zlacker

Poor methodology or even some bug in an Excel macro at the UN headquarters could well be a reason behind the sudden, synchronous decline of population in all cultures and political systems of this planet.

And like the article suggests it can be deliberate too. Am extremely skeptical of population figures in some parts of former Soviet Union. The official demographic loss figures in WW2 had tripled since 1945 but post-war census figures were never revised. That could easily account for the "demographic collapse" of 1990s.

>>varjag+(OP)
Population counts are parts of geopolitics.

If you're the neighbor of some country that has a number of natural resources you'd like to get a hold of then you want to do things like formulate battle plans. If you have to make a plan to conquer 10 million people, it's going to be a bit different than one for 5 million people. The 10 million one is going to take longer. And then when you figure out that country is using deception to bolster its population numbers you have to figure where they lied about these numbers. Is it everywhere, is it in the place you want to invade. Is the population actually higher where you want to invade but lower in the rest of the country. Now you have to invest in doing your own general population and capability counts to make sure you don't step 10 feet deep in a 2 foot deep pool.

>>varjag+(OP)
I doubt this explains the world-wide phenomenon, but regionally sure. I remember in the 90s when studies brought the Nigerian population estimates down this triggered a drop of growth forecasts across sub-Saharan Africa.

Edit: changed world-wife (which sounds interesting demographically) to world-wide

>>johngo+SE
Sure, it is quite far-fetched. However it is extremely uncommon that we experience unified social trends all across the board, from liberal Finland or Japan to North Korea and Taliban-run Afghanistan. Usually there are odd reversals and exceptions here and there; not this time apparently. And we still lack a satisfying theory that could account for fertility decline in every country.

>>varjag+L41
We do. It's called "urbanization".

Large cities are inherently inimical to living in large families. And yes, it was apparently the case even in the Roman Empire.

>>cybera+cJ2
Decline happens also in territories that had been urbanized decades or even centuries ago but had positive fertility rate until 2010s. As I said you can pull a patchy blanket of micro-theories explaining each region but not one theory that accounts for them all.

>>varjag+KX3
Yes, but it happened in stages. The fertility fell each time people moved into higher density areas.

You can even see mild recovery when de-densification happens. It's very interesting to compare the fertility rate in Denmark and Netherlands:

https://www.macrotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/countrie...

https://www.macrotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/countrie...

You can see the dip and a recovery in Denmark and essentially no recovery in Netherlands (until post 2000, but that was due to immigration). Why?

Here's the answer:

https://www.macrotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/cities/2...

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/21930/amst...

Denmark de-densified its cities during the late 70-s (that's why Copenhagen is the world's most liveable city, btw).

>>cybera+4a6
Generally when people say urbanisation is the cause of fertility decline they mean people moving out of 7 child families at subsistence farms and rice paddies to city factories. Not any developments in Denmark or the Netherlands in last 150 years.