[ben_w]

> Also, a continent that makes < 1.5 children/woman is not a going concern so no one has ever taken them seriously.

So much wrong with that sentence.

The birth rate went that low (and lower!) but has been going up recently[0]. But even if total population was halving every generation, that’s only a concern if it’s sustained for many generations, and population forecasting (especially this simplistic) has never been particularly accurate over such periods.

Then there’s the second half. Europe has been vastly important worldwide from roughly the age of exploration to the end of WW2, and even then only stopped being temporarily because of active efforts by both of the two superpowers — who, despite arms reduction treaties, still have enough nukes each to destroy all settlements worldwide with populations over 150,000 [1] — and yet despite that the EU (less than the whole of Europe) has close to the same GDP (18 T) [2] as China (20 T) [3] and the USA (25 T) [3].

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/eur/europe/fertility-r...

[1] https://www.reference.com/geography/many-cities-world-c25cce... and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[nawitus]

Fertility rate in EU seems to have peaked in 2016 (it declined every year from 2016 to 2020).

I think the data you linked is prediction from year 2020 onwards, and there is no observed increase from 2013.

[ben_w]

Interesting; that's not at all clear to me from the page even after you say that. But very plausible.

[quarantaseih]

"The birth rate went that low (and lower!) but has been going up recently[0]. But even if total population was halving every generation, that’s only a concern if it’s sustained for many generations, and population forecasting (especially this simplistic) has never been particularly accurate over such periods."

Who cares what the halving period is? You still have an inverted population pyramid. Have fun paying pensions. Even if you started popping 3 kids per woman today you still have 30 years before they become productive (debauchery during an Erasmus is not a productive use of time). How's Europe going to pay bills until then?

Btw, 3 kids / woman in Europe is a laugh - 70 years of technocratic rule have resulted in city infrastructure that are unlivable for "large" families. Sure, it's possible to have three kids in a two room 80 sq m apt, and I know people who have done so. But why would you if you have the qualifications to move abroad?

"Then there’s the second half. Europe has been vastly important worldwide from roughly the age of exploration to the end of WW2, and even then only stopped being temporarily because of active efforts by both of the two superpowers — who, despite arms reduction treaties, still have enough nukes each to destroy all settlements worldwide with populations over 150,000 [1] — and yet despite that the EU (less than the whole of Europe) has close to the same GDP (18 T) [2] as China (20 T) [3] and the USA (25 T) [3]."

I really dont understand how your point about nuclear weapons is germane to this discussion. Ill have to ask the French and Brits? Naw, Ill just ask the Germans who financed their welfare programs by gutting their defense budget safe under said nuclear umbrella.

As to Europe's post war relevance - Europe has no resources and the Asians have caught up, and surpassed, technologically. Where's Europe's competitive advantage?

Europe's GDP is not impressive. Actually, its trend is very bad. Look at Europe's share of world GDP as a function of time from the sage if Discovery. On top of that Europe's GDP is highly dependent on the tertiary sector, dumb things like "tourism" which has low margins and dulls the minds of the people involved.

Europe is not a going concern. Heck Im expecting a new debt crisis in the EU this year

[ben_w]

> You still have an inverted population pyramid.

As does the USA and China, with fertility rates of 1.7 (according to Google).

> Have fun paying pensions.

Pension ages are increasing. Germany is also encouraging immigration, but that's only going to affect Germany as a million across Germany is economically relevant but the same million across the entire continent isn't.

But, we also have improving tech for old age care as everyone saw this coming since the Japanese did it first, and anti-aging in lab rats is now at the "huh interesting" stage. Nothing's guaranteed of course, this is just to illustrate that everything can radically change for reasons you don't consider. Like a global pandemic or a land war in Asia.

> 70 years of technocratic rule have resulted in city infrastructure that are unlivable for "large" families. Sure, it's possible to have three kids in a two room 80 sq m apt, and I know people who have done so.

And as the population goes down, everyone still around gets more space.

> But why would you if you have the qualifications to move abroad?

Where? Europe is very varied from one country to another, but overall it's better than most places worldwide — while not as much as the USA, the USA doesn't seem to want immigrants, and conversely much better than China and India which you previously described with the sentence "Finally, the rise of China and India sealed the EU's fate".

> Ill have to ask the French and Brits?

Both of which have only enough to deter outside forces from destroying them, they didn't have enough military power to e.g. keep their empires.

> Ill just ask the Germans who financed their welfare programs by gutting their defense budget safe under said nuclear umbrella.

The modern state of Germany literally only exists because of the fall of the decline and fall of Soviet Union, allowing reunification. They felt safe for fairly obvious reasons, but that postdates the only period of European weakness since the age of exploration.

> Where's Europe's competitive advantage?

This is the only relevant question. I don't have an answer (software engineer not economist), but everything else you've said either doesn't matter or can't be treated as a long-term trend.

> Europe's GDP is not impressive.

The EU alone being the third largest on the planet isn't impressive? As you sometimes write of the continent and sometimes of the EU, I will also add that if Brexit had not happened the EU alone would be above China right now, and you can add another trillion for the EFTA. The biggest economic issue the continent has right now is that Russia and Ukraine are both in the continent, and each is likely to see order-of trillion dollar costs.

> Actually, its trend is very bad. Look at Europe's share of world GDP as a function of time from the sage if Discovery.

"Everyone else is catching up" is not a bad thing. If all else was equal, every nation would have a share of GDP equal to their share of population, which would put Europe at double the GDP of the USA and China at four times the GDP of the USA.

> On top of that Europe's GDP is highly dependent on the tertiary sector, dumb things like "tourism" which has low margins and dulls the minds of the people involved.

Tertiary sector includes tourism, but isn't limited to it. Tourists is 10% of EU GDP. Tourism includes museums.

Other things in the tertiary sector include education, IT, FIRE, management consulting, and public health.

It's generally seen as a good thing, and is more than half of both China's and India's GDP.