#108 - OECD Population Trends

Can We Stop the Aging of the Population?

I hear too often in the news the voices of worried experts discussing means to reverse the trend of decreasing fertility. Demographic crisis, collapsing pension systems. Even China with its staggering 1,4 billion population is urged to stimulate birth rates to avoid demographic crisis.

But perhaps we’re asking the wrong question. Instead of asking how to reverse the ageing of the population, should we begin to treat it as the new normal, and design our societies accordingly?

We often resist inevitable shifts, especially those that touch our identity and purpose. Yet when the data is this consistent, resistance may be a poor use of energy.

What the Numbers Say

Demographic transition is no longer confined to the wealthiest nations. Fertility rates have dropped below the replacement threshold (2.1 children per woman) in all but one OECD country. India—the world’s most populous country—has recently joined that group. Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, though still well above the threshold, are following the same path.

This pattern holds across geographies and cultures. As societies improve child survival, educate women, and increase access to reproductive health, fertility rates decline—and rarely rebound. As Hans Rosling and others have shown [1], the historical norm of six or more children per woman was closely tied to high child mortality. Once that risk is removed, most families choose to have fewer children. I’ve explored this in more detail in a previous reflection on China’s demographic trajectory [2].

A return to high fertility rates is unlikely in modern societies. And policies designed to “boost” birth rates—through financial incentives or cultural campaigns—have shown limited success. There is no wealthy country in the world that has managed to return even to the replacement threshold, let alone resume population growth.

Is an Ageing Society Bad—or Just Different?

Much of the concern around ageing populations focuses on dependency: who will pay for pensions, or care for a growing number of elderly citizens? These are serious questions. But they rest on a particular framing—one in which older adults are passive recipients of care, and younger generations are the sole productive engine of society.

Is this framing still accurate?

Raising children is one of the most resource-intensive investments societies make. In many countries, young adults now rely on family support well into their twenties. On average, caring for children over two decades may not be dramatically less demanding than caring for ageing parents.

Economically, the difference may not be as stark as we assume. But the emotional narrative is fundamentally different. Children grow. They symbolise the future. They make us feel that life is meaningful—that we are part of something that will continue beyond us. Ageing, by contrast, reminds us of decline and mortality. That psychological framing may shape our societal priorities more than the actual data does.

Still, even from a financial perspective, the picture may be less dire than it seems. Life expectancy has risen—but so has healthy life expectancy. Many older adults now remain active, skilled, and capable well beyond the traditional retirement age. The average lifespan may hover around 85 [3], but the age at which people lose the ability to contribute meaningfully has shifted upwards.

In this light, older adults are not simply a cost. They are a growing and under-utilised asset. If societies can create roles, systems, and norms that value their experience and potential, the “problem” of ageing may become a design challenge rather than a crisis.

What If This Is the Adjustment We Needed?

There’s a deeper question hiding behind the headlines. For decades, humanity has operated as if unlimited growth—in population, consumption, and production—were not just possible, but desirable. But every system has limits.

Current global farming practices can sustainably support around 3.4 billion people [4]. While technology and dietary change may shift that boundary, the idea of population stabilisation—or even gradual decline—is not necessarily catastrophic. In fact, it may be essential to long-term planetary resilience.

And ageing, if met with thoughtful policy and cultural maturity, could bring surprising benefits. Longer lives, extended contribution, and deeper intergenerational relationships are not things to fear. They are markers of progress.

Warren Buffett recently stepped back from active leadership of Berkshire Hathaway at the age of 95. Of course, not everyone has his health or resources. But the principle holds: meaningful contribution late in life is not just possible—it is increasingly common.

A Shift in Story, Not Just in Statistics

Maybe the real challenge isn’t economic or demographic. Maybe it’s narrative.

What if we stop framing the ageing of society as a failure—and start treating it as a design prompt?

The glass isn’t half empty. But it isn’t half full either. It’s simply different. And perhaps we need to learn how to drink from it differently.

Charts

I publish one short reflection like this each week. If you would like to receive them by email, you can sign up to the newsletter here

References and Notes

1. Rosling H., Rosling O., Rosling Rönnlund A. - Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think. Sceptre, 2018.

2. #14 China demographic crisis or maybe not a crisis?

3. #60 - Less Can Be More: Medicine and Longevity

4. #79 - From Plate to Planet: A Diet That Makes a Difference!