Opinion The End of World Population Growth? Data Suggests a 2025 Peak

L | A
By Robert McAllister


Will the world’s population double by 2050, or could growth slow and halt far sooner than previously expected? A fresh analysis using advanced modeling and decades of United Nations data suggests that global population growth may peak as early as 2025, aligning with declining birth rates and the inevitability of a rising global death rate.

For years, demographers have projected future population growth using “principal components” methods, applying global fertility and mortality rates to the latest world population totals and projecting forward.

The United Nations offers three scenarios: a “high variant” projecting 28 billion people by 2150, a “medium variant” of 11.5 billion by 2075, and a “low variant” where growth peaks at 7 billion around 2050 before a gradual decline.

These scenarios have often felt like preparing for a blizzard, rain, and a heatwave simultaneously. The medium scenario is commonly treated as the “most likely” simply because it sits in the middle.

However, a least squares regression approach, which analyzes all past world population totals rather than relying on a single year’s data, offers a clearer and potentially more accurate forecast.

Using personal computing power to run these complex calculations, researchers compiled the most reliable UN Demographic Yearbook data from 1950 to 1990, dismissing outliers and averaging repeated estimates for accuracy.

For 1991–1996, they used the UN’s single published estimates and for 1994–1995, estimates from the Population Reference Bureau, ensuring continuity and precision.

This approach tested various growth models: straight-line, exponential, logistic, and convex (exponential growth at a decreasing rate). The convex growth model—producing a dome-shaped projection—showed the strongest correlation with actual historical data, achieving a near-perfect correlation coefficient of 0.99996 according to Research Gate.

On average, the difference between this model’s projections and actual population figures was just 7.9 million, a negligible margin at the global scale.


Chart comparing actual and estimated world population from 1950 to 1995

Based on this convex growth projection, global population growth is forecasted to peak at 7.07 billion around 2025, before entering a slow decline:

• 2000: 6.09 billion
• 2025: 7.07 billion
• 2030: 7.01 billion
• 2035: 6.86 billion
• 2040: 6.64 billion
• 2045: 6.34 billion

Such an unconventional forecast requires supporting evidence—and it finds it in the dynamics of birth and death rates. The world’s death rate currently stands at 9 deaths per 1,000 people per year, implying an unrealistic average life expectancy of 111 years if it continued.

Realistically, with life expectancy stabilizing around 75 years globally, the death rate would increase to approximately 13.3 deaths per 1,000, intersecting with declining birth rates around 2030.

This intersection suggests that the long-feared runaway population growth may never materialize. Instead, global birth rates are declining in many regions due to factors including urbanization, women’s education, and access to family planning, while the death rate is poised to rise simply due to biological limits on human lifespan.

The convergence of these trends aligns closely with the convex growth projection and the UN’s low variant, indicating that the global population could stabilize and begin to decline sooner than many governments and policy planners anticipate.

This shift carries profound implications for global economics, environmental planning, and social policy. Nations currently preparing for endless population increases may need to adjust strategies for infrastructure, food security, and aging populations in a world where the challenge may not be overpopulation, but rather a stabilizing or shrinking population.

As the world approaches what could be the end of its population boom, this new understanding urges policymakers, economists, and the public to rethink assumptions about the future—and prepare for a demographic transition that could reshape societies globally within the next generation.

 

[Mike Patton Official]

and yet some how people are stilling finding time to pop out kids

Because the men are raping the women. It's that simple. You don't need to be "in the mood" or save a couple hours after dinner to rape someone, it happens in like 5 minutes and for no particular reason, it's just how they're wired.

 

[frozen_runner]

It’s interesting that when those people invade first world western nations their birthdates fall as well. It’s only the people still living in the shitholes that keep popping out hollow eyed kids.

It makes sense when you think about why more affluent people have less kids. The explanations are fairly obvious. That's why they want the borders open permanently.

Anyway, there's "nature" and there's "nurture." I don't think any of what's happening with downturns in population growth is nurture. It wouldn't be happening across every developed country, and you would be able to fix it with tax breaks or otherwise moving money around (which has generally not worked). It has to be something about our instincts and the circumstances of the modern world. It's probably something analogous to the Rat Utopia experiments (and that's looking very likely, IMO) where something in our environment has us running an instinctive subroutine resulting in less reproduction. It's a "tragedy of the commons" situation where everyone is pursuing their instincts and what they think is their own best interest, but it results in a negative outcome for everyone, and it's complicated enough that you can explain the dysfunction to individual actors and they still won't change their behavior.

 

[SIMON THE PIEMAN]

The Georgia Guidstones had some sus shit on it

The Georgia Guidestones thing is one of my favorite conspiracy theories, purely because of how retarded it is. It was made back in 1980 when the world population was 4.4 billion, got popular on the internet during the 2010s because autismos got triggered by the 500 million line, then some autismo king finally blew these up in 2022, the same year when the world population reached 8 billion. 42 years of population growth and yet for so many people it still wasn't proof enough that whatever is written in these stones is nothing more than pure fiction.

 

[The-Mad-Asshatter]

It makes sense when you think about why more affluent people have less kids. The explanations are fairly obvious. That's why they want the borders open permanently.

Anyway, there's "nature" and there's "nurture." I don't think any of what's happening with downturns in population growth is nurture. It wouldn't be happening across every developed country, and you would be able to fix it with tax breaks or otherwise moving money around (which has generally not worked). It has to be something about our instincts and the circumstances of the modern world. It's probably something analogous to the Rat Utopia experiments (and that's looking very likely, IMO) where something in our environment has us running an instinctive subroutine resulting in less reproduction. It's a "tragedy of the commons" situation where everyone is pursuing their instincts and what they think is their own best interest, but it results in a negative outcome for everyone, and it's complicated enough that you can explain the dysfunction to individual actors and they still won't change their behavior.

Probably the Internet like soneone said earlier. If the 'Breeding Kill Switch' is set off by too many people, then being online and constantly interacting with people online probably does it too.

Plus being online constantly is tiring, enough so that people are prone to not investing into their offspring or their safety or mental well being (ignoring children to stare at a device, giving a device to a child that stunts their psychological growth and interpersonal skills) will probably decrease the population further. You need to be able to interact with people and groups to live and to thrive, and if you take that away, how do you even find a stable partner? You don't, which is likely what we are seeing now.

 

[Gregis]

Just wish we could nuke Africa.

Africa's huge dude, it would be incredibly pointless. You want to just fire off one so you can feel better and say you did it? The real blackpill would be if you calculate it out and it turns out global stockpiles wouldn't even take out half the population. I don't feel like doing all that math right now, but that's my guess.

 

[Mister Fister]

I don’t trust third world TFR and pop numbers as there are pervasive incentives to lie upward here.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

We're already massively overpopulated. Like even now when I think of now compared to when I was a kid it's just striking how difficult it is to be alone in my city. Like take a random place in any city and see if you can stand there five minutes without encountering anyone. Used to just happen without being notable, now it's nigh impossible during daylight hours.


Too much traffic on the roads, too many people in the way when you're trying to get somewhere or do something. Housing is too expensive because of the ridiculous demand. Tbh I'd happily see the population cut in half, I imagine it'd alleviate a lot of the stress in modern life

This is because people aren't allowed to found new cities any more.

Check out the numbers of how many new municipalities sprouted up in California in the 50s. Now look how many have been allowed to develop in the entire 21st century so far. It's shockingly low.

To keep land prices up, people have been forced to stay in the existing bughives instead of building new small towns elsewhere for cheaper.

 

[mold]

I don’t trust third world TFR and pop numbers as there are pervasive incentives to lie upward here.

a much better way to get a sense of real population numbers is whether you see kids. travel influencers are really good for this. no kids in the street in whatever country they're in? bad news.

 

[Squawking Macaw]

Humanity discovers we can have a self-regulating population growth. Don’t animals and bugs do this too?

Yes. There's a point where an animal's population reaches a plateau and stops growing.
Africa hasn't reached that threshold yet, but eventually it will. They have a lot more children than us, but their infant mortality is also much higher (and also a lot of their explosive growth is due to Western interference).

 

[Phalanges Mycologist]

Africa hasn't reached that threshold yet, but eventually it will.

I think they are sorta kinda there now, Africa without more modern agriculture something they seem to fight tooth an nail to not have despite the best efforts of NGO's and other agencies they start a "Model Modern Farm" it lasts a few years but falls apart after a few years because the local population are totally disinterested in learning to build or maintain there own or even re-tailor it to local conditions an it falls apart, so use barely medieval era techniques for small scale subsistence techniques and the land suitable for farming like that is already farmed an you end up with a population that's close too or at capacity.

Edit to add - Just another thought to add I am not slagging off those techniques either, for the sort of people an community they are supporting it's ideal self owned an self sufficient for the most part. But it is not fully reliable and there are other techniques they could apply that they can do with there technical skill an materials or smarter planting etc an improve but they don't have to because the population is stable enough to manage as it is.

I'd rather some parts of the world would be smarter about there farming an food growth because modern western an increasingly East Asia the diets are absurdly complex an unhealthy an stretch around the world, I do my best to personally east local an seasonally or at least majorly so and I feel better for it, this includes growing as much of my own food as I possibly can.

 

[Squawking Macaw]

I think thye are sorta kinda there now, Africa without more modern agriculture something they seem to fight tooth an nail to not have despite the best efforts of NGO's and other agencies they start a "Model Modern Farm" it lasts a few years but falls apart after a few years because the local population are totally disintrested in learning to build or maintain there own or even retailor it to local conditions an it falls apart, so use barely medeivil era techniques for small scale subsistance techniques and the land suitable for farming like that is already farmed an you end up with a population thats close too or at capacity.

I remember reading in a school textbook about a team of researchers that tried to teach modern fishing practices to a tribe. They gave them modern equipment, taught them how to use it, even gave them a big freezer for storage, and when they checked back later, the tribe had gone back to using their traditional fishing methods. Because it's all they ever knew and they weren't going to change that for some foreigners' practices, efficient or not.

It's part of why I'm against the white savior mentality. These people are clearly not interested in maintaining the infrastructure we left them, and the West dumping its resources into Africa is why they have so many children in the first place.

 

[Phalanges Mycologist]

I remember reading in a school textbook about a team of researchers that tried to teach modern fishing practices to a tribe. They gave them modern equipment, taught them how to use it, even gave them a big freezer for storage, and when they checked back later, the tribe had gone back to using their traditional fishing methods. Because it's all they ever knew and they weren't going to change that for some foreigners' practices, efficient or not.

Yea I've heard of plenty of things like that, One I know of is some guys provided small repair an manufacturing places in Africa an Pakistan some top end manual machine tools, first thing the guy's who received them gutted the modern electronics an replaced them with older style often 2nd or 3rd use of some of the kit the guys provided it went mad about it but then realised that they are doing it because they can maintain that older technology without having to use expensive western sourced or still technically more complex but cheaper Chinese kit.

The local technology base that makes other meathods non viable we are talking about places where most modern western people don't understand the day to day existence in that part of the world - Water is either dirty or inconsistent an there is no plumbing to your house or your toilet, No electricity grid, so either no electricity at all or its extremely expensive an in poor supply there are people who make a living hauling generators around the place to allow people to charge things an often that's the only option. Materials are often unavailable an when they are they are of poor quality, spare parts are often very old an in poor condition an need work often a lot of it to get them to work somewhat acceptably etc.

Extend that to things like Civic infrastructure, Farming, Healthcare etc an you'll understand that with the best of intentions we need to stop giving them our stuff because for them it just doesnt work or is massively overkill, disaster aid or education yea sure but money, equipment and a lot of other stuff just doesnt work for them for many reasons and it is a waist of time an effort.

 

[The Ugly One]

And here's why that's a [good/bad] thing.

... seriously, I don't even know anymore.

It will be a good thing as the world gets browner, but will start becoming a bad thing once the world has too few whites to keep the browns fed and equipped with iPhones.

 

[Point and Laugh]

people are prone to not investing into their offspring

The working theory is the exact opposite. That we now have less children because we invest very heavily in them for much longer. It makes sense if you look at places where having a lot of children is the norm, they have kid after kid in abject poverty. And it also makes sense when even the most basic education in the first world takes 18 years.

Totally anecdotal but I think the erosion of close extended family discourages having more than one or two kids. When the grandparents are always at one of their vacation homes and too busy to help with grandkids, and siblings commonly live far apart due to economics, you lose a lot of the family support structures that have existed forever.