In next 100 years , people might become 15 billion .

@OogieBoogie People will chose to depopulate based on their financial status , by chosing to make 2 kids only , and not the third .
But still deaths will not be as fast as births , and hence number may still increase in population .

@Max41 There are many reasons why people are not having as many , or ANY kids at all.

The total population as a whole is still increasing , yes, but births are dropping in ratio to it, and have been since about the 1980's.

(Most of this was caused by education of women, giving them the abilty to choose their futures)

But, at some point, (if this patten continues), logic dictates that the population will steady out, then start receding .

But it will prolly take a few generations to do this significanlty as our numbers are still so high.

Which hopefully it will, as it has been calculated the earth, (in its current style of use), can supposedly only handle about 10 or 11 billion.

The biggest problem though, is that economic growth has been based on population growth .
....and most governments arent brave enough to start restructuring to cope with population decrease.

Which is why, the poor are getting poorer.

@Max41 Most European countries have fertility below replacement already, their populations are changing largely because of immigration and emigration.

@ninalanyon immigration is another way to offset lowering birth rates.
Only a few European countries are already implementing change set towards coping with depopulation.

I wish the rest of the world could follow their example.

@OogieBoogie Immigration is all very well but it just allows the state to ignore the challenges of an ageing population for longer while at the same time draining the country that provides the immigrants of many of it's most skilled and capable people.

I'm not against immigration, I'm an immigrant myself. But it shouldn't be used as a permanent means of hiding away from reality. It needs also to go both ways so that everyone benefits.

Which European countries did you have in mind? Where I live, Norway, has some good features regarding ageing such as no official retirement age, old age pensions don't require you to retire and can be taken out from the age of 62. I'm 67, retired from full time work at 62, did a few years of freelancing; almost all of my similar age and also much older colleagues are still working, many as freelancers but also still others as full time employees.

But Norway still has a long way to go before ageing is really handled properly.

One thing that I notice about the two countries with which I am most familiar, the UK (my birth country) and Norway (my country of residence) is that the health of the oldest segment of the population is much better in Norway. So despite living longer Norwegians are (I think) a lesser burden on the health system. Instead of importing more health workers to look after the aged we should ensure that the aged are healthy. But the UK health system seems to be in the process of being driven into the ground. Norway's is not perfect but at least we don't have the same horror stories about things like queues of ambulances at A&E.

How to do this I have no idea, pretty much all countries are reluctant to adopt good practice from other countries (Norway is no exception).

@ninalanyon honestly, i included Norway in my assumtion.🤷‍♀️

I see it as forward thinking in education and other things.

I cant list examples, its kinda a smudge of infromation im my brain from ages past research .
All i know is paets of Europe have shown development in how they treat "life" and what it has to offer, in a more possitive way.

I m not smart enough to offer solutions. But i do know, we are giving up on too many types of people, the mature, the "disabled", and the young .

Each person is unique. No one should be pigeon-holed.

Some are done by 50, some , are never done contributing.