 9.2 billion and 1 billion, respectively (Table 1).

Source: United Nations and Morgan Stanley.

With many countries facing demographic decline and population ageing, coupled with opposition to immigration in most destination countries, many governments, industries, and organizations are increasingly turning to technologies that incorporate generative artificial intelligence and advanced robotics.

The growth of androids is being driven by several factors, including substantial financial investments, decreasing production costs, and intense competition among countries in the humanoid market. Androids are increasingly being utilized in education, entertainment, healthcare, manufacturing, and household applications.

Reactions

The reactions of human populations to androids vary considerably. Many people have mixed feelings toward androids with artificial intelligence but see further developments as “inevitable”.

Although many people use artificial intelligence enabled technologies daily, they fear androids will lead to job displacement, rising unemployment, misuse, abuse, intrusive surveillance, and loss of human connection.

The increasing presence of androids is heightening competition for jobs in the labor market, especially among recent college graduates. This development is potentially leading to widespread unemployment, greater dependence on emerging technologies, and a significant rise in wealth inequality.

The reactions of human populations to artificial intelligence (AI) vary significantly across countries. A survey of views towards AI among 21 countries found significant differences between more developed and less developed countries.

While most of the public in less developed countries, like Brazil, China, and India, had positive views about AI, in more developed countries, like Germany, Japan, and the US, 40% or less of the public had positive views about artificial intelligence (Figure 1).

Source: Visual Capitalist.

Another survey of G7 countries in 2024 reported that 80% of the respondents feared androids would take away jobs, while 70% believed androids would dominate social interactions.

Furthermore, 60% of the respondents in the survey were uncomfortable with androids and preferred them not to resemble humans. This preference is believed to be partly due to the “uncanny valley” effect, which refers to the eerie or unsettling feeling some people experience in response to humanoid robots and lifelike computer-generated characters (Figure 2).

Source: Euronews.

Advancements

Further advances in the fields of robotics and GAI have also led to the emergence of Socibots. These androids are designed to be social robots. Utilizing GAI and advanced robotics, they are intended to function as an individual’s friend and offer companionship.

International Gallup surveys have found that approximately one-fifth of the global population experienced loneliness “a lot of the day yesterday”. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reports that social isolation and loneliness affect over one billion people worldwide.

Without proper regulations and guardrails focusing on safety, fairness, and basic human rights, it is uncertain how androids can integrate into human populations without posing risks to human wellbeing and the future of humanity

Equipped with sensors and GAI, Socibots are designed to interact and communicate with humans using social behaviors. They are intended to be companions, educators, and assistants, and are expected to be used in hospitals, schools, and homes as their capabilities improve.

Socibots are becoming more expressive, emotionally intelligent, and personable, specifically designed to be a person’s friend. Companies are investing billions of dollars into developing Socibots that can remember individuals, understand their emotions, and engage in natural conversation.

In contrast to Socibots, warbots are robots, unmanned vehicles or devices designed for military operations and warfare. These warbots are autonomous or remote-controlled mobile robots intended for military applications

Military and security forces around the world are currently utilizing autonomous weapons systems, or warbots, which can identify and attack targets with varying degrees of human oversight. These systems are rapidly advancing with the progress of generative artificial intelligence.

Although autonomous “killer robots” capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention are in development, they are not yet widely deployed on the battlefield. There is a growing focus on increasing the autonomy of warbots to operate independently and behind enemy lines.

Concerns

Over 120 countries and various organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, have called for an international ban on the development and use of autonomous warbots that can select and attack targets without human control.

However, some governments believe that an international ban is unnecessary. They maintain autonomous robotics could save the lives of soldiers who might otherwise be killed on the battlefield. They also stress that most military robots are tele-operated and unarmed, with many used for reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper detection, and neutralizing explosive devices.

Some individuals suffer from robophobia, an anxiety disorder characterized by an intense fear of androids and robots with generative artificial intelligence. Many of these individuals view the increasing presence of humanoid robots as creepy, hazardous, and a menace to society.

The increasing presence of androids is heightening competition for jobs in the labor market, replacing many human jobs, potentially leading to widespread unemployment, greater dependence on emerging technologies, and a significant rise in wealth inequality. Some individuals are concerned about the potential for social isolation, reliance, and loss of human connection as androids take on roles as companions and service providers.

The global efforts towards advancements in generative artificial intelligence are demanding substantial amounts of electricity. Many billions of dollars are reportedly flowing into the data centers needed to power artificial intelligence. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2030, data centers will require slightly more energy than Japan consumes today.

However, others, especially those benefiting financially, downplay the rising concerns and emphasize the potential benefits of androids. These benefits include increased efficiency, additional labor, higher productivity, business opportunities, enhanced safety, entertainment, personal help, and companionship.

Despite notable advancements, some observers have cautioned about the “humanoid hype”. They note that robots are not acquiring real-world skills as quickly as AI chatbots are gaining language fluency. They expect many more decades of research and development in robotics will be needed before androids can perform these necessary skills.

Some individuals, often referred to as doomsayers, have expressed concerns about the risks involved in the rapid growth of GAI, particularly warning about its potential for disruption and human manipulation.

The development of powerful generative artificial intelligence systems may eventually surpass human intelligence, reach singularity, and evade human control. Experts caution that this alarming progression could lead to catastrophic consequences for human populations.

Conclusions

Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence and robotics have led to an increase in the introduction of androids into modern society. The emergence of androids presents significant challenges for human populations, especially concerning humanity’s future in a world dominated by generative artificial intelligence and humanlike robotics.

While some see further developments as inevitable, there is concern that future androids, possibly arriving within the next five years, could become excessively intrusive, disruptive, and replace many human jobs, particularly entry-level jobs in fields such as law, finance and consulting. Some have issued warnings about the rapidly expanding influence of robotics and generative artificial intelligence, approaching the likely scenario with caution rather than enthusiasm.

Additionally, there are concerns about potential social isolation, dependency, and a lack of human connection as androids take on roles as companions and service providers. However, some, particularly those with financial investments, downplay these concerns and emphasize the advantages and benefits of androids.

Without proper regulations and guardrails focusing on safety, fairness, and basic human rights, it is uncertain how androids can integrate into human populations without posing risks to human wellbeing and the future of humanity. It is also unclear how individuals, especially children, will react to humanoid robots with advanced generative artificial intelligence offering assistance and making contributions.

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

Opinion polls show that the majority of the U.S. population holds positive views on immigration. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 15 2025 (IPS)

Most of the population in this country wants immigrants, but the current government does not share the same sentiment. The country in question is the United States, often referred to as “a nation of immigrants”, home to more immigrants than any other country worldwide, having received over 100 million immigrants since its founding in 1776.

Opinion polls show that the majority of the U.S. population holds positive views on immigration. A national survey conducted in June revealed a record high of 79% of U.S. adults considering immigration beneficial for the country, with 17% viewing it negatively (Figure 1).

Source: Gallup Poll.

The poll also found that 62% of U.S. adults disapprove of the president’s hardline immigration enforcement measures. Specifically, a majority of the U.S. public opposes immigration arrests in protected areas such as places of worship, schools, hospitals, and clinics.

Opinion polls show that the majority of the U.S. population holds positive views on immigration. A national survey conducted in June revealed a record high of 79% of U.S. adults considering immigration beneficial for the country, with 17% viewing it negatively

It is estimated that the current government authorities have deported at least 180,000 people so far. By the start of August, the number of deportations is reported to have reached close to 1,500 people per day.

Analyses of recent census data show that in the first seven months of 2025, the U.S. foreign-born population declined significantly, estimated to be between 1.5 million and 2.2 million.

The foreign-born population decreased from 53.3 million immigrants, a record high representing 15.8% of the U.S. population, to 51.9 million immigrants or 15.4% of the country’s population, with other estimates of the decline even lower at 51.1 million. The drop in the foreign-born population marked the first decline in the country’s immigrant population since the 1960s.

Many in the U.S., estimated to be about a third of the population, have expressed agreement with the general principle of deporting undocumented migrants, especially those who have committed violent crimes.

However, a national opinion poll conducted in late June found that the majority of the U.S. population, 54%, believe the government’s immigrant enforcement program has “gone too far” with their methods and tactics being extreme, aggressive, and heavy-handed.

Additionally, 78% of the U.S. population favor providing pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the country, with the proportion rising to 85% for immigrant children.

The proportion of U.S. adults who want immigration to remain at its current level is 38%, while 26% would like to see it increased. In contrast, 30% prefer a reduction in immigration (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup Poll.

Another survey found that 60% of the U.S. population disapprove of the suspension of most asylum applications and the termination of Temporary Protected Status. Many have objected to the administration’s steps to block access to the asylum process, which is in violation of U.S. law.

Additionally, on his first day in office, the U.S. president issued an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants and individuals with temporary status in the country.

If birthright citizenship were to end in the U.S., it would impact an estimated 6% of the country’s annual births, or about 225,000 babies born in the country each year.

However, a national survey conducted in June revealed that 68% of registered U.S. voters actually support birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868.

Section 1 of the amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. The president’s executive order ending birthright citizenship has become a significant legal battle for the country and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

The current administration considers all undocumented immigrants living in the country as criminals and has falsely claimed that undocumented migrants are responsible for the rise in crime, despite data showing crime rates have been decreasing.

It is important to note that being in the United States illegally is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Many undocumented immigrants who have been arrested have not been convicted of a crime.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could resume expedited deportations of migrants to countries that are not their places of origin, referred to as third-country deportations. The administration has reached agreements with countries like Honduras, Rwanda, and Uganda to accept deported migrants who are not their own citizens.

These agreements allow for redirecting asylum-seekers to countries that are not their own if the U.S. government believes these nations can fairly assess their claims for humanitarian protection.

Confusingly, the U.S. president recently ordered a “new” population census that excludes undocumented immigrants.

This is a historic demand, considering the U.S. has counted every person in its census for over 230 years, dating back to 1790. During his first term, the president tried to alter the country’s decennial population census by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but the Supreme Court blocked it.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that approximately one million immigrants per year will drive the country’s population growth throughout the rest of the 21st century. The nation’s fertility rate, at 1.63 births per woman in 2024, is expected to remain well below the replacement level in the coming decades.

By mid-century, immigration is expected to contribute twice as many people to the U.S. population as natural increase. According to the main series population projection, by 2080, the current U.S. population of 342 million is projected to reach nearly 370 million (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

However, without future immigrants and fertility remaining below replacement, the U.S. population is projected to decline as deaths soon begin to outnumber births. The Congressional Budget Office expects deaths to exceed births by 2031.

By the end of the 21st century, the Census Bureau estimates that without immigration the country will experience nearly 2 million more deaths than births. The U.S. population in the zero immigration scenario is expected to decline to about 226 million, or approximately 116 million fewer people in 2100 than today.

The United States is currently experiencing a significant need for workers across various sectors of the economy, including agriculture, construction, healthcare, hospitality and manufacturing.

Immigrant workers are seen as crucial in filling these labor shortages, especially for jobs such as farmworkers that the native-born U.S. population typically does not want to do.

Many economists have emphasized that immigration is a vital component of a healthy U.S. economy. The president’s deportation and tariff policies are believed to be contributing to an inflationary shock to the economy.

Immigration can help reduce inflation, strengthen manufacturing and increase employment rates. The chair of the Federal Reserve has indicated that the president’s stricter immigration policies are one of the reasons U.S. economic growth has slowed.

In addition to filling job vacancies, immigrant workers also contribute to the growth of the country’s economy and boost tax revenue. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that immigration growth will add $1.2 trillion in federal revenue over the period from 2024 to 2034.

The U.S. population is expected to undergo significant demographic ageing in the coming decades. By 2035, the number of people in the U.S. aged 65 years or older is projected to exceed the number of children under the age of 18.

As the U.S. population ages, the number of working-age individuals per retired person is decreasing. In 1975, the potential dependency ratio of those aged 20 to 64 years old per person aged 65 years or older was slightly over five. Currently, the dependency ratio is about three and is expected to decline to two by 2075. Without future immigration, the U.S. dependency ratio is projected to be approximately 1.5 by 2075.

In summary, it is clear that the majority of the population in the United States supports immigration, while the government does not. Despite the widespread backing for immigration and the substantial demographic, economic, and social impacts of immigration, the new administration is concentrating on significantly decreasing immigration. They have put in place policies, initiated programs, and issued executive actions to achieve this objective.

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

Despite living longer lives, the aged are opposed to raising official retirement ages, reducing retirement benefits, or raising taxes on the elderly. They are increasingly protesting, resisting, and demanding that retirement ages stay the same and benefits remain intact. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Sep 4 2025 (IPS)

It is becoming increasingly apparent that planet Earth is evolving into the planet of the aged. In nearly every country around the world, the numbers and percentages of the aged, commonly defined as individuals aged 65 years or older, have increased rapidly.

Consequently, the aged have infiltrated offices and institutions and advanced their demands and aspirations. As a result of these developments, they have formed gerontocracies that dictate policies, programs and expenditures, often without truly representing their populations.

In 1950, the aged accounted for only 5% of the world’s population, totaling 128 million. Today, the proportion of the elderly has doubled. The aged now account for 10% of the world’s population, totaling 854 million people. Since 1950, the aged population has nearly septupled!

In 2000, only three countries – Italy, Japan, and Monaco – had more aged individuals than children under 18. However, by 2025, this historic reversal had spread to approximately 45 countries and territories. For instance, in Italy, the percentage of aged individuals compared to children under 18 was 25% versus 15%. Japan shows an even larger demographic reversal, with 30% being aged and 14% being children under 18.

It is projected that by 2050, the aged will make up 17% of the world’s population. By 2080, individuals aged 65 and older are expected to outnumber children under 18, reflecting the evolving rise of the planet of the aged.

Furthermore, by the end of the 21st century, nearly one out of every four human beings living on the planet, close to 2.5 billion people, is expected to be a member of the aged population.

In many countries, including the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the aged proportions are even higher by the close of the century. For example, the proportion of the elderly in 2100 is expected to be about 34% in France and Great Britain, and 41% in China (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

In 2025, countries like Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Portugal are expected to have approximately one-quarter of their populations made up of aged individuals. This proportion is projected to grow to about one-third by 2050.

With the rise of the aged, many countries across the planet are being transformed into gerontocracies.

Gerontocracies often have policies that are out of touch with the needs of younger generations. Such societies can lead to legislative stagnation and entrenchment of a political system disconnected from the changing needs of its population.

The aged have infiltrated offices and institutions and advanced their demands and aspirations. As a result of these developments, they have formed gerontocracies that dictate policies, programs and expenditures, often without truly representing their populations

Aged leaders tend to focus on issues primarily affecting their age group, resulting in a political system that overlooks the needs of the majority. For instance, aged leaders spend less on welfare for children and more on benefits for seniors, marginalizing the interests of young people.

These political systems are less likely to address long-term issues, like climate change, food insecurity, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Gerontocracies can also stifle innovation, reduce scientific research, and create barriers for young researchers to advance in their careers.

In addition to their increasing numbers and proportions of populations, the aged are now living longer than at any time in human history. In 1950, global life expectancies at age 65 for men and women were 11 and 12 years, respectively.

By 2025, these figures had increased to 16 years for men and 19 years for women. Moreover, the global life expectancies of the aged are projected to continue increasing, reaching 21 years for men and 23 years by the end of the 21st century.

Despite the rising aged population, the vast majority of the world’s population, around 90% or 7.4 billion people, are not members of the aged. The median age of the global population in 2025 is 31 years, with about four billion men, women, and children.

In contrast to the majority of the world’s population, the leaders of many countries are aged. Many of these leaders are more than twice the age of their population’s median age and decades older than majority of their citizens (Table 1).

In addition, there is a growing number of government leaders who are aged men, many of whom are well over the age of 70.

As of 2025, women held the position of Heads of State and/or Government in 27 countries, accounting for approximately 14% of the world’s countries. Men also dominated parliament and cabinet minister positions, making up 73% and 77%, respectively.

Potential problems with having aged state leaders include the risks of cognitive decline, reduced mental flexibility, ineffective strategic planning, resistance to new ideas, increased health problems (often concealed), lower energy and stamina levels, and a focus on policies that primarily benefit the aged members of their population.

A particularly worrisome consideration among the aged, especially for the world’s state leaders, is dementia.

The risk of developing dementia among the elderly is significant, believed to double approximately every five years after the age of 65. In some countries, such as the United States, researchers estimate that 42% of the population over the age of 55 years will eventually develop dementia.

Aged state leaders likely have an elevated risk of dementia compared to others in their populations because of their advanced ages, highly stressful roles, and intense and sustained pressures. Studies on aging and political leadership suggest that a significant proportion of leaders over 65 may have impaired executive function. These impairments affect complex decision-making, flexible thinking, and impulse control.

In addition, aged country leaders often strive to leave a lasting legacy. As they near the end of their tenure and lives, these leaders aim to establish systems, capabilities, and strategies that will have a lasting impact reflecting their tenure long after they are gone.

One powerful tool at the disposal of the aged is voting. While the elderly, regardless of age, are eligible to vote in elections, young people, usually below the age of 18, are not eligible to vote.

The elderly are also consistently more likely to vote in elections than younger voters who are busy working and have other time-consuming activities. Aged voters tend to be more conservative, favor the status quo, and have a greater stake in economic issues related to retirement and old-age healthcare.

As a result of the growth of the aged populations, many countries are facing financial challenges when it comes to funding national retirement programs. Several solutions have been suggested to address these issues, such as increasing taxes, raising the retirement age, and limiting retirement benefits.

Despite living longer lives, the aged are opposed to raising official retirement ages, reducing retirement benefits, or raising taxes on the elderly. They are increasingly protesting, resisting, and demanding that retirement ages stay the same and benefits remain intact.

The elderly are concerned about the declining number of workers in the labor force who support retirement and health benefits for them. In response to this issue, the aged have embraced pro-natalist policies, promoted traditional family values, and emphasized patriotism to boost fertility rates that have fallen below replacement levels in more than half of all countries and areas globally. However, these efforts have not yet succeeded in raising fertility rates back to replacement levels.

In conclusion, with their increasing numbers, growing proportions, and a rise in aged world leaders, as well as the establishment of gerontocracies that influence government policies, programs, and spending, Earth is witnessing the rise of the planet of the aged.

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

Mothers in the US are dying from pregnancy-related causes at much higher rates than mothers in any other affluent country. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 23 2025 (IPS)

The recent legislation passed by the US Congress, oddly named the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), and signed by the US President, reveals that Republican lawmakers in the nation’s capital do not care about excessive and premature mortality in the United States.

If Republican representatives and senators were genuinely concerned about the expected increase in deaths, the OBBB would not have displayed such disregard for its potentially harmful impact on human life and wellbeing.

In the coming months, the OBBB is likely to result in a rise in excess and premature deaths in the United States, particularly affecting vulnerable groups, such as low-income individuals and families, children, people with disabilities, and seniors.

The lack of concern from Republican lawmakers about the expected excess and premature mortality resulting from the OBBB is evident in the candid remark made by an Iowa Republican senator during a recent town hall meeting.

The millions of US citizens without health insurance coverage and access to care will likely result in people skipping preventative care, treatments and prescriptions, all of which will contribute to increased illness and preventable deaths

When a constituent expressed concerns about potential deaths resulting from cuts to Medicaid in the proposed budget bill, the Republican senator responded by saying, “People are not … well, we’re all going to die, so for heaven’s sakes.”.

The senator’s comment, stating “we’re all going to die”, exemplifies the lack of concern and empathy among federal Republican officials towards the life-threatening impact of the OBBB’s cuts to Medicaid, food assistance (SNAP), changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and other crucial government services.

In fact, the budget cut in Medicaid, approximately a $1 trillion reduction over the next 10 years, far exceeds any other cut the United States has made in its social safety net. The US Congressional Budget Office predicts that the cuts to Medicaid will result in millions of people losing health insurance coverage.

The various cuts and changes resulting from the OBBB are expected to increase uninsured rates, reduce access to healthcare services, exacerbate health disparities, and lead to higher mortality rates nationwide. The millions of US citizens without health insurance coverage and access to care will likely result in people skipping preventative care, treatments and prescriptions, all of which will contribute to increased illness and preventable deaths.

Public health and policy researchers from Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania have informed Congressional lawmakers that the OBBB could lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths in the US annually. This would be a result of disenrollments from Medicaid and the Health Insurance Marketplace coverage, reductions in nursing home care, and the loss of drug subsidies for low-income seniors.

Additionally, imposing work requirements on individuals receiving health insurance through programs like Medicaid has not been shown to lead to increased employment levels. Instead, it restricts access to necessary medical care.

With expanding subsidies for fossil fuels and biofuels, the OBBB could also lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially causing more life-threatening weather events and contributing to an estimated 900 annual premature US deaths from local air pollution by 2035.

Apart from the OBBB, budget cuts by the US administration have also been implemented in agencies and departments related to justice, health, education, housing, environment, basic scientific research, and weather forecasting.

The administration has laid off meteorologists, frozen critical positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and reduced coordination grants at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Additionally, they have reduced staff, including call center workers, and cut funding for agencies essential for issuing emergency warnings of extreme weather events and coordinating timely responses, likely leading to more deaths.

The cuts to Medicaid, which is the dominant source of coverage for children in the US, are expected to devastate pediatric care in rural and underserved areas. US administration officials are dismantling science-based vaccine policies and pediatric care, which will result in increased deaths, especially among children, from preventable causes.

With the anticipated increase in deaths resulting from the OBBB, the mortality ranking of the United States among developed countries will likely deteriorate. Even before the adoption of this problematic budget legislation, the US’s position on mortality levels among wealthy developed countries was mediocre at best.

For example, consider deaths that occur during the first year of life. The US infant mortality rate is significantly higher than the average of other developed nations. In recent years, the United States has ranked 33rd out of 38 OECD countries on this crucial mortality measure. In 2023, the US infant mortality rate was 6 infant deaths per 1,000 births, compared to an infant mortality rate of about 2 for Italy, Japan, and Sweden (Figure 1).

Source: National governments.

Additionally, the US has the highest maternal mortality rate among wealthy nations. Mothers in the US are dying from pregnancy-related causes at much higher rates than mothers in any other affluent country. In 2022, the US maternal mortality rate was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, far above rates for other high-income countries. For example, the maternal mortality rate was 3.4 in Japan, 7.6 in France, and 8.4 in Canada.

Regarding longevity, life expectancy at birth in the US in 2023 was 78 years. However, life expectancy varied significantly based on income levels, with the gap widening. In 2023, the richest individuals in the top 1% of US counties lived 84 years, while those in the bottom 50% of counties averaged 77 years.

Many countries surpass the US in terms of life expectancy. For example, Japan has a life expectancy of 87 years, Italy 84 years, and Sweden 83 years (Figure 2).

Source: National governments.

If one is fortunate enough to reach the age of 65 in the US, life expectancy at that age is lower compared to many other wealthy developed countries. While life expectancy in the US at age 65 is nearly 20 years, it is higher in other countries, such as Australia, France, Japan, and Sweden, where it is approximately 22 years (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the expected increase in excess and premature mortality in the United States is not due to a foreign government or overseas enemy. Instead, it is self-inflicted by the policies, actions and choices of a Republican-led government.

How will the Republicans respond to the anticipated rise in premature deaths? History suggests they will probably react with their three D’s: Denial, Dismissal, and Distraction.

In conclusion, considering the expected increase in excess and premature deaths due to the OBBB and related policies of the US administration, as well as the likely response from Republican lawmakers, including the president, it appears that they simply do not care about mortality in the United States. (Fertility, on the other hand, is a completely different matter.)

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

The chance of dying during the first year of life in the least developed countries is ten times higher than in the more developed countries. Credit: Franz Chávez/IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

To be, or not to be, an undocumented migrant, that is the question for millions of men, women and children in many less developed countries. “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them” for a better life as an undocumented migrant in a foreign land.

In many less developed countries, especially the least developed, millions of men, women and children live an onerous existence, enduring the pain and hardships of their daily lives.

Unfortunately, many people in these areas experience high levels of poverty, unemployment, low wages, violence, crime, persecution, political instability, armed conflict, lack of health care, limited education opportunities, and, increasingly, the effects of climate change.

The fundamental choice for many millions of men and women in less developed countries is between staying in their homelands and enduring a difficult life or migrating to become an undocumented migrant with a chance for a more promising future in a foreign land

Most of these individuals prefer to stay in their homelands with their families and friends, but they see little hope for personal improvement in their lifetimes.

Pessimistic views on social, economic and political progress in less developed countries are reinforced by the lack of advancement in development initiatives and cuts in foreign aid programs.

For instance, the international community adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 to bring about transformative change by 2030. Current reports indicate that most of the SDGs are off track with progress on many key indicators stalled or even reversed in recent years. Some major donor countries have also reduced or discontinued their development assistance programs and humanitarian aid.

In stark contrast to conditions in many less developed countries, people in more developed countries are seen as living in a comparative paradise. Men, women and children in these populations enjoy peace, security, political stability, wealth, employment, abundance, housing, educational opportunities, public services, health care, lower mortality rates and longer life spans.

Although in 2025, the populations of the least developed countries and the more developed countries are about the same size, 1.2 and 1.3 billion, respectively, their demographic circumstances differ considerably.

For example, the chance of dying during the first year of life in the least developed countries is ten times higher than in the more developed countries. In 2025, the infant mortality rate in the more developed countries is 4 deaths per 1,000 births, while in the least developed countries it is nearly 40, with the rate for the less developed countries excluding the least developed falling in between at 24 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Life expectancy at birth is significantly higher in more developed countries than in the least developed countries, at 80 and 67 years, respectively. This life expectancy advantage in more developed countries continues into older age groups, reaching 20 and 15 years, respectively, at age 65 years (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

With deaths outnumbering births, the annual population growth rate of more developed countries in 2025 rises to about 0.1% due to international migration. Over the coming decades, the population of more developed countries is projected to decline slowly, falling by almost 100 million and ending up slightly below 1.2 billion by the close of the century.

This expected population decline of the more developed countries, however, assumes continuing international migration to those countries over the coming decades. With zero migration, the projected demographic decline of the more developed countries is considerably greater, with their population decreasing to about 830 million by 2100 (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In stark contrast, the population of least developed countries is growing relatively rapidly, with an annual growth rate of 2.3%, which is about 30 times greater than the growth rate of more developed countries. Their current population of 1.2 billion is projected to double to 2.4 billion in approximately 40 years and reach 3.1 billion by the end of the 21st century, nearly a third of the world’s population.

The population of less developed countries excluding the least developed is projected to increase from its current level of 5.7 billion to a peak of 6.5 billion around midcentury. It is then expected to decline, reaching 6 billion in 2100, approximately 58 percent of the world’s population.

The population of more developed countries is substantially older than that of the least developed countries and other less developed countries. In 2025, about 20% of the population in more developed countries was aged 65 years or older, compared to 4% in the least developed countries.

This difference in age structures is expected to continue in the coming decades. By the close of the 21st century, nearly one-third of the population of more developed countries is projected to be aged 65 years or older, compared to about 15% for the least developed countries (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to the millions of men and women in less developed countries living under challenging social, economic and political conditions, by the end of 2024, approximately 123 million people worldwide had been forced to flee their homes due to persecution, conflict, human rights violations, and severe public disorder.

Among those displaced from their homes were about 43 million refugees and close to 5 million stateless people. These individuals have been denied nationality and lack access to employment, health care, education and freedom of movement.

The numbers of people displaced by climate change have also been increasing in recent years. It is estimated that more than 200 million people could be forcibly displaced by extreme weather and environmental disasters by 2050.

Given the challenging living conditions faced by many around the world, it is not surprising that approximately 16% of the world’s population, or 1.3 billion people, desire to leave their country.

These desires have become a reality for many men and women who have sought a better life as undocumented migrants in other countries. Of the approximately 305 million immigrants in the world in 2025, perhaps a quarter of them, about 75 million are estimated to be undocumented.

Millions of men and women desire to emigrate to another country, while many people living in wealthy destination countries believe fewer or no immigrants should be allowed in. For many countries, this sentiment towards immigrants is at odds with their historical heritage.

In the United States, for example, the anti-immigrant sentiment contradicts the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty. A well-known part of the inscription states, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

While attempting to limit immigration numbers, especially undocumented migrants, these countries are also facing population decline, labor force shortages, and demographic ageing.

In the recent past, many countries in various regions have addressed undocumented migrants living in their territory by providing legal status or granting amnesty to those who met certain requirements.

In 2024, Spain granted legal status to hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants. This amnesty was partly driven by Spain’s labor force shortages and the ageing of its population.

About a decade ago, Germany decided not to close its borders to refugees and accepted over 1.2 million refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing Syria’s civil war. Today, a significant proportion of those refugees and asylum seekers are employed in Germany’s workforce.

In 1986, the United States enacted an amnesty program that granted legal status to certain undocumented immigrants who had lived in the United States before January 1, 1982. This program legalized approximately 2.7 million immigrants, once again adding many workers to the country’s labor force.

In conclusion, the fundamental choice for many millions of men and women in less developed countries is between staying in their homelands and enduring a difficult life or migrating to become an undocumented migrant with a chance for a more promising future in a foreign land.

For those living comfortably in today’s wealthy developed countries, “Imagine that you see the wretched strangers, Their babies at their backs and poor luggage, Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation, And that you sit as kings in your desires, Authority quite silent by your brawl, And you in ruff of your opinions clothed, How order should be quelled, As but to banish you, whither would you go? What country, by the nature of your error, should give you harbor?”.

Throughout much of human history, as documented and evident in countries worldwide, people have migrated to foreign lands in search of a better future. Today, many men, women and children are choosing, often reluctantly and with considerable trepidation and risks, to become undocumented migrants for this opportunity.

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

The number of people desiring to emigrate permanently exceeds the number of immigrants countries are willing to admit, leading many individuals to migrate without authorization. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 30 2025 (IPS)

Approximately 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the world’s population, wish to leave their country permanently, while over a billion people believe that fewer or no immigrants should be allowed into their countries. This demographic struggle between the two sides over international migration is causing significant social, economic, and political repercussions for nations and their citizens.

The 1.3 billion individuals desiring to emigrate to another country is over four times the size of the estimated total number of immigrants worldwide in 2025, which is around 305 million. If all the people desiring to emigrate could do so, the global number of immigrants would increase to about 1.6 billion.

While an estimate of the total number of immigrants in the world is readily available, estimating the total number of unauthorized immigrants is much more challenging, with few reliable estimates available on a global scale.

If the percentage of unauthorized immigrants among all immigrants in the United States, approximately 25%, applies to the global immigrant population, the estimated number of unauthorized immigrants worldwide would be around 75 million (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations and Gallup Polls.

The global proportion desiring to emigrate permanently to another country has increased significantly in recent years, rising from 12% in 2011 to 16% in 2023.

Additionally, the desire to emigrate varies greatly across the different regions of the world. In 2023, Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest proportion desiring to emigrate at 37%, a significant increase from its 29% in 2011 (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup Polls.

In almost all major regions, the proportion desiring to emigrate permanently saw a substantial increase between 2011 and 2023. For instance, the proportions for the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean, rose from approximately 18% to 28%.

The desire to emigrate is not exclusive to developing regions. In the European Union, nearly 20% of the population in 2023 expressed a desire to emigrate. Similarly, in the United States and Canada, around 18% of their populations in 2023 desired to emigrate, a significant increase from the 10% reported in 2011.

The significant imbalance between the desire to emigrate and the number of immigrants countries are accepting is a major demographic factor contributing to unauthorized migration. Thousands of migrants die annually on migration routes in their attempts to reach their desired destination country

The number of people desiring to emigrate permanently exceeds the number of immigrants countries are willing to admit, leading many individuals to migrate without authorization.

For example, while approximately 170 million adults wish to emigrate to the United States, the country’s annual number of immigrants granted legal permanent residence has ranged from 1 to 2 million, with net immigration expected to average just over 1 million annually in the future. Similarly, in Canada, about 85 million people desire to emigrate, but the annual number of immigrants admitted ranges from 400,000 to 500,000.

The significant imbalance between the desire to emigrate and the number of immigrants countries are accepting is a major demographic factor contributing to unauthorized migration. Thousands of migrants die annually on migration routes in their attempts to reach their desired destination country.

In addition to the demographic imbalance, other important factors contributing to unauthorized migration include poverty, unemployment, low wages, harsh living conditions, violence, crime, persecution, political instability, armed conflict, lack of health care, limited education opportunities, and climate change.

Many migrant destination countries are experiencing record-high numbers of unlawful border crossings, unauthorized arrivals, and visa overstays, leading to millions of individuals living unlawfully within those countries.

Human rights regarding international migration are relatively straightforward. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. While all people have the right to leave and return to their country, they do not have the right to enter another without permission nor to overstay a temporary visit.

However, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration also states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. As a result, many migrants entering a country without authorization claim asylum to escape persecution.

To be granted asylum, an individual must meet the internationally recognized definition of a refugee.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees codified the right of asylum. The right to asylum is for anyone with “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

The Convention and its Protocol, however, do not require governments to grant asylum to those who qualify.

By claiming asylum, migrants lacking legal authorization to enter are in principle permitted to remain in the destination country while their asylum claims are being adjudicated. Typically, the adjudication process takes several years and the large majority of asylum claims are denied.

For example, in the United States, approximately 70 percent of asylum claims have been denied over the past several years. Similarly, high levels of asylum claim denials, often exceeding 70 percent in first-instance asylum applications, are reported among many European countries, including France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Sweden.

Many destination countries, especially wealthy, more developed nations, view the extensive use of asylum claims by unauthorized migrants as a means of avoiding deportation. Although most claims are judged to lack merit, the large numbers of claims overwhelm the ability of countries to review them in a timely manner and enforce negative rulings to send people back to their home countries.

To address the large number of asylum claims, some countries are adopting various policies. For example, some countries are requiring unauthorized migrants to wait abroad while their asylum claims are being considered. Other countries are mandating that unauthorized migrants seek asylum in another country and have also implemented policies to transfer the migrants to different third countries for processing their asylum claim or for resettlement.

Looking towards the future, the world’s population, currently at 8.2 billion, is expected to increase by another two billion people over the next fifty years. During this time, the population of more developed regions is projected to decline by around 70 million.

In contrast, by 2075, the population of less developed regions, excluding the least developed countries, is projected to grow by close to 700 million. This significant population increase is about half the level expected for the least developed countries, which as a group are expected to increase by about 1.4 billion (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

While countries are addressing unauthorized migration, many of them are also experiencing or anticipating population decline. Despite the current and expected decreases in population size, countries are not ready to accept large numbers of immigrants.

Instead of increasing immigration numbers, countries are focusing on raising their low fertility rates, which have dropped and remain well below the replacement level.

Business leaders, employers, various non-governmental organizations, families, and some government officials acknowledge the benefits of international migration and may even tolerate some unauthorized migration.

However, many citizens in destination countries, particularly those on the political far right, increasingly view newcomers, especially those living in the country without authorization, as a threat to jobs, cultural integrity, national security, and a financial burden on public funds. Consequently, many governments in these countries have implemented policies and actions to deport migrants, especially those who are unauthorized.

Furthermore, opponents of increased immigration are worried that it will negatively impact their traditional culture, shared values, and national identity. They believe that immigration, particularly unauthorized migration, undermines their way of life, national security, ethnic heritage and social cohesion.

In conclusion, international migration has always been a fundamental, defining demographic phenomenon with significant economic, social and political implications worldwide. Currently, the global population of over 8.2 billion people is grappling with an escalating struggle over international migration.

On one side of this struggle are approximately 1.3 billion people desiring to emigrate, with many choosing to do so without authorization and often risking their lives to reach their destination. On the other side are over a billion people in destination countries attempting to prevent this emigration, reduce the rising numbers of immigrants, and deport those living in their territories without authorization, including many who are seeking asylum.

Given the demographics, significant differences between the two sides, and the current situations in various countries, it is likely that the struggle over international migration will persist throughout the 21st century.

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

Additional years of life in old age certainly offer positive news for older men and women and for their families, friends, and communities. However, those additional years of life for older individuals also raise noteworthy challenges. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 10 2025 (IPS)

Older men and women are now living longer than ever before. Across the globe, individuals who reach old age can expect to have more years of life ahead of them than in previous generations. However, these additional years of life, coupled with the disparities among and within countries, including variations between older men and women, present substantial economic, social, and political challenges for societies.

Global Trends

In 1950, the world’s average life expectancies for men and women at age 65 were about 11 and 12 additional years, respectively. By 2025, those average life expectancies at age 65 increased by over 50%, reaching about 16 additional years of life for men and 19 additional years for women.

The trend of living longer at age 65 is expected to continue throughout the rest of the 21st century. By 2100, for example, the world’s average life expectancies for men and women at age 65 are projected to be 21 and 23 additional years, respectively, which are double the numbers of additional years of remaining life in 1950 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The good news about older men and women living longer is also clear at age 80. In 1950, the world’s average life expectancies for men and women at age 80 were approximately 5 years. By 2025, that average life expectancy is estimated to have increased by approximately 50%, reaching close to 8 additional years for men and 9 years for women.

The largest gains and highest levels of life expectancy at older ages are among wealthier, more developed countries. While less developed countries have also gained additional years of life at older ages, their increases have been substantially less than those of the more developed countries, which has contributed to widening the gap between them

As at age 65, the trend of men and women living longer at age 80 is also expected to continue throughout the rest of the 21st century. By 2100, for example, the world’s life expectancies at age 80 for men and women are projected to be approximately 11 and 12 years, respectively.

The gains in longevity at older ages have also increased the differences between men and women. Not only do women live longer than men, but differences in additional years of life at older ages between them have increased during the past seventy-five years.

Country Trends

The largest gains and highest levels of life expectancy at older ages are among wealthier, more developed countries. While less developed countries have also gained additional years of life at older ages, their increases have been substantially less than those of the more developed countries, which has contributed to widening the gap between them.

In Japan and Italy, for example, the current additional years of life for men and women aged 65 are approximately 20 years and 24 years, respectively, or nearly double the levels in 1950. A similar pattern of increase in additional years of life for those two countries took place for men and women at age 80.

In contrast, the current additional years of life of men and women aged 65 in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are about 13 years, which are only several years more than they were in 1950. Also, the improvements in additional years of life for men and women at age 80 since 1950 are relatively modest, typically only a single year of increase (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Regarding the future, the additional years of life of older persons among countries are expected to continue increasing worldwide throughout the 21st century. In Japan and Italy, for example, men and women aged 65 years at the end of the century can expect to live approximately 28 and 32 additional years, respectively.

Again, in contrast, the corresponding gains in additional years of life for men and women aged 65 in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are considerably lower. By the end of the century, the additional years of life for men and women aged 65 years in those two countries are around 15 years.

Besides variations across countries, the additional years of life of older individuals also vary significantly within countries.

For example, in the United States, life expectancies of older individuals vary among the country’s fifty states. These variations are mainly because of differences in socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, public health policies, lifestyle factors, and political policies.

In 2021, the highest life expectancies for those 65 years and older were approximately 18 years for males and 21 years for females in Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York. In contrast, the lowest life expectancies at age 65 were about 15 years for males and 18 years for females in Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Kentucky (Figure 2).

Source: US National Vital Statistics Reports.

Challenges

Additional years of life in old age certainly offer positive news for older men and women and for their families, friends, and communities. Longer lives for older men and women provide them with additional time for learning, adventure, recreation, development, work, and contributions.

However, those additional years of life for older individuals also raise noteworthy challenges.

For example, challenges will arise for public health, housing, work and retirement, healthcare, and elder care. Also, the increased life expectancies for older men and women raise the risks of multiple morbidity, disability, dementia, and degenerative diseases.

At the same time that older people are living longer, fertility rates are declining worldwide, with many countries experiencing below replacement fertility. And because of those low fertility rates, countries are entering uncharted territories of population decline and demographic ageing.

One important consequence of those uncharted territories is declining potential support ratios, i.e., declining numbers of persons aged 20 to 64 years per person aged 65 years or older.

Whereas the world’s potential support ratio was 10 in 1950, it declined to 8.6 by 1975 and declined further to 5.0 by 2025. By 2050, the ratio is expected to be 3.0 (Table 2).

Source: United Nations.

The declining potential support ratios, which are occurring worldwide but are the lowest in more developed countries, raise the important issue of the age for retirement.

Ageing populations, decreasing fertility rates, and declining potential support ratios are impacting the financial sustainability of pension systems. As a result, a common policy strategy of many countries that aims to address the financial viability of their pension systems is to raise their current retirement ages.

As French President Emmanuel Macron has said, “vivre plus longtemps, travailler plus longtemps” (“live longer, work longer”). China is also gradually raising the retirement age to address its shrinking workforce relative to its growing older population.

As with government pension programs, the increasing longevity and growing proportions of older persons are also impacting the affordability and financial sustainability of government healthcare systems.

In particular, the rising prevalence of chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, as well as the need for long-term care services, like nursing homes and assisted living facilities, are rapidly increasing healthcare costs for the growing population of older men and women who are living longer lives.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there are several important points that need to be emphasized. First, older men and women are now living longer than ever before, and this trend of increased longevity is expected to continue throughout the 21st century.

Second, the additional years of life expectancy among older individuals have widened the gap between more developed and less developed countries. While gains in life expectancies for older individuals have occurred worldwide, the largest gains have been seen in the wealthier, more developed countries.

Besides differences among countries, the gains in longevity at older ages also vary within countries. Variations within countries arise mainly because of differences in socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, public health policies, lifestyle factors, and political policies.

Third, the gains in life expectancy at older ages have also increased the differences between men and women. Not only do women live longer than men, but the gap in additional years of life at older ages between them has increased in recent years, particularly in more developed countries.

Finally, the additional years of life for older men and women, combined with population decline and demographic ageing, present important economic, social, and political challenges for governments and their citizens. Challenges will arise in the areas of public health, housing, work and retirement, healthcare, and elder care.

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

Many governments use various methods, such as internet censorship, media control and surveillance, to hide the numbers and control the message. These tactics restrict access to information, shape public opinion, and monitor online activity. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 27 2025 (IPS)

In the past, Shakespeare famously wrote in his play Henry VI that the first step for those seeking power was to “kill off the lawyers”. Today, the first step taken by those seeking power is to hide the numbers and control the message.

Various government leaders have adopted a political strategy that involves suppressing basic data, vital information and the statisticians and scientists who collect, analyze, and disseminate these numbers.

Without access to neutral data, objective information, and technically sound analyses, populations are left ill-informed and unable to express dissent. Censorship is often used to suppress numbers that may contradict the goals of government officials in controlling the message.

To gain power over a society, essential economic, social, health, environmental and demographic data, along with any resulting reports, are being suppressed. This suppression is achieved by failing to collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate objective information on levels and trends.

Without access to neutral data, objective information, and technically sound analyses, populations are left ill-informed and unable to express dissent. Censorship is often used to suppress numbers that may contradict the goals of government officials in controlling the message

Statisticians, scientists and others responsible for collecting and reporting data are being dismissed, threatened or silenced. Knowledge-producing institutions that conduct studies are being defunded and reduced in size.

Many governments use various methods, such as internet censorship, media control and surveillance, to hide the numbers and control the message. These tactics restrict access to information, shape public opinion, and monitor online activity.

The primary strategy of many government leaders today is to hide numbers and control the message. Anything that contradicts their message is labeled as false, fake news, lies or treason, leading to legal action, criminal penalties and imprisonment for dissenters and those who publish what officials deem false news.

In countries like Cuba, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Myanmar, North Korea and Turkmenistan, for example, the media serves as a mouthpiece for government officials. Other countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Hungary, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen, use harassment, surveillance, and detentions to control the media and the message.

In Russia, key demographic statistics on births, deaths, marriages and divorce have been classified following a decline in birth rates.

For about four decades, the Russian total fertility rate has remained well below the replacement level, estimated at approximately 1.4 births per woman in 2024, and the number of births has declined to record lows.

Detailed population data are no longer being published, leading to a lack of publicly available demographic statistics since March 2025.

Russian officials note that despite their country being the largest in the world, their population is decreasing every year because of their below replacement fertility rates.

After decades of population growth, Russia’s population peaked at nearly 150 million in 1990 and has been largely declining since then.

Russia’s current population of about 144 million is projected to continue declining, reaching about 126 million by the close of the century according to the United Nations medium variant projection. Without migration, however, Russia’s population in 2100 is projected to decline to 88 million, or about 60% of its current size (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

To combat declining birth rates, Russian authorities have restricted access to abortions and contraception. They have implemented measures such as banning what they refer to as “child-free propaganda” and promoting traditional family values. Also, they recently announced a ban on TV series and films where women prioritize their careers over having children.

Similarly, in the United States, government leaders are reducing and silencing agencies that collect, analyze, and report vital information.

The communication platforms of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for example, have gone silent. Crucial health data have been removed from public access and many of the CDC newsletters have stopped being distributed.

Alerts about disease outbreaks, which were previously sent to health professionals subscribed to the CDC’s Health Alert Network, have not been dispatched since March. Also, US officials have cut funding, dismissed staff, and denied negative data reports.

Although some federal health websites have been restored, others are still down after some numbers were purged. CDC has acknowledged that its website is being changed to comply with the executive orders of the president.

Another agency that has experienced staff firings and funding cuts, which has created a danger for public safety and well-being, is the country’s National Weather Service. Those reductions have impacted the collection of vital data used to make forecasts and the staff who analyze the data to issue critical warnings about hazardous and extreme weather.

To control the message, US government officials have reduced funding, fired and silenced staff, and openly dismissed the consequences of their actions.

Government officials deny any negative data and findings on levels and trends that are reported. They also dismiss anything they don’t enjoy hearing by saying those treasonous scientists, statisticians and others are spreading false rumors. And they often blame previous administrations for issues that they cannot dismiss.

Data on the economic effects of the recently announced US tariffs, including increased prices for consumers and businesses, are also being hidden, denied, downplayed or dismissed.

In contrast to the views of leading economists and many of those in the business community, administration officials deflect legitimate criticisms by saying tariffs will help domestic industries, reduce trade deficits and benefit national security and strategic independence.

Efforts to eliminate administration-declared waste, fraud, and abuse have hindered data collection, analysis and dissemination, laid off or put on leave tens of thousands of federal government employees, led to disruptions in services, and adversely affected research and development at various agencies. Troubling information is hidden from the public, and justifications for policy changes and staff layoffs are often confusing, illogical or simply outright lies.

For example, the numbers on the proposed reductions in government funded services and programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food benefits to low-income families, coupled with the huge tax benefits to the wealthy are explained away by the use of jingoistic rhetoric, irrelevant issues, political illogic and empty promises.

Also similar to Russia, US government officials wish to raise the country’s low fertility rate, which in 2024 was about 1.6 births per woman. Besides blaming women for the country’s low birth rate, some officials have referred to prominent women without children as “childless cat ladies” and are promoting the return to traditional roles for men and women in American society.

Administration officials are proposing a modest financial incentive of about $5,000 for women to have a baby. Also, a bill proposed by the US House would provide $1,000 to children born between 2025 and 2028 that could be invested on their behalf.

The US population, approximately 342 million in 2025, is continuing to increase in size, after having more than doubled since 1950.

However, again, similar to Russia, the future growth of the US population depends on migration. The US Census Bureau reports that without migration, the country’s population is projected to decline by about a third by the close of the century.

Also, according to the United Nations medium variant projection, the US population is projected to reach approximately 420 million by the end of the century. Without migration, however, the US population in 2100 is projected to decline to 268 million, or approximately 78% of its current size (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under Article 19 of that Declaration, everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart news and express opinions.

Also, during the past several decades, many countries, especially in Europe, recognized that it was essential to ensure that national statistical systems would be able to produce appropriate data and analyses that adhered to certain professional and scientific standards.

In 1994, the United Nations Statistical Commission adopted the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Two decades later, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the Fundamental Principles, stressing the critical role of high-quality official statistical information in analysis and informed policy decision-making and in support of sustainable development, peace and security.

In sum, to promote informed policy decision-making and prevent governments from hiding data and controlling the message, transparency, objectivity and accountability are crucial. These qualities are necessary for holding government officials accountable and ensuring the public is informed with objective, reliable and timely data and analyses.

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

Most countries with low fertility rates are expected to experience population decline and demographic ageing throughout the remaining decades of the 21st century. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 21 2025 (IPS)

Many countries around the world have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, but one country stands out with its exceptionally low fertility rate.

So, which country currently has the lowest fertility rate on the planet? Is that country

• Singapore
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland?

Some additional demographic information may be helpful. This country’s fertility rate, which has been below the replacement level for forty years, declined to approximately one-third the replacement level in 2023, or 0.72 births per woman. The fertility rate in 2023 was a fraction of levels about fifty and seventy years ago, which were 3.8 and 6.2 births per woman, respectively (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The fertility rate of this country is expected to remain less than half the replacement level for the next thirty years and stay well below the replacement level for the rest of the 21st century.

The country has implemented various measures to address its low fertility rate, including childcare subsidies, tax reductions, childcare services, cash payments to parents, and extended maternity and paternity leave.

Fertility rates below the replacement level are becoming the global norm. In over half of all the countries in the world, representing over two-thirds of the world’s population, the fertility rate is below 2.1 births per woman

The country’s president declared population decline a national emergency and established a committee to prepare a plan to address its low fertility rate, population decline, and demographic ageing. A new Ministry of Population Strategy Planning has also been established to manage these issues.

The answer to the question of which country currently has the lowest fertility rate on the planet is the Republic of Korea, commonly referred to as South Korea.

Because of its high fertility rate in the recent past, the population of South Korea grew relatively rapidly over the past 75 years. From a population of nearly 20 million in 1950, the population of South Korea reached approximately 36 million by 1975 and about 52 million in 2025.

The past rapid growth of South Korea’s population is over and is being replaced by a rapid decline of its population.

By the end of the 21st century, the population of South Korea is expected to be approximately the same size as it was in 1950, around 22 million.

Population projections for South Korea consistently show a declining population over the coming 75 years. The various variants of United Nations population projections, for example, all show a rapidly declining population for South Korea over the coming decades.

The United Nations medium variant population projection expects South Korea’s current population of about 52 million to decline to approximately 22 million by the year 2100.

The UN’s high and low variants also project South Korea’s current population to be smaller in 2100 at approximately 32 and 14 million, respectively. The constant variant, which assumes the country’s fertility rate will remain constant at its current level, projects South Korea’s population to be 17 million by the century’s close (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Besides population decline, South Korea is also expected to experience rapid demographic ageing. South Korea’s young population of the recent past has been replaced by an older population that is expected to be even older in the coming years.

In 1950, the median age of South Korea’s population was about 18 years, and the proportion of the population 65 years or older was about 3%. The country’s current median age is 46 years, and about 20% of the population is 65 years and older.

South Korea’s median age is expected to continue increasing, reaching 57 years in 2050 and 60 years by the close of the century. Also, the proportion of the population aged 65 years or older is projected to reach 40 percent in 2050 and 45 percent by 2100 (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Why do the population projections show a declining population for South Korea over the coming decades?

The answer to that question is relatively straightforward. South Korea is simply experiencing fewer births than deaths. In 2023, for example, the numbers of births and deaths were approximately 236 thousand and 346 thousand, respectively, yielding a natural change (births minus deaths) of -109 thousand.

The reason births are outnumbered by deaths in South Korea is that the country’s fertility rate is well below the replacement level.

And why is South Korea’s fertility rate so far below the replacement level?

The answer to that vital question is more speculative and complex than explaining the country’s demographic trends. The answer to that question needs some context and explanation about South Korean couples having children.

It is important to recognize world demographic trends. Fertility rates below the replacement level are becoming the global norm. In over half of all the countries in the world, representing over two-thirds of the world’s population, the fertility rate is below 2.1 births per woman.

Among those many countries are some fifty populations, including South Korea, that have a fertility rate well below the replacement level. Those countries, which include China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Spain and Sweden, have a fertility rate below 1.5 births per woman (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Because of low fertility rates, countries are having fewer births than deaths, and that difference yields negative rates of population growth. And because of sustained levels of that negative population growth, countries are facing population decline and demographic ageing.

Various critical factors are believed to be behind the exceptionally low fertility rate in South Korea. Among those factors are higher education, a declining marriage rate, high rates of contraceptive use, lifestyle choices, difficulties finding a suitable mate, personal goals and serious concerns about the future.

Also, additional factors across South Korean society that are contributing to the country’s low fertility rate include a work culture with an exceptionally lengthy workweek, long work hours, and stiff career competition, the high costs of living, especially for housing, education, and childcare, difficulties juggling parenthood with employment, gender inequality in the workplace, particularly the gender pay gap, and the traditional gender roles and inequalities in family and household matters.

Although South Korea’s fertility rate may increase slightly in the coming decades, it is expected to remain substantially below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, resulting in a continuing trend of fewer births than deaths throughout the 21st century.

Many countries, including South Korea, are concerned about the decline and ageing of their respective populations. The governments of those countries are attempting to increase their low fertility rates with pro-natalist policies, incentives, and programs.

A final question concerns whether those pronatalist policies, incentives, and programs of governments will raise today’s low fertility rates back to the replacement level.

Such policies and programs may increase low fertility rates slightly. However, those increases are typically temporary and relatively small, with fertility rates remaining significantly below the replacement level.

Based on the experiences of countries over the past several decades, once a fertility rate falls below the replacement level, especially to 1.5 births per woman or less, the rate remains at low levels. Most population projections for countries with low fertility rates do not expect a return to the replacement level soon.

In conclusion, most countries with low fertility rates, including South Korea, which currently has the world’s lowest fertility rate, are expected to experience population decline and demographic ageing throughout the remaining decades of the 21st century.

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

Marriage rates, especially among young adults, have declined substantially over the past seventy-five years. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 14 2025 (IPS)

Until the middle of the 20th century, marriage between men and women was the societal norm among countries, and the cohabitation of couples was uncommon and stigmatized. In the subsequent decades, however, that situation changed significantly worldwide.

Marriage rates, especially among young adults, have declined substantially over the past seventy-five years. Additionally, women and men who decide to marry are doing so at older ages and having fewer children than in the recent past.

The median ages at first marriage for men and women have been steadily increasing in countries worldwide. The increasing marriage ages are partly due to increased education, employment, and career decisions; the evolving role and improving status of women; lifestyle preferences; and changing societal norms concerning personal relationships between men and women.

Besides marriage at older ages, couples are choosing to have fewer children than they had a half century ago. For example, the world’s average number of births per woman has declined from 5.3 births in 1963 to 2.3 births in 2023. Also, in over half of all countries, representing over two-thirds of the world’s population, fertility rates are below the replacement fertility of 2.1 births per woman.

At the same time that marriage rates have been declining and women are having fewer births, cohabitation, or people living together without being married, has become increasingly acceptable and common in many countries worldwide.

In the United States, for example, the proportions of young adults and older adults living with a partner increased significantly over the past half century. Whereas in 1970 the proportion cohabitating was a fraction of one percent, by 2018 the percentage had increased to nearly 10% among those aged 18 to 24 years and to nearly 15% among those aged 25 to 34 years and those aged 65 years and older (Figure 1).

Source: US Census Bureau.

In 1970, cohabitation preceded about 11% of the marriages in the United States. That percentage increased significantly over the subsequent decades, and currently approximately 75% of marriages are preceded by cohabitation. Also, the large majority of Americans, close to 70%, say cohabitation is acceptable even if a couple doesn’t plan to get married.

With the increasing levels of cohabitation among young adults in the US, the proportion of births to unmarried mothers also increased. Whereas 5% of all births in the United States in 1960 were to unmarried women, the proportion increased to 33% by 2000 and reached approximately 40% by 2021.

Cohabitation is becoming more prevalent in most populations, particularly in Latin America and Western countries. In contrast, cohabitation is less common in some countries, especially in Asia and the Middle East, because of traditional roles and cultural norms. In those countries, such as Indonesia, Jordan, the Philippines, and Egypt, the large majority of adults in ages 18 to 49 years old are married (Figure 2).

Source: World Family Map Report, 2015.

However, even among some traditional countries, cohabitation has increased. For example, despite the religious laws in Iran, increasing numbers of young Iranian couples, especially those living in urban areas, are choosing cohabitation before marriage.

Cohabitation is becoming more prevalent in most populations, particularly in Latin America and Western countries. In contrast, cohabitation is less common in some countries, especially in Asia and the Middle East, because of traditional roles and cultural norms

Non-marital cohabitation is also becoming increasingly common in China, gaining acceptance among young men and women living in urban areas. Similar to many Western countries, cohabitation in China among young adults has been increasing rapidly with older marriage ages, declining fertility levels, and increasing divorce rates.

Also, changes in Chinese laws may contribute to changes in public attitudes toward cohabitation. For example, whereas the Chinese Marriage Law of 1980 referred to “illegal cohabitation”, a 2001 amendment to the law changed the wording to “non-marital cohabitation”.

Similarly, in India, cohabitation is considered a taboo in traditional Indian society. However, over the recent past, cohabitation has become increasingly popular among young men and women in urban centers.

With more Indian women becoming educated, joining the labor force, and gaining financial independence, traditional attitudes toward marriage are shifting towards more acceptance of cohabitation. Again, live-in relationships are being used by many young couples in urban areas to test their compatibility and differences before making a commitment to marriage.

In contrast to many of the traditional countries in Asia and the Middle East, cohabitation across Latin America and the Caribbean has become increasingly prevalent since the 1970s. Also, adults aged 18 to 49 years have relatively low proportions married, often less than 30%.

Because of the comparatively high prevalence of cohabitation in many Latin American countries, the large majority of births in that region are out of wedlock. Between 2016 and 2020, approximately three-quarters of the children born in Latin America are estimated to have been born outside marriage. In countries such as Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico, the percentages of births born out of wedlock in 2020 were no less than 70 percent (Figure 3).

Source: OECD.

Various factors are behind the increasing trend away from marriage and towards cohabitation. Among those factors are testing personal relationships, assessing compatibility, financial benefits, flexibility, widespread availability of modern contraceptives, disillusionment with the institution of marriage, and avoidance of legal and monetary obligations related to marriage, including the risks of divorce.

Cohabitation offers an opportunity for couples to get to know each other in a shared living environment. It permits couples to assess their compatibility and areas of discordance before deciding whether they wish to enter a marriage or remain cohabitating.

Cohabitation also typically avoids the legal process and formalities of marriage. It provides couples with the flexibility to move on with their lives if their personal relationship doesn’t work out. In addition, some men and women may not want to make a long-term commitment and take on the responsibilities and obligations that marriage typically entails.

While some cohabiting couples may choose to avoid making a long-term commitment, others may view cohabitation as providing a promising path to marriage. In many countries, including Brazil, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the large majority of marriages are preceded by cohabitation.

Also, increasingly, in some countries, couples decide to wed after they’ve had children together. Having children for many couples often represents a serious commitment to one’s partner, and marriage provides those couples with a visible way to celebrate their commitment to each other and their family. There are also financial and legal benefits to getting married, including pensions and inheritance matters.

However, some concerns have been raised about the consequences of cohabitation on families. In general, cohabitation is less stable for families with children than marriage and contributes to the rise of single-parent households with fathers missing.

In a global study of over sixty countries, cohabitating couples with children were found to be more likely to break up than married couples. More specifically, in nearly all the countries examined, children born to cohabiting parents were significantly more likely to see their parents break up before age 12 compared to children whose parents were married at their birth.

In sum, over much of the past, marriage between men and women existed as the world’s societal norm, permitting men and women to live together, take part in sex, and have children. After the middle of the 20th century, that societal norm changed significantly, with marriage becoming increasingly replaced or preceded by the cohabitation of men and women and greater numbers of children born out of wedlock.

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

Even with its high healthcare expenditures, the US continues to lag behind other developed countries on virtually every measure of the chances of dying and living, including preventable and treatable deaths. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 6 2025 (IPS)

On the crucial matters of life and death, the United States is a costly anomaly. Simply stated, women and men in the US pay more​ for health but get less​ life.

Although the United States has the highest healthcare costs per capita among developed countries, it does poorly compared to other developed countries on the vital issues of life and death.

The US spends close to twice the amount on healthcare per capita as other developed nations. In 2023, for example, the United States spent approximately $13,400 per person on healthcare, while the comparable average for other OECD countries was about $7,400 (Figure 1).

Source: OECD.

Even with its high healthcare expenditures, the US continues to lag behind other developed countries on virtually every measure of the chances of dying and living, including preventable and treatable deaths.

Despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad
The poor standing of the United States on measures of life and death persists despite the US having: (1) the world’s largest economy; (2) the most powerful military; (3) the third largest land area, population and workforce; (4) enormous amounts of resources; (5) a highly educated population; (5) a top migration destination; and (6) higher expenditures on health care per capita than other developed countries.

Starting at birth, the comparatively poor standing of the United States on matters of life and death is strikingly evident. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than the majority of other developed countries.

In 2023, the US ranked 33rd out of 38 OECD countries in terms of infant mortality. The US infant mortality rate of 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, which in 2023 resulted in 20,162 infant deaths, is more than three times the infant mortality rates of Japan, Norway and Sweden, which were about 1.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

If the US had experienced an infant mortality rate of any of those three countries in 2023, the number of infant deaths would have been about 6,113, or 30% of the actual number of infant deaths.

Regarding maternal deaths, the United States also has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations. Its standing on maternal mortality is well below other developed countries, ranking 30th among OECD countries. In 2021, the US maternal mortality rate was three times the OECD average, i.e., 33 deaths per 100,000 versus 11 deaths per 100,000.

Furthermore, the life expectancy at birth of the United States ranks at about 32nd among OECD countries. In 2023, the US had a life expectancy of about 78 years, compared to an average of about 83 years among peer countries. The US life expectancy at birth is well behind countries such as Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland (Figure 2).

Source: OECD.

It is the case that life expectancy at birth varies considerably across the large territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the life expectancies of all 50 US states fall below the average for comparable developed countries.

With respect to premature death before age 70 years, the US level is substantially higher than those of other developed countries. In 2021, the premature death rate before age 70 years of the United States was approximately twice the average for similar wealthy countries, i.e., 408 versus 228 per 100,000 people below age 70 years.

In the ages 25 to 29 years, men and women in the US experience death rates nearly three times higher than their counterparts in other developed countries. In particular, men and women in the United States are almost twice as likely as those in peer countries to die of cardiovascular diseases before age 70.

Also, US death rates from chronic diseases of the liver, kidneys and respiratory system as well as diabetes are increasing, especially among young people. In contrast, the death rates from those diseases in other developed countries have generally not changed or decreased during the recent past.

The reasons for the increase in chronic diseases among young people in the US are believed to be related to health behavior. For example, the prevalence of diabetes is strongly influenced by diet, respiratory diseases are linked to smoking and chronic liver conditions often result from heavy alcohol consumption.

The poor standing of the United States on the chances of survival continues well into old age. With respect to life expectancy at age 65 years, for example, the US is ranked 30th among OECD countries. Again, the US level is well below the life expectancies at age 65 years of other developed countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland.

Many societal, communal, institutional and cultural factors influence life and death outcomes across the United States. Income, inequalities, access to healthcare, delays for care, lack of health insurance coverage, costs, affordability, shortages of healthcare professionals, administrative complexities and related shortcomings within the healthcare system are certainly critical determinants of survival outcomes and longevity in the US.

Moreover, the United States continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its healthcare sector.

That underperformance is expected to worsen in the near future with the US administration’s proposed tax reduction legislation disproportionally going to the rich that is to be partially offset by huge cuts in Medicaid healthcare coverage, food assistance and related programs aimed at people with limited income, resources and security.

In contrast to the underperformance of the US healthcare, many high-income developed countries have found ways to meet most of the basic healthcare needs of its citizens, including universal coverage.

In addition to the shortcomings of the US healthcare sector, health behavior, including cigarette smoking, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, motor vehicle crashes, firearms deaths, violence including homicides, obesity and the lack of exercise, also affect preventable deaths and average lifespans.

With respect to health behavior, men and women in the United States are doing relatively poorly in comparison to their peers in other developed countries. In terms of obesity, for example, the US level of approximately 42% is the highest among OECD countries with the percentages of many countries being a fraction of the US level, including Italy, Japan and South Korea, all at less than 10 percent.

In terms of daily food consumption, the United States consumes more calories and sugar per capita than any other OECD country. The US also has the highest level of ultra processed food consumption in the world, estimated to account for approximately half of the calorie intake of the average person in the United States.

Regarding motor vehicle crashes, the United States has one of the highest motor vehicle death rates among OECD countries. Among the reasons believed to account for the higher vehicle fatality rate of the US are distracted driving, speeding and impaired driving.

In 2022, for example, the US fatality rate from registered motor vehicles was one of the highest among OECD countries. The motor vehicle fatality rates of some OECD countries, such as Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the UK, were less than half of the US rate (Figure 3).

Source: OECD.

In sum, despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad. Moreover, considering the recent actions and proposed legislation of the US government, the existing healthcare system and the health behavior of the country’s population, the anomaly of healthcare costs and length of life in the United States is not likely to improve any time soon.

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”.

By 2018, the share of one-person households worldwide was estimated at 28%. Looking ahead, this figure is projected to reach 35% by the mid-21st century. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 24 2025 (IPS)

In much of the past, few people lived alone. At the start of the 20th century, one-person households were relatively rare and are estimated to have accounted for less than 10% of all households worldwide.

By the middle of the 20th century, the number of one-person households in the world began to increase markedly. In addition, over the past several decades, one-person households have become more commonplace in many countries. Moreover, in some high-income, more developed countries, one-person households have become the dominant household type.

By 1985, the global proportion of one-person households is estimated to have reached about 23 percent. Several decades later, i.e., by 2018, the proportion of one-person households in the world is estimated to have increased to 28 percent. Regarding the future, the global proportion of one-person households by the middle of the 21st century is projected to reach 35% (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Currently, large differences exist among countries in the proportion of one-person households. In many low-income less developed countries, for example, the proportions of one-person households are relatively low, typically well below 10%. In many more developed countries, in contrast, one-person households represent a large proportion of households.

Among some countries, such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Russia, the proportion of one-person households around 2020 exceeded 40%. Also, the proportions of one-person households in the world’s two most populous countries were 25% for China and 16% for India (Figure 2).

Source: National censuses and surveys.

The proportions of single-person households in many countries increased markedly over the recent past. In the United States, for example, the proportion of one-person households tripled during the second half of the 20th century with the proportion having increased every decade from 1940 to 2020. The proportion of one-person households in the United States in 2020 reached approximately 28% (Figure 3).

Source: US Census Bureau.

More recently during the 21st century, one-person households increased significantly in a number of countries worldwide. For example, the proportions in one-person households increased by 50 percent in Japan and Denmark, nearly doubled in Russia and Norway, and tripled in China (Figure 4).

Source: National censuses and surveys.

A number of major economic, social, cultural and demographic factors contributed to the increases in one-person households. In turn, those increases have led to a number of important consequences for individuals and societies.

Some of the major causes of single-person households include urbanization, a growing economy with rising incomes, financial independence, advanced education levels, high employment rates, and very importantly, improvements in the status of women. Later marriage, delayed childbearing, increased divorce and changing attitudes regarding the family and childbearing are also among the major factors that contributed to the rise of single-person households (Table 1).

In addition, the demographic ageing of populations has been a potent factor contributing to the rise of one-person households. As age structures of populations become older coupled with the incidence of widowhood, the proportions of one-person households in countries have risen markedly among the elderly aged 65 years or older.

In most instances, the elderly have substantially higher proportions living in one-person households than other broad age groups. For example, the proportion of the elderly residing alone is often several times greater than the proportion for individuals below 30 years of age.

The proportions of single-person households in many countries increased markedly over the recent past. In the United States, for example, the proportion of one-person households tripled during the second half of the 20th century with the proportion having increased every decade from 1940 to 2020

Furthermore, in about two dozen countries, which are located primarily in Europe, more than one-third of the elderly are living in one-person households. Also, in some of those countries, such as Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania and Sweden, the proportion of the elderly living alone exceeds 40%.

Among the reported consequences of the rise in single-person households are greater independence, personal freedom, economic independence and self-fulfillment as well as having no children to raise. Some men and women, especially those during their middle ages, may thrive in one-person households.

However, living alone can contribute to stress, loneliness and physical and mental health issues, especially for elderly persons. Moreover, one-person households may face financial strain and increased debt due to having a single income provider.

In addition, men and women living in one-person households may experience reduced social support, feel socially isolated and are at increased risk of cognitive decline, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Those individuals, especially in the oldest age groups, are also at increased risk of having accidents and encountering safety hazards.

Admittedly, not every person who lives alone will experience physical, mental and social problems and face possible cognitive decline issues. It is also the case that living alone is not the same as feeling lonely.

According to surveys, most people living in single-person households indicate being satisfied with their situation. They report that they are doing reasonably well living alone, especially those who have maintained social connections and relations with friends and family.

However, the potential for difficulties to arise in single-person households certainly exists. And that potential is typically higher among the elderly, especially for the oldest age groups. The various risks and problems that may arise in single-person households need to be acknowledged and seriously evaluated by those who reside in such households.

The increases in single-person households also pose challenges for societies, especially more developed countries where the levels are currently the highest. Among those challenges are how to address social isolation, loneliness and potential physical and mental health consequences, especially among the oldest groups.

In addition to raising public awareness regarding the negative impact of loneliness, social connections and community engagement need to be promoted and outreach programs offered to those men and women who are experiencing social isolation.

It is important to recognize that in many countries residing in a single-person household is an individual’s personal choice. It is a lifestyle preference and those individuals are likely to be reasonably content living on their own.

However, for many, particularly those in the oldest age groups, living alone is frequently not a choice but rather a consequence of circumstances that are largely beyond their control.

Individuals who not by choice find themselves living alone may encounter loneliness and feel socially isolated. Those individuals tend to be at increased risk of experiencing physical and mental difficulties, including cognitive decline.

The relatively rapid growth in the numbers and proportions of one-person households across the globe has made it abundantly clear that governments worldwide are facing formidable challenges in providing the necessary support to individuals living alone, especially older adults.

Among the major challenges for governments are the provision of social support, safety measures and healthcare access for those in one-person households. Governments promoting social connections and community engagement as well as the provision of needed healthcare services can be meaningful contributions to reducing the risks of the potential physical and mental health difficulties for individuals living in one-person households.

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”

Despite the global rise in dementia, people living with the condition should continue to enjoy the same human rights as everyone else — including the rights to dignity, autonomy, and participation in decisions about their lives. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 15 2025 (IPS)

As the world’s population of 8.2 billion people increases in size and becomes older due to demographic ageing, the number of people experiencing the long goodbye, or dementia, is rapidly rising.

In 2025, the number of people living with dementia worldwide is estimated to be approximately 60 million. That global number is expected to more than double by 2050, reaching approximately 153 million. That rise presents considerable challenges to social care and health systems as well as families over the coming decades. Again, dementia is rising largely due to world population’s growth and demographic ageing (Table 1).

Source: United Nations and World Health Organization.

By mid-century, the world’s population is expected to gain an additional 1.5 billion people, increasing to 9.7 billion with its median age increasing from 31 years to 36 years. Also over the next twenty-five years, people are expected to live longer with the world’s life expectancy at birth projected to increase from approximately 73 years to 77 years.

Over that same twenty-five-year time period, the world’s population is expected to experience demographic ageing. The proportion of the world’s population aged 65 years or older, for example, is projected to increase from 10% to 16% and the proportion aged 80 years or older is expected to more than double from 2% to 5%.

Dementia is the leading cause of disability and dependency among the elderly. Without individuals, families, communities and governments earnestly addressing and implementing the modifiable risk factors for dementia, the numbers of men and women living with dementia are expected to increase significantly throughout the 21st century.

Despite the expected worldwide rise in dementia, people living with the syndrome should continue to have the same human rights as other members of a population. Among those rights include the right to dignity, autonomy and participation in decision making about their lives.

Unfortunately, however, it is often the case that people living with dementia are denied the basic human rights and freedoms available to other members of a society.

It is also important for the general public, business leaders, healthcare providers and government officials to recognize and understand that dementia is NOT a part of the normal ageing process (Table 2).

Source: World Health Organization and Alzheimer’s Disease International.

Dementia is a syndrome caused by diseases that affect the brain. The condition is not just about memory loss but also affects thinking, behavior and emotion.

Dementia is a general term that results from a variety of diseases and injuries that affect the brain and affect memory, thinking and the ability to perform daily activities. Although many people with dementia can live reasonably well, the condition tends to get notably worse over time and is a significant cause of death among older adults.

Dementia may develop after a stroke or in the context of certain infections such as HIV; as a result of harmful use of alcohol; repetitive physical injuries to the brain; and nutritional deficiencies.

While currently there’s no cure for the long goodbye, various services and support are needed for people living with dementia and their caregivers.

Also, it is NOT the case that nothing can be done to prevent or reduce one’s chances of experiencing the long goodbye. The Lancet Commission on Dementia estimated that approximately 45% of all dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors.

Among the modifiable risk factors are alcohol abuse, smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, social isolation, hearing loss, lower levels of education and vision loss. Other modifiable risk factors for dementia include diabetes, high blood pressure, air pollution, brain injury, depression and high LDL cholesterol (Table 3).

Source: The Lancet Commission on Dementia.

Dementia mainly affects the elderly and is generally more common among women than men. Women tend to live longer than men, thereby increasing their risk of developing dementia. In addition, biological reasons differing between men and women are believed to contribute to the differences in the chances of having dementia.

Surveys indicate that nearly 80% of the general public are concerned about developing dementia at some point in their lives. However, it is important to recognize that not everyone will experience dementia as they age.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, accounting for approximately 60% to 70% of the cases. Also, the large majority of those with Alzheimer’s disease are estimated to be women. Other types of dementia include vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia that may occur with Parkinson’s disease, frontotemporal dementia and mixed dementia.

The Lancet Commission on Dementia estimated that approximately 45% of all dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors

While Alzheimer’s disease is not a part of normal ageing, the chances of getting the disease rises as one grows older. Also, having a family history of Alzheimer’s increases one’s risk of contracting the disease. Some preliminary research suggests that antivirals, antibiotics, vaccines and anti-inflammatory drugs could possibly help to treat, prevent or reduce the risk of dementia.

Among the common symptoms of dementia are: confusion; memory loss; needing help with daily tasks; problems with language and understanding; changes in personality including unusually anxious or irritable; getting lost when walking or driving; and having trouble following a conversation.

Although consciousness is not affected by dementia, the decline in cognitive function is common and may also be accompanied by changes in emotional control. In addition, sometimes changes in mood and behavior may precede the loss of memory.

In the early stages, the symptoms of dementia may be small, irregular and subtle. Over time, however, the symptoms tend to get worse and become more noticeable. Most people with dementia end up needing others, especially family members, to provide them assistance for their daily activities.

The various consequences of the long goodbye are considerable, impacting individuals, families, local communities and societies. The general lack of awareness and understanding of dementia by the public and government officials delays timely diagnosis and the provision of appropriate care as well as taking preventive actions.

If an individual is experiencing cognitive changes, that person should seek medical evaluation. It is also important to understand that many people with dementia can still live well.

However, it is estimated that up to three quarters of those living with dementia worldwide have not received a diagnosis. Moreover, those individuals that have a dementia diagnosis tend to be reluctant to indicate their condition because of the stigma associated with it. Also, surveys have estimated that approximately one-third of care givers worldwide report that they have hidden the diagnosis of dementia of a family member.

Besides dementia leading to dependency for the individual having the syndrome, it typically substantially increases the emotional burdens and health consequences on caregivers. Moreover, dementia often results in considerable economic costs relating to the provision of needed healthcare services.

The highest levels of dementia around 2024 are typically reported among the older populations of more developed countries. Finland and the United Kingdom have the highest reported rates of dementia of 55 and 43 per 100,000 population, respectively. The proportion of those aged 65 years or older having dementia is about 7% in both countries. In eighth place is the United States with a rate of dementia of 33 per 100,000 population, with approximately 10% of its population aged 65 years or older having dementia (Figure 1).

Source: CEOWORLD Magazine.

While dementia is rapidly rising worldwide, it is important for people to understand that dementia is NOT a normal part of ageing. Dementia is a syndrome caused by diseases that affect the brain and a number of things can be done to prevent or reduce an individual’s chances of getting the long goodbye.

In brief, staying mentally, physically and socially active, not smoking, eating a balanced healthy diet, keeping alcohol consumption within recommended limits, reducing hearing and vision loss, and keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels in check contribute to maintaining healthy brains as men and women age.

In conclusion, the continuing growth of the world’s population and demographic ageing during the 21st century are contributing to the expected rise of dementia that present considerable challenges to social care and health systems as well as families. If individuals, families, communities and governments earnestly address dementia’s various modifiable risk factors, their collective efforts can contribute significantly to reducing the worldwide rise of the long goodbye.

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 US administration’s actions, policies, program cuts and employee firings will not improve but likely only worsen America’s mediocre standing on virtually every major measure of societal wellbeing and development. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 2 2025 (IPS)

For most voters, to make America great again, as the 47th president has repeatedly pledged, meant to make the United States markedly superior globally. However, the administration’s actions, policies and program cuts will not improve but only worsen the US’s mediocre standing among advanced countries.

Nevertheless, in order to assess the administration’s prospects to make America great again, it is appropriate and necessary to establish the current standing or rank of the US across various important dimensions.

Regarding economic strength and military power, the United States has the highest rankings worldwide. The US gross national product (GNP), for example, is in first place and well ahead of other countries (Figure 1).

Source: World Bank, OECD and Global Fire Power.

In per capita income, however, the United States falls to around 5th place behind countries such as Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and Ireland. Furthermore, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio is the fourth largest among OECD economies, behind Japan, Greece and Italy, and is at its highest level since World War II.

With respect to military power, the United States is in first place. The US maintains its lead in warfare with its sizable armed forces combined with substantial advanced military technologies.

One valued and recognized dimension of societal development and human wellbeing is life expectancy at birth. The US life expectancy at birth of about 78 years is lower than the OECD average of about 80 years. In fact, the US life expectancy at birth ranks about 32nd and well behind Canada, Italy, Japan and Switzerland.

In terms of its ranking, the US life expectancy at birth of about 78 years is lower than the OECD average of about 80 years. In fact, the US life expectancy at birth ranks about 32nd and well behind Canada, Italy, Japan and Switzerland. Despite the fact that the US life expectancy lags behind other wealthy nations, the country’s president issued an executive order rolling back policies to limit drug spending by Medicaid and Medicare.

A related indicator of development is the infant mortality rate. Similar to life expectancy at birth, the infant mortality rate of the United States ranks poorly in comparison to other high-income countries. The US rate is approximately three times the rates of Japan, Norway and Sweden (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations and OECD.

Again despite its relatively low ranking, the administration made far-reaching financial cuts in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those and related actions by the administration have contributed to grinding the National Institutes of Health to a halt, set back its scientific reporting and sent shockwaves through academia and the biomedical research institutions.

Another frequent measure of a country’s standing in the world is the level of poverty among its population. Among OECD countries, the United States has the second highest poverty level at 18% and well below Canada (11%), France (9%), Germany (12%), Italy (13 %), Switzerland (10%) and the United Kingdom (12%).

An important dimension reflecting security and public safety is the level of homicides. Again among the OECD countries, the United States has the fourth highest intentional homicide rate and is double the OECD average. Moreover, the US homicide rate is more than ten times the rates of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway and Switzerland.

A second measure related to crime is a country’s incarceration rate. Among the OECD countries, the United States has the highest incarceration rate, which is approximately five times the OECD average rate.

One indicator reflecting the health of members of a population is the proportion of its adult population who are obese. Again, the United States is well ahead other developed countries in its level of obesity (Figure 3).

Source: OECD, PEW Research Center, Economic and Social Rights Fulfillment Index and World Happiness Report.

The rate of obesity among US adults is approximately 42% or nearly double the OECD average proportion. In striking contrast, the levels of other countries are much lower, such as in France (10%), Germany (23%), Italy (18%), Japan (8%), Russia (24%), Switzerland (15%) and the United Kingdom (17%). Moreover, with the administration laying off 10,000 employees at the Health and Human Services Department, America’s health conditions are not likely to improve but worsen.

While it leads the world in military power and GNP, the United States is well behind many other advanced countries with respect to life expectancy, infant mortality, health, poverty, homicide and crime, family structure, education, human rights, status of women, maternal mortality and reported happiness

A widely recognized measure of societal development and valued by a country’s citizens is the level of education provided to the general public. Among the top countries having a well-developed public education system are Japan, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, Germany and Canada, with the US ranked at approximately the 12th position.

Similarly with respect to student performance at the primary and secondary levels, America is not among the top ten countries. The administration’s decision to eliminate the Department of Education will likely worsen the US standing on public education.

In terms of family structure, the United States leads the world in single-parent household rates, with the large majority of those households missing a father.

In 2023, nearly one in four children in the US aged 0‒17 years, totaling about 19 million, were living in a household without their biological, step, or adoptive father, mostly with their mother (85% of cases). The US proportion of children in single-parent households is markedly higher than the levels of Japan (7%), Mexico (7%), Germany (12%), Canada (15%) and France (16%).

Human rights is a vital aspect of societal well-being and development. The United States typically ranks lower than other high-income OECD countries on human rights indicators.

Among 24 high-income OECD countries, the United States ranks at the bottom at 24th with respect to economic and social rights. And the situation has worsened recently as the president signed a sweeping executive order denouncing federal worker unions as hostile and rescinding collective bargaining agreements of federal union workers.

Closely related to human rights is the status of women. Here again, the United States is not among the top ten countries. Far ahead of the US with respect to the status of women are countries such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Among 29 OECD countries, the US ranks 19th.

Moreover, two indicators of the status of women that have worsened in the US are maternal mortality and political violence against women. The US has the highest level of maternal mortality among OECD countries. Also, women in the US who take on political leadership are frequent targets of violence and harassment.

Finally with respect to reported happiness among its citizens, the United States is not among the top countries. Whereas the top four countries in 2025 are Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, the US ranks 24th among countries in terms of life satisfaction.

The relatively low ranking of the United States on reported happiness is believed to be due to the cost of living, economic uncertainty and the political polarization. The administration’s recent decisions and rhetoric have only increased economic uncertainty and political polarization across the United States.

Also, many are concerned about proposals to alter the country’s social safety. As the administration and Republican Congressional leaders push to pass a tax cut extension, they are considering reforms and cost reductions to the country’s major entitlement programs that are consuming about half of all federal spending, in particular Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

In sum, while it leads the world in military power and GNP, the United States is well behind many other advanced countries with respect to life expectancy, infant mortality, health, poverty, homicide and crime, family structure, education, human rights, status of women, maternal mortality and reported happiness.

The administration’s actions, policies, program cuts and employee firings will not improve but likely only worsen America’s mediocre standing on virtually every major measure of societal wellbeing and development. Finally, about that unremitting pledge by the US president to make America great again, it’s well on its way to the graveyard of vain political slogans.

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 world’s elderly are not only growing in number and percent of the world’s population, but they are also experiencing increasing longevity, a welcomed blessing for humanity. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 25 2025 (IPS)

The 20th century ushered in the profound rise of the elderly. During the 21st century, the elderly as a result of their rising numbers and growing proportions of country populations will be increasingly impacting government policies, programs and expenditures.

Prior to the 20th century, the proportion of the world’s population aged 65 years and older was likely around 2 to 3%. By 1900, that proportion is estimated to have increased to approximately 4% with the elderly numbering about 66 million. By the middle of the 20th century, the world’s elderly proportion aged 65 years and older is estimated to have reached 5% and their number nearly doubled to 126 million (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

At the start of the 21st century, the percent of the world’s population who were elderly increased to 7 percent and they numbered about 422 million. Today the estimated percent elderly is 10 percent, double the 1950 level. The number of people aged 65 years and older in 2025 is estimated to be about 857 million, which is approximately seven times the number of elderly in 1950.

The world’s elderly are not only growing in number and percent of the world’s population, but they are also experiencing increasing longevity, a welcomed blessing for humanity.

In 1950, the life expectancies of the world’s population at ages 65 and 80 years were about 11 and 5 years, respectively. Over the subsequent decades, the life expectancies for the elderly increased, reaching nearly 16 and 7 years at the beginning of the 21st century. The life expectancies at ages 65 and 80 years today are estimated to be close to 18 and 8 years, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Furthermore, the proportion of the world’s population aged 80 years and older, which was 0.6% in 1950, more than doubled to 1.6% by the close of the 20th century. Today the proportion of the world’s population aged 80 years and older has increased to nearly 2.1% and is expected to more than double to 4.6% by 2050 and double again to 9.3% by the year 2100.

The life expectancies of the elderly are also expected to continue rising in the years ahead. By the close of the 21st century, for example, the life expectancies at ages 65 and 80 years are expected to reach 22 and 11 years, respectively, or double the 1950 levels.

It is also noteworthy that as women generally live longer than men, a clear majority of the elderly are women. Today approximately 55% of the world’s 857 million persons aged 65 years and older are women. At older ages the sex imbalance is even larger. Among the world’s 170 million people aged 80 years and older, for example, about 62% are women.

Considerable diversity exists across countries in the life expectancies of the elderly. The estimated levels for 2025 among some developed countries, such as Japan, France and Australia, are approximately double the life expectancies of the elderly among some developing countries, such as Nigeria, Chad and Togo (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

For example, while Japan’s estimated life expectancies for the elderly in 2025 at ages 65 and 80 years are 23 and 11 years, respectively, the corresponding life expectancies for Nigeria’s elderly are 12 and 5 years.

Moreover, the differences among countries with respect to elderly life expectancies are expected to persist throughout the 21st century. By 2100, the projected life expectancies for Japan at ages 65 and 80 years are 30 and 16 years, respectively, versus 14 and 6 years for Nigeria at those ages (Figure 4).

Source: United Nations.

The rising numbers and proportions of the elderly combined with their increasing longevity have important economic, social and political consequences for countries and their citizens.

Perhaps the most evident consequence today concerns government financed retirement programs for the elderly. As the numbers and the proportions of the elderly increase, the retirement benefits for the elderly create financial strains on the viability of national programs.

Recognizing, understanding and preparing for the profound rise of the elderly will not only facilitate this historic transition but it will also contribute substantially to addressing its many important consequences

To address the increasing costs of national retirement programs, some governments are raising the official retirement ages in order to receive full benefits. Other governments are considering raising taxes and also reducing retirement benefits.

Another important consequence of the rising numbers and proportions of the elderly is their increasing needs for healthcare. Those needs lead to greater spending on medical care, long-term assistance and pharmaceuticals. And among the common health concerns of the elderly are heart ailments, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity, urinary incontinence, social isolation, depression, hearing loss and falls.

In addition to medical care, many of the elderly, especially at the older ages, are in need of assistance, caregiving and help with activities of daily living.

In most developing countries the elderly usually reside with extended family members. In developed countries, in contrast, the elderly typically live with a spouse, followed by many living by themselves.

Without adequate government funding and services, people, in particular women, face increased pressures to provide care and assistance to their elderly relatives. In many instances, those pressures lead to strains, stresses and personal burnout for the caregivers.

The rising numbers and proportions of the elderly can also lead to political controversies among the different generations, especially regarding government expenditures, taxes, pensions and healthcare.

One increasingly important area of difference between the generations concerns the amount of government funds and resources that should be provided to the elderly versus to the young. In particular, the elderly and young adults are likely to have differing views regarding the appropriate balance of government resources and support allocated to eldercare versus childcare.

The elderly are more likely to back financial increases for pensions and limit spending on education. Also, the elderly are more likely to be politically conservative and emphasize tradition, customs and ritual. In contrast, young adults are more likely to be politically liberal, stress individual freedoms, and embrace innovation and changing social norms.

In sum, the profound rise of the world’s elderly that was ushered in during the 20th century is continuing throughout the 21st century.

As a result of their growth in absolute numbers and relative proportions of the world’s population coupled with their increasing longevity, the rise of the elderly is having significant consequences for countries and their citizens. Recognizing, understanding and preparing for the profound rise of the elderly will not only facilitate this historic transition but it will also contribute substantially to addressing its many important consequences.

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 U.S. fertility rate has declined from nearly four births per woman in the early 1960s to a record low of approximately 1.6 births per woman today. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 17 2025 (IPS)

As the United States confronts the unflinching demographic piper with the stark facts of reality, the new administration and Congress are denying, disengaging and dismantling.

Across virtually every demographic dimension, including population growth, fertility, mortality, morbidity, longevity, immigration, asylum, composition, ethnicity and ageing, the new US administration is repudiating, reframing and regressing on government policies, programs and commitments.

With respect to population growth, the United States is increasingly dependent on immigration. For the first time since 1850, when the US Census Bureau began compiling data on nativity, immigration accounted for the entire growth of the US population between 2022-23.

Furthermore, for the remainder of 21st century, immigration is expected to continue having significant consequences on the growth, composition and structure of the U.S. population.

The US Census Bureau’s main population projection assumes an annual net immigration level of nearly one million throughout the remainder of the 21st century. Accordingly, the US population is expected to reach 360 million by mid-century and peak at approximately 370 million by 2080 (Figure 1).

Source: US Census Bureau and author’s calculations.

Without future immigration, however, the U.S. population will begin to decline. If immigration to the country is stopped, the US population is projected to begin declining soon and fall below 300 million by 2060. Furthermore, the U.S. population without immigration is expected to decline to 226 million by the end of the century, which would be two-thirds its current population size.

If immigration to the country is stopped, the US population is projected to begin declining soon and fall below 300 million by 2060. Furthermore, the U.S. population without immigration is expected to decline to 226 million by the end of the century, which would be two-thirds its current population size

Also, about 20% of the country’s current labor force is foreign born with immigrant workers heavily involved in residential construction, agriculture, senior care and hospitality. Nevertheless, the administration seeks to modify US immigration laws and policies.

Among the administration’s modifications are policies and programs relating to expedited removal, self-deportation, mass deportation, unauthorized migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, temporary protected status, immigrant workers and legal immigrants.

Although the president ordered the shutdown of the US refugee program, a federal judge restored it temporarily while the lawsuit is pending with the program at a standstill and no refugees arriving in the country.

The composition of the U.S. population is also undergoing increasing diversity. The proportion of foreign-born living in the US, which was at a record low of about 5% in 1970, has reached a record high of 15.8% in 2025 with approximately 54 million foreign-born residents.

Moreover, while the U.S. non-Hispanic white population has been declining, the numbers of African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans have been increasing.

The ethnic composition of the foreign-born in the U.S. has also changed markedly over the recent past. Throughout the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the US foreign-born population was predominantly from European countries, e.g., Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom.

In 2022, the top five countries contributing to the U.S. foreign-born population were no longer of European origin. The countries of Europe have been replaced by Mexico, India, China, Philippines, and El Salvador, with Mexico accounting for nearly one quarter of the foreign-born in the United States.

Regarding U.S. fertility, the country’s rate has declined from nearly four births per woman in the early 1960s to a record low of approximately 1.6 births per woman today. With respect to expected future rates, the US Census Bureau and other organizations issuing population projections do not anticipate US fertility returning to the replacement level of about 2 births per woman any time soon.

Despite the fact that US fertility has fallen well below the replacement level, the president upon taking office issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The order declared that that citizenship would be denied to babies who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The president insists that the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, specifically Section 1, does not apply to the births of unauthorized migrants.

The question of birthright citizenship has moved through the country’s courts with a nationwide pause imposed on the president’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants and foreign residents. The administration has pushed for the pause to be lifted by the US Supreme Court, which recently signaled it would consider the request to review the nationwide pause.

Turning to the important matter of infant, child and maternal mortality, the United States has the highest rates of any other high-income country. Furthermore, with a life expectancy at birth of about 78 years in 2022, the United States ranks around 50th in life expectancy among countries and about 30th among the 38 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Table 1).

Source: United Nations and WHO.

To make America great again with respect to its comparatively high mortality levels is a significant undertaking. To do so would require increased political commitment, comprehensive medical and health programs and additional financial resources. And at this point in time, it appears highly unlikely that the administration will take those steps.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the country’s mortality rates and life expectancy lag behind other wealthy nations, the US president recently issued an executive order rolling back policies to limit drug spending by Medicaid and Medicare.

Also in its first weeks, the new administration announced far-reaching cuts in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The government’s various actions have ground the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to a halt, set back its scientific reporting, censored terminology, disrupted communication activities about NIH grants and sent shockwaves through academia and the biomedical research institutions.

The new administration also imposed a new policy to cap indirect costs for NIH research grants at 15 percent. That policy change would cut billions of dollars in funding for life-saving research to develop cures and treatments for diseases.

At the Veteran Affairs agency, clinical trials have been delayed, contracts canceled and support staff fired. A much deeper round of cuts are being considered, including eliminating some 80,000 jobs and reviewing tens of thousands of contracts.

Recently, however, a federal judge ruled that federal agencies must immediately offer probationary workers purged by the new administration their jobs back. The judge found that the mass firings of employees from various government departments did not follow the law and the administration’s justification for the firings of works with probationary status was a sham. However, the administration has indicated that it would be appealing the court’s ruling.

Another judge ruled similarly saying that it was likely that the administration had engaged in an illegal scheme spanning broad swaths of the federal workforce and the administration was barred from carrying out future mass reductions.

The demographic ageing of the U.S. population has created economic concerns for the country. In 1960 about 9% of the U.S. population was aged 65 years or older. That proportion has nearly doubled to 17% today and is expected to reach close to 25% around mid-century.

With the noteworthy proportional increases in the population aged 65 years and older, the major entitlement programs, especially those aimed at the elderly, are consuming about half of all federal spending, i.e., 21% on Social Security and 28% on Medicare, Medicaid and other health care for fiscal year 2025 (Figure 2).

Source: US Treasury Department.

As the newly elected president and Republican Congressional leaders try to pass a tax cut extension to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act signed into law by the president in 2018, they are seriously considering possible cost reductions to the major entitlement programs, especially with respect to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Additional proposals for reform and cutbacks are also being considered to reduce the rising cost of Social Security, which faces insolvency by 2033 if nothing is done by Congress. Among the various offered proposals to reduce costs are increasing the program’s age for receiving full retirement benefits, raising tax rates and the income limit earmarked for Social Security, and reducing the levels of benefits provided.

In sum, the United States is increasingly being confronted by the realities of the demographic piper. Despite those realities, the new administration and Republican Congressional leaders have decided to revise many of the country’s policies, eliminate or downsize programs, curtail scientific reporting, crackdown on dissent, decrease federal expenditures and reduce the federal workforce.

Unfortunately, the various changes, reductions, cutbacks, curtailments and fanciful promises made by the new administration do not address but only exacerbate the stark realities of the resolute demographic piper.

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”.

Countries are experiencing demographic ageing due to lower levels of fertility and mortality. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Mar 10 2025 (IPS)

Country populations worldwide are experiencing the demographic ageing transformation. The relatively young populations experienced during most of the 20th century are increasingly being transformed into the older populations of the 21st century.

Rather than attempting to return to the comparatively youthful age structures of the past, countries need to recognize and accept the reality of the demographic ageing of their respective populations

The historic demographic ageing transformation raises vital economic, political and social concerns for countries worldwide. Those concerns relate especially to the labor force, consumption, taxation, voting, retirement, pensions, healthcare, chronic illnesses, long-term care, social services, rising costs and program insolvencies.

Countries are experiencing demographic ageing due to lower levels of fertility and mortality. People are having fewer children than in the recent past, with the fertility rates of more than half of all countries falling well below the replacement level of two births per woman. In addition, mortality rates worldwide are lower than in the past accompanied by increasing longevity of both women and men with growing numbers of centenarians.

One straightforward indicator of demographic ageing is the median age of a population. Over the recent past, the median age of the world’s population increased markedly.

The world’s median age increased from 22 years in 1950 to 31 years today. By mid-century, the median age is expected to increase to 36 years. And by the close of the century, the median age of the world’s population is projected to reach 42 years, nearly twice the 1950 level (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Considerable variation exists in the median ages of countries. In 1950, for example, while some countries such as Austria and Belgium had median ages of about 35 years, other countries such as Niger and the Philippines had a median age of about 15 years. In 2025, the highest median ages of approximately 50 years are in Italy and Japan. In contrast, the countries with the lowest median age of about 15 years in 2025 include the Central African Republic and Niger.

The median ages of country populations are continuing to increase. By 2050, for example, countries with the highest median ages include South Korea at 57 years and Italy and Japan at 53 years. In contrast, countries with the lowest median ages include the Central African Republic at 19 years and Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at 20 years.

The median ages for countries are expected to continue increasing during the second half of the 21st century. By the year 2100, among the projected oldest countries are China and South Korea with median ages of approximately 60 years. And among the youngest countries at that future date are expected to be Chad and the DRC with median ages of 32 years.

Another insightful measure reflecting the demographic ageing transformation is the proportion of the population who are elderly, i.e., aged 65 years or older. Similar to the median age, the percentages elderly for the world’s population were relatively low during the second half of the 20th century, around 5 to 7 percent, and then increased markedly reaching 10 percent by 2025. The percentages are expected to continue increasing, reaching 16% by 2050 and 24% by the close of the 21st century (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Similar to the median ages, the proportions of national populations who are elderly vary considerably and are also continuing to increase. In 1950, for example, while the proportion elderly in some countries such as France and Belgium was 11 percent, in other countries such as Niger and Mauritania the proportion was 1 percent. By 2025, the highest estimated proportions elderly are in Japan at 30% and Italy at 25%. In contrast, countries with the lowest percent elderly at about 2% include Chad and Zambia

By 2050, countries with the highest projected percent elderly include South Korea at 40% and Japan at 38%. Again in striking contrast, countries with the lowest projected percentages include the Central African Republic and Chad at approximately 2%.

At the close of the 21st century, China and South Korea are expected to have the highest proportions elderly at about 45%. As with the median ages, the lowest expected proportions elderly are among African countries, such as Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo at about 10%.

It is widely recognized, especially by governments, international agencies, businesses, non-governmental organizations and scholars, that populations worldwide are experiencing the demographic ageing transformation. It is also acknowledged that the demographic ageing of populations is resulting in formidable economic, political and social challenges for nations.

Government officials are concerned about the rising economic costs and projected insolvencies of programs for the elderly. They are also concerned about the negative reactions by the public to policy and program changes, especially with respect to retirement, pensions, benefits, social services and healthcare. In particular, attempts and suggestions to raise the official retirement age and reduce healthcare coverage for the elderly have been made with objections and protests.

Reluctant to accept the realities of the demographic ageing era, many governments have tended to postpone accepting the needed changes in policies, programs and expenditures for their ageing populations.

Rather than fully embracing the demographic ageing transformation, many governments have attempted to raise their low fertility rates back to at least the replacement level. By doing so, they are hoping to return to the comparatively youthful age structures of the past.

The various attempts to raise fertility rates and return to the younger age structures of the past have not achieved their desired goals. In addition, international population projections expect fertility rates to remain below the replacement level for the foreseeable future.

Rather than attempting to return to the comparatively youthful age structures of the past, countries need to recognize and accept the reality of the demographic ageing of their respective populations.

Following that recognition and acceptance, governments and their citizens need to begin actively adjusting to the many formidable challenges arising from the demographic ageing transformation. Moreover, the sooner they begin making the necessary adjustments and changes, the smoother and more straightforward will be the transition to their ageing populations of 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”.

In contrast to the rapid growth of the high fertility countries like the DRC and Nigeria, some of the largest populations in 1950, such as Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia, have grown relatively slowly during the recent past. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Mar 4 2025 (IPS)

As the world’s population increased five-fold since the start of the 20th century, the changes in the geographic distribution of the billions of people across the planet have been ongoing and significant.

Those continuing changes in the distribution of the world’s population have weighty economic, political, social and environmental consequences (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Particularly noteworthy are the changing proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe. At the start of the 20th century the proportions of the world’s population residing in Africa and Europe were 8% and 25%, respectively. By the end of that century, the proportions were similar, 13% for Africa and 12% for Europe. By 2050, however, the proportions of the world’s population residing in Africa and Europe are expected to be very different at 26% and 7%, respectively (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Moreover by the close of the 21st century, those proportions are projected to be 37% for Africa and 6% for Europe. In other words, whereas Europe’s population was three times the size of Africa’s population at the start of the 20th century, Africa’s population at the close of the 21st century is expected to be six times larger than Europe’s population.

Another noteworthy change concerns the proportion of the world’s population in Asia. Since the start of the 20th century, the proportion of the world’s population residing in Asia has been close to 60 percent. By the close of the 21st century, however, that proportion is projected to decline substantially to 45%.

The proportions of the world’s population residing in the remaiing three major regions have been comparatively stable and have remained in single digits. The proportions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania are approximately 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

The primary reason for the changing distribution of the world’s population has to do with the differences in the growth rates of the national populations residing in those major geographic regions. As a result of sustained rates of below replacement fertility in more than half of all countries, the populations of more than sixty countries have already peaked and are now facing demographic decline.

At the same time that many countries are experiencing below replacement fertility and facing population decline, many other countries, primarily developing countries in Africa and Asia, have relatively high fertility rates. Those high fertility rates are resulting in rapid rates of growth for their respective national populations.

In addition to the changing geographic distribution of the world’s population across regions, the rank of the twelve largest country populations is also continuing to undergo change due to considerable differences in demographic growth rates (Table 2).

Source: United Nations.

Two countries that are experiencing particularly rapid population growth are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Nigeria. With the DRC and Nigeria having total fertility rates of about five and six births per woman, respectively, their populations have increased rapidly.

The DRC’s population of about 12 million in 1950 increased to 51 million by the year 2000, a fourfold increase, and to 109 million by 2025, a ninefold increase over the 75-year period. Similarly, Nigeria’s population of about 37 million in 1950 increased to nearly 130 million by the close of the 20th century and to 238 million by 2025.

Furthermore, the population of the DRC is projected to increase to 431 million by the close of the 21st century, which is more than thirty-five times greater than the size of its population in 1950 and would make the DRC the fifth largest country in the world by the year 2100. Similarly, Nigeria’s population is projected to increase to 477 million, which would make it the fourth largest country in the world at the close of the 21st century.

In contrast to the rapid growth of the high fertility countries like the DRC and Nigeria, some of the largest populations in 1950, such as Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia, have grown relatively slowly during the recent past.

Due to sustained rates of fertility below the replacement level of two births per woman, those countries are among the many that are expected to experience population decline during the 21st century. In addition, after approximately four or five decades, the populations of Italy and Japan are expected to be smaller than they were in 1950 (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Also, China’s population, which was 544 million in 1950, is projected to experience significant population decline during the 21st century. The population of China is expected to fall from a high of about 1.43 billion in 2020 to approximately 633 million by the year 2100.

In contrast to China, India’s population is continuing to increase. In 2022, India’s growing population overtook China to become the world’s largest national population. Furthermore, India’s current population of nearly 1.5 billion is expected to peak at 1.7 billion around 2060 and then decline back down to 1.5 billion by the close of the century.

The populations of some countries, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, are relying on international migration for the continuation of their population growth. However, without immigration and with their fertility rates below replacement levels, those traditional immigration countries are also projected to experience declines in the size of their populations.

Even with continuing immigration, the growth rates of the populations of those countries are comparatively modest. The United States, for example, is projected to increase from about 347 million to 421 million by 2100, which is an increase of about 20 percent. Despite that increase, the rank of the US population among countries is expected to decline from the third largest in 2025 to the sixth largest in the world at the century’s close.

As described above, the significant changes in the geographic distribution of the world’s population across the planet and the ranking in the size of country populations that occurred during the 20th century are expected to continue throughout the 21st century. Those ongoing changes have enormous economic, political, social and environmental consequences.

Fully recognizing and understanding the changes in the geographic distribution of the world’s billions of people among regions and the ranking in the size of country populations will substantially increase the chances of properly and successfully addressing the many resulting challenging consequences.

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 world’s population is not collapsing and is expected to continue growing for at least another 60 years. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Feb 26 2025 (IPS)

Yeah, governments are having a hissy fit over it. And their hissy fit is not over the usual concerns of governments such as defense, the economy, trade, inflation, unemployment, crime, or terrorism.

Governments are having a hissy fit over a single demographic issue. And that demographic issue is not about deaths, disease, life expectancy, urbanization, immigration, density or ageing.

Their hissy fit is simply over one thing. And that one thing is low birth rates.

Dominating the news headlines, pushing aside reality and the facts, attempting to sway public opinion and aiming to increase reproductive behavior, especially of young women, doomsday predictions about the consequences of low birth rates for humanity’s survival are being promoted.

World population now stands at a record high of 8.2 billion people and is continuing to increase, now adding approximately 70 million annually. That record high of 8.2 billion is double the world population of fifty years ago and quadruple the world population of a hundred years ago

Those erroneous predictions include that world population will collapse, humanity is headed toward near extinction, human civilization is dying out and homo sapiens will soon disappear off the face of the planet.

In actual fact, and contrary to their doomsday predictions, the world’s population is not collapsing and is expected to continue growing for at least another 60 years.

For most of human history, the growth of the world’s population was relatively slow and close to stable due to high rates of both births and deaths. The one billion world population mark wasn’t reached until 1804.

In contrast to the past, the 20th century, especially the second half, was an exceptional period of rapid world population growth. In the early 1960s, for example, world population’s annual growth rate reached a high of 2.3 percent and world population more than doubled in size during the second half of the 20th century. Moreover, the world’s population increased from 2 billion to 8 billion in slightly less than one hundred years.

World population now stands at a record high of 8.2 billion people and is continuing to increase, now adding approximately 70 million annually. That record high of 8.2 billion is double the world population of fifty years ago and quadruple the world population of a hundred years ago.

Moreover, according to international demographic projections, world population is expected to reach 9 billion by the year 2037, 10 billion by 2060 and 10.2 billion by the close of the 21st century.

So, homo sapiens are NOT expected to disappear from the face of the planet, as the doomsayers are repeatedly proclaiming.

Yes, it is certainly the case that many countries are experiencing fertility rates that are below the replacement level of about two births per woman. Those countries include both developed and developing countries across most regions of the world (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

As a result of sustained rates of below replacement fertility, the populations of many of those countries have peaked and are facing demographic decline and population ageing accompanied by substantial increases in the share of elderly people in their populations.

As countries wish to avoid demographic decline as well as rapid population ageing, governments are attempting to reverse their low fertility levels.

Those governments are actively promoting various pro-natalist policies, programs and incentives aimed at returning to the relatively high fertility rates of the past or at least returning to replacement level fertility rates.

Are those pronatalist policies, programs and incentives likely to be successful in raising fertility rates back to the replacement level of about two births per woman?

The simple answer to that important question is: no, not likely to be successful.

Most international population projections do not foresee a return to replacement level fertility rates for the foreseeable future. By the year 2050, for example, the current low fertility rates of countries are expected to remain well below the replacement level.

Why are the fertility rates of many countries below the replacement level? A host of societal factors and individual reasons contribute to pushing fertility rates well below the replacement level (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

Among those factors and reasons are lower rates of child mortality, urbanization, industrialization, women’s labor force participation, access to modern contraceptives, increased higher education, child care costs, lifestyle changes, changing role and status of women and men, difficulties finding a suitable partner, work and family life balance, delayed marriage and childbearing, greater investments and costs in raising a child.

At the same time that many countries are experiencing below replacement fertility, many other countries, primarily developing countries in Africa and Asia, have relatively high fertility rates (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

As a result of those relatively high fertility rates, the populations of those countries are expected to experience rapid population growth during the 21st century.

However, those African and Asian countries are also expected to experience declines in their fertility levels over the coming decades. By 2050, for example, most of those countries are projected to experience substantial declines in their current relatively high fertility levels, which will result in slower rates of population growth.

And the reasons for those expected future declines in today’s high fertility levels are the same that produced the current below replacement fertility rates in other countries, namely, those various societal factors and individual reasons that were enumerated above.

In sum, several generalizations are warranted.

First, despite the hissy fit that many governments are having about their low birth rates and their various pro-natalist policies, programs and incentives, their fertility rates are not expected to return to the replacement level in the foreseeable future.

For a host of reasons, the fertility rates of many countries are expected to remain below the replacement level of two births per woman for most of the 21st century. And as a result of those low rates, some of those countries are facing population decline and rapid demographic ageing.

Second, the current high fertility rates of many developing countries in Africa and Asia are expected to decline over the coming decades. As a result of those fertility declines, the population growth rates of those countries are expected to slow down.

Third, and importantly, contrary to those misleading doomsday predictions, the world’s population is not collapsing nor is human civilization dying out. In fact, the world’s current population of 8.2 billion is continuing to increase. World population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2037, 10 billion by 2060 and to peak at around 10.2 billion people in the mid-2080s.

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 respect to America’s demographic growth, immigrants not only add their own numbers to the country’s population but they also contribute to births whose effects are compounded over time. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Feb 17 2025 (IPS)

Of the approximately 280 million immigrants in the world, the country hosting the largest number is America, the land of immigration. One-fifth of the world’s international migrants reside in the US, with those migrants arriving from nearly every country in the world.

From the country’s very founding in 1776, America’s immigration has greatly influenced the demographic growth, composition and structure of its population.

If immigration to America had ceased after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when the colonies numbered several million people, its population today would be no more than 143 million. That hypothetical figure is 200 million less than America’s current population of about 342 million (Figure 1).

Source: US Census Bureau and author’s calculations.

With respect to America’s demographic growth, immigrants not only add their own numbers to the country’s population but they also contribute to births whose effects are compounded over time.

America’s fertility rate has declined from nearly four births per woman around 1960 to approximately 1.6 births per woman today. The country’s current fertility rate is well below the replacement level of about two births per woman

If future immigration to America were to cease altogether, the US population would stop growing and then after several years, it would begin declining annually throughout the 21st century.

Without future immigration, America’s population is expected to fall below 300 million by 2060. In addition, by the close of the century it would decline further to 226 million, which is two-thirds of its current population size.

However, assuming a continued annual net migration of approximately one million, America’s population is projected to peak at 370 million in the year 2080 and then decline slightly to 366 million by the close of the current century.

With immigration at about one million per year, America’s population is expected to continue representing about 4% of the world’s population throughout the 21st century. Without immigration, America’s population at the close of the century is projected to decline to about 2.6% of the world’s population.

America’s foreign-born resident population in 2024 is estimated at 51.6 million. That figure represents a record high of 15.6% of the country’s total population. If current trends continue, America’s foreign-born population is expected to continue increasing, likely reaching approximately 63 million by the year 2030.

The last time the country’s proportion of the foreign-born reached such a high level was in 1890, when it was 14.8% of America’s population. Furthermore, the current percentage of foreign-born in America of 15.6% is more than three times greater than the record low of 4.7% set in 1970 (Figure 2).

Source: US Census Bureau.

The proportion of births to foreign-born mothers in America has been consistently greater than the percentage of the foreign-born residing in the country. Whereas the proportion of the foreign-born population in America is slightly more than 15%, the proportion of births to foreign-born mothers resident in the US is nearly a quarter, at approximately 23%.

Among the foreign-born resident population in America, about one-quarter of them, or approximately 14 million, are estimated to be unauthorized. Those unauthorized migrants are made up of individuals who overstayed their visa as well as men, women and children who entered the country without authorization.

If all of the unauthorized population were removed from America as the newly elected administration has stated it intends to do, the US population would decline to approximately 328 million.

The ethnic composition of the foreign-born in America has also changed markedly over the past several centuries. Throughout the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the foreign-born population was predominantly from European countries, e.g., Germany, Ireland, Italy and the UK (Table 1).

Source: US Census Bureau.

In 1900, for example, German immigrants accounted for 26% of America’s foreign-born population, followed by immigrants from Ireland at 16%. By 1970, however, Mexico had moved up among the top five immigrant sending countries, accounting for 8% of the foreign-born. By 1980 Mexico was in first place with 16% of the US resident foreign-born population.

In 2022, the top five countries contributing to America’s foreign-born population were no longer of European origin. The countries of Europe have been replaced by Mexico, India, China, Philippines, and El Salvador, with Mexico accounting for nearly one quarter of the foreign-born in America.

In the remaining decades of the 21st century, the dominant force fueling America’s demographic growth in the future is expected to be immigration. The reason for immigration’s increasing demographic impact on the size, growth and composition of America’s population is the country’s low fertility rate.

America’s fertility rate has declined from nearly four births per woman around 1960 to approximately 1.6 births per woman today. The country’s current fertility rate is well below the replacement level of about two births per woman.

Without immigration, deaths in America are expected to outnumber births by around 2033 largely because fertility rates are expected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself. Consequently by 2080, the annual number of deaths in America is expected to be one million more than the annual number of births.

In addition to its effects on the country’s demographic growth and ethnic composition, immigration also impacts the age structure of America’s population. Without continuing immigration, America’s population would be markedly older in the future than currently being projected.

Assuming net immigration continues to be approximately one million per year, the US population’s current median age of 40 years is expected to increase to 42 years by 2050. Also, the proportion of America’s population aged 65 years or older, which is currently 18%, is expected to increase to 23% by 2050. Without immigration, the median age of America’s population is projected to be 47 years by midcentury and the proportion aged 65 years or older is expected to be 26%.

America’s immigrant heritage has been encapsulated in the famous words penned by Emma Lazarus in 1883 that are inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. In her sonnet, The New Colossus, she wrote: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”.

As it has been throughout the country’s nearly 250-year history, immigration is expected to continue having important consequences on the growth, composition and structure of America’s population throughout the 21st century and beyond.

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”.