Another glimpse of the rest of the 21st century

What will the rest of the 2000s look like?

This is where I spend most of my time these days, and I’m glad to see Pew adding their research might to the question. Specifically, they just released a good analysis of United Nations population data. Anthony Cilluffo and Neil G. Ruiz offer a useful model of demographic (yes, yes, demography again) change that’s useful for anyone looking ahead, and especially for those interested in what comes next in education.

Let me pull out the bits that seem especially useful.

Big picture: they see humanity’s total population nearly maxed out at nearly 11 billion in 2100. Our median age will keep rising, and the number of children born to each woman will drop to 1.9 (below 2.1, which is “replacement level”: keeps the population at the same total number). Total growth will be under 0.1%.

“Starting in 2073, there are projected to be more people ages 65 and older than under age 15 — the first time this will be the case.”

Regional differences: Africa — well, subSaharan Africa — will be humanity’s demographic powerhouse, tripling in population by 2100. Total Asian population will peak, then start shrinking around 2055, falling behind Africa’s. Europe and the Americas — already far smaller in numbers — will peak, stabilize, then, sometimes, shrink, depending on the nation.

National differences: The US and Canada will grow pretty much because of immigration. Absent that, Canada’s population will decline.

India will race past China for the title of most populous nation only a few years from now, by 2027. It will maintain that crown through 2100.

A group of African nations will swell into joining the ranks of the world’s largest: “Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Angola.” Pakistan will join them:

There’s much to ponder here. How will geopolitics reorient itself as nations and regions shrink or swell up? Think about tensions between India and Pakistan, growing into two of the largest countries on Earth, and both armed with nuclear weapons. Or consider the path of China’s One Belt, One Road, which runs right through the growth areas. Conversely, how will Europe or Russia respond to being edged down the table? How will aging changing national cultures and projects?

Think of America and immigration, and how dependent the former is on the latter for demographic growth. Crying, wonderment, and/or laughing are appropriate responses for the short term. I would add: some numbers depend on if we keep killing ourselves through deaths of despair.

How many of these nations will see political and/or cultural movements to breed more babies? Some analysts think this is most unlikely, deeming women’s advances over the past century to be too persistent. I’ve been looking for signs of pro-natal movements in the developed world, but haven’t found many. Hungary’s right-wing government is interested. I’ll keep looking.

Compared to other analyses, this Pew/UN model comes close to Morland’s in finding decreasing fertility and regional/national transformation. It assumes more persistent growth than do Bricker and Ibbitson, who foresee fertility dropping more rapidly. All three defy the 20th-century’s population bomb idea of rampant overpopulation.

For education, why does this matter?

My readers know I’ve been investigating this for a while; the rest of you can look back through these posts for samples. Let me now offer a few notes based specifically on this Pew/UN document:

1. How much of higher education is orienting towards subSaharan Africa? Think of research programs, satellite campuses, curricula, study abroad, sister universities, development projects, student recruiting, inter-institutional research teams. Think, too, of open access in scholarly publication as a way to better develop African scholars, who now often lack access to too much of the scholarly world. Should campuses energetically embrace open as a global good?
2. As above, for India, the world’s largest nation in about the number of years from now that it takes a typical American humanities grad student to finish their degree.
3. How prepared are colleges and universities to support older students? On the one hand, the 18-year-old population isn’t exactly a growth industry, outside of a few nations (and who’s recruiting there?). On the other, adult learners keep aging up. Are we serious about educating seniors in large numbers?
4. It seems logical for institutions in nations with declining populations to reach out internationally. How is the global infrastructure for this? Consider the public enterprises colleges and universities might lobby for: open borders; globalization; transnational organizations and authorities; improving internet access.
5. If a nation’s university system fails to adapt to the reality of changing demographics, are they prepared to shrink?
6. How might a significantly older populace change its attitudes and policies towards post-secondary education?
7. If pro-natalist political and cultural movements appear and if they gain actual traction, how should higher education respond? We know that education plays a vital role in reducing childbirth numbers; perhaps such movements will target colleges and universities. This could represent another way for higher ed to be politicized.

As we wade more deeply into the rest of the 21st century, our species keeps changing. One great task for higher ed is to respond wisely.

(Perhaps my next book should concern the year 2100, and the different futures we may experience getting there.)

(cross-posted to my blog)