Tech Digest

The Population Implosion Will Force BioTech Innovation

Stay Up to Date!

Simply enter your email below and click SIGN UP!

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

July 10, 2017

Dear Reader,

Last year, we began to see articles in the press conceding that overpopulation wasn’t going to end civilization. This year, we’re seeing reports on the real population problems—depopulation and aging.

For example, The Washington Post published an article titled, “The U.S. fertility rate just hit a historic low. Why some demographers are freaking out.” Freaking out, by the way, is not an exaggeration.

Here’s the first paragraph:

The United States is in the midst of what some worry is a baby crisis. The number of women giving birth has been declining for years and just hit a historic low. If the trend continues—and experts disagree on whether it will—the country could face economic and cultural turmoil.

This is quite a change from pieces published in the same newspaper in the 1980s. Here is the lead from an older article titled, “Global Overpopulation.”

In the face of overwhelming evidence that there is no way of fighting poverty in the Third World without more extensive family planning, the Reagan administration is cutting back its support of the most tested and experienced organizations in this field, condemning wide areas of the globe to ever bigger, ever more hungry populations.

The point of the piece above was that more US taxes should flow to national and international overpopulation experts. Politicians who disagreed were accused of ignoring or even causing mass starvation.

Today, almost everything about that article has been proven wrong.

Here’s the Real Problem

Half the world has below replacement birthrates. “Peak babies” has arrived. Poverty rates have plummeted in the developing world, which now has higher economic growth rates than the West. Lifespans are also increasing faster.

Even in Africa and Asia, the fastest growing problem is obesity. The fastest growing populations are the aged. Countries that once suppressed population growth are now trying to bolster birthrates, though with little success.

They are right to try though. Falling birthrates combined with a growing population of older people is a potential disaster in the making. Already, many national healthcare systems and retirement programs are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Today, the journalists, academics, and politicians who spread overpopulation hysteria have moved on to new doomsday scenarios. Oddly, they’re still demanding immediate and massive tax monies for “experts.” It seems they’re hoping that we’ll just forget how wrong they were about population.

Personally, I’m not forgetting. Their irrational obsession has done serious damage. They have distracted us from that fact that the shrinking population of workers can’t support the growing population of older and sicker retired people.

This is the flipping of the demographic pyramid. Warren S. Thompson first predicted it in 1929 in a paper for the American Journal of Sociology.

Thompson’s textbook on demographics was standard in American colleges until the 1960s. Then, it was displaced by what I view as an apocalyptic environmentalist religion.

Luckily, I didn’t go to one of the elite universities who favored Paul Ehrlich over Thompson. I was taught real demographics long after they were expunged from our politically correct university system. I’ve been an overpopulation “denier” for more than 40 years.

But now, Thompson’s mathematically-based demographics are coming back to the fore. Another article that shows this shift appeared recently in the New Scientist: “The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded.” It was nice to see Elon Musk tweet the link. “The world's population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care,” he wrote.

It is fortunate that a growing number of real scientists notice and care. Unfortunately, we don’t have until 2076 to prevent the collapse of healthcare and retirement programs.

So, does this mean you should trade one doomsday scenario for another? No.

Biotech Is the Solution

For the record, here’s my prediction: Science will rescue us. New biotechnologies will extend health and life spans in ways that surpass most science-fiction fantasies. Many of these are already in labs. This will accomplish several things.

First, anti-aging biotechnologies will lower the costs associated with aging. People will suffer far fewer of the age-related diseases that are breaking our budgets. People will be able to work, save, and invest longer. Older people will be rejuvenated and the symptoms of aging reversed, at least for a season.

As a result, the financial burden on the young will be lightened if not lifted. On top of that, the period of healthy childbearing age will be extended significantly. This will give women more career options and will allow birthrates to rise to sustainable levels.

Within my lifetime, I think science will move beyond anti-aging into true age reversal. Credible scientists increasingly believe that biological mortality will be solved and death from old age eliminated. This will be accompanied by revolutions in energy, artificial intelligence, transportation, space travel, and technologies not yet identified.

I know that my predictions will meet skepticism. There is still a great deal of resistance, institutional and psychological, to such sweeping changes. They will, however, be swept away by the gales of creative destruction predicted by Joseph Schumpeter.

You don’t have to believe me, of course. But you would be foolish to listen to anyone who believed in the absurd notion of an overpopulation apocalypse.


Stay in the Loop on Life-Extending Research
with Patrick Cox's Tech Digest

Tech Digest

Your privacy is very important to us. Please review our Privacy Policy.

« Back to Articles

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

Discuss This


We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.


M. James Fox

July 21, 6:37 p.m.

Considering the environmental destruction that is already taking place (collapsed fisheries, shrinking rain forests,  species extinction, declining productivity of crop lands, nitrification of water from fertilizer runoff, etc.) I fail to see why the collapse of the Ponzi scheme welfare frauds and the destruction of fiat currencies in a global debt default should be more important to avoid. The human population needs to decline to about 2-1/2 billion to reach a sustainable level. That means 2 out of every 3 people alive need to die. The sooner it happens, the better. I’m seventy so I’m pretty sure I’ll do my part sometime in the next thirty years.

July 11, 7:44 p.m.

how can I get to the portfolio?

July 11, 9 a.m.

Ummm, smug in being right?  Pardon me but the world population is still increasing significantly overall.  The RATE of increase peaked in the late 1950’s and has been steadily dropping since.  Meanwhile, the population has ballooned from around 4 billion to over 7 billion in that short time.  Current best data shows the RATE of increase dropping to just replacement (zero population growth overall) around 11.2 billion souls at the end of the present century.  OF COURSE that will result in a demographic disaster, with fewer workers supporting more old folks.  That does not mean another FOUR BILLION people on this planet will not have incredibly dire effects with resource depletion, pollution, political instability, economic instability, environmental degradation and yes, climate change.  The world you seem to live in is an oxymoron (love that word, take it apart).  Last I saw, a world population, resource use and economic system built on a CLOSED SYSTEM (which by the way happens to apply to our planet) qualifies as an oxymoron.  I follow many of Craig’s blogs and writers but you sir do not meet the standards I am used to.

July 10, 9:26 p.m.

How about a new measure of population. One that multiplies the number of people in any cohort times the years that they are expected to ive.
This might make the forecasts less scary. It wouod be interesting to compare with the same measure of a few decades ago.

July 10, 11:57 a.m.

I agree advancements in biotech, medicine and science in general will extend life expectancy.

The question no one seems willing to address is where will all of these older workers find suitable employment to support themselves as most companies shy away from hiring older workers and transformational technologies continue to displace middle and lower income workers? In parallel, many state/municipal pension plans and to a lessor extent, Social Security, are facing serious challenges in meeting current or near future obligations, so both current and future retirees could well experience a “parallel” income challenge - limited job prospects yet unable to retire. What good is it to live a longer, healthier life if you are subsisting at or below the poverty level?

July 10, 11:42 a.m.

As always a thought provoking article. I’m pretty sure that the “over population experts” are the same as today’s “under population experts”. I’m always amazed that so few real scientists don’t contradict these so called experts forcefully. Or is it that they just can’t get the publicity?

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact


The Mauldin Economics website, Yield Shark, Thoughts from the Frontline, Patrick Cox’s Tech Digest, Outside the Box, Over My Shoulder, World Money Analyst, Street Freak, Just One Trade, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, This Week in Geopolitics, Stray Reflections, and Conversations are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2017 Mauldin Economics