Recent commentaries have largely focused on the negative aspects of the falling birth rate in many of the richer countries of the world, especially in Europe. A report by Robert Cuffe and Harriet Agerholm for the BBC thus emphasises the standard concerns over the implications for pensions, health and social care with the following words,
The growing ageing population “will add to pressure on the NHS, the state pension and the wider public finances”, said Stuart McDonald, head of longevity and demographic insights at pension consultants LCP.
“For the NHS, the challenge is not simply a larger population, but a larger population at ages associated with greater healthcare need.”
He added: “But for pensions, the projections will intensify an already difficult debate about whether people can realistically and fairly be expected to work longer.”
Sarah Scobie, Deputy Director of Research at the Nuffield Trust, warned end-of-life care services are “ill-prepared for an increase in deaths as the population ages overall”.
“Hospital care accounts for over 80% of public expenditure on health care for people in the last year of life, and most of that is spent on emergency care,” she said.
However, as I have argued elsewhere in 2023 in a slightly different context, there are many very positive aspects to declining population levels. Four factors stand out as being particularly important, especially in the UK:
First, and most obviously, falling populations place less pressure on our natural environment. All else being equal, falling populations place less demand for energy, for housing, for mining, and for transport, all of which are increasingly harming our precious environmental and landscape heritage.
Second, contrary to popular economic belief, it is not necessarily detrimental for the welfare of a state’s citizens if its economic growth rate falls. For too long, the success of countries has tended to be measured in terms of economic growth (often measured in GDP per capita), rather than human well-being. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index is nevertheless an important reminder that there are indeed alternative measures. The reasons for the linkages between economic and demographic growth are clear, in that an increasing population provides both more labour (and thus production) and greater consumption (thus demand) (see Unwin, 2023) which benefits private sector companies that are the engines of growth. Focusing on equity rather than growth would lead to a completely different, and much fairer society.
Third, the development of new digital technologies, especially robotics and AI, and in the longer term CyborgAIns (see my Digital Inclusion in an Unequal World, 2026) is often decried as being detrimental to employment, but with falling populations that is exactly what we need. If these technologies are used significantly to increase productivity levels, then wise choices in their deployment (especially if they are used to deliver the roles that people are currently disinclined to perform) can readily counteract falling population levels.
Fourth, the apparent fetish for longevity amongst some of the Digital Barons, who are sinking fortunes into finding ways to extend their lives (see Varanasi, 2025), seems utterly misplaced. Death is the only certainty in Human life, and we need to focus instead on ensuring that the fewer lives being lived are indeed lived well.
We should be welcoming a decline in population with open arms rather than decrying it. A focus instead on Life, on Equity, on Nature, and on Technology (LENT) can transform the lived experiences of all our citizens for the better. The UK had the eighth highest population density in the world in 2025 among countries with populations over 50 million, at 285 people/sq km. In Europe, by contrast, Germany had 43 people/sq km fewer than the UK, Italy had 84 people/sq km fewer, France had 163 people/sq km fewer, and Spain had 188 people/sq km fewer, only about one-third the population density of the UK.
It is high time we had a completely different approach to demographic transition. We need to welcome declining populations as a golden opportunity to build fairer and better societies that are more in harmony with Nature.
View of the Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau from small tarn above Grosse Scheidegg
It was a privilege to have been invited to contribute to the panel on Digital for Life? at the Club of Rome’s annual conference today along with luminaries such as Carlos Álvarez Pereira, Ndidi Nnoli-Edozien, Anders Wijkman, Charly Kleissner, Mariana Bozesan and Bolaji Akinboro. I fear, though, that my perspective was a little different from that of many of the panelists who were from a business, financial and entrepreneurial background. It was also challenging to convey the nuances of what I had intended to say in my opening 4 minutes!
So, for anyone who might be interested, I’m posting my speaking notes here. At least, this is more or less what I had intended to say!
Digital for Life?
I think of two things when presented with this question:
First, that many of those developing digital technologies and indeed in the biotech sector more widely are working hard to extend human life through digital tech. The work of Calico (subsidiary of Alphabet, Google’s parent company) and Elon Musk’s creation of Neuralink are just two examples (claiming that “that people would need to become cyborgs to be relevant in an artificial intelligence age. He said that a “merger of biological intelligence and machine intelligence” would be necessary to ensure we stay economically valuable”, Guardian, 2017). More widely, the increasing blending of human and digital makes me think that within a relatively short period of time, perhaps already, it will not be possible for “pure humans” to survive, in a world increasingly dominated by cyborgs. For many this does not matter; for others (including me) it does. We need to think such thoughts so that we can debate them openly, thereby enabling people to reach wise judgements as to the kinds of future “we” wish to create. This in turn of course depends on who “we” are, and here I would err on the side of relativism and diversity. I find one single universal “we” frightening; just as I do the idea of universal individual human rights, without the balancing necessary responsibilities to ensure that diverse individuals can live side-by-side (see Unwin, 2014).
The second idea I would like to share is that digital technologies are becoming increasingly harmful to life (of all kinds) on planet earth. We need to understand the negatives of technology on nature/earth/the physical environment, as well as the positive potential of its use. This is obviously important in the context of the upcoming COP26 jamboree. Although much effort has been expended on trying to show how digital tech is squeeky-green-clean and can contribute much to a reduction in CO2 and thus “save the planet from climate change”, the truth is much dirtier. Increasing research shows just how anti-sustainable many digital techs are: fast fashion business models (smart-phone life/owned span around a couple of years); companies preventing right to repair; environmentally harmful mining of rare-earth minerals; bitcoin using more energy than Argentina or the Netherlands; satellite pollution of outer space (akin to the way we used to treat the oceans); digital tech creating twice as much carbon emissions as the airline industry; and energy demand spiralling upwards as 5G, AI, smart cities and a world of sensors come to dominate our lives. The Digital-Environment System Coalition (DESC) that I founded earlier this year, and to which anyone is most welcome to join, is committed to rethinking the relationships between digital tech and the life of nature, focusing on both the benefits and the harms that it can be used to create.
Page one of the participants
We had a fascinating, albeit attenuated, discussion and I look forward to continuing the exploration. I have much to learn from what others think and say. These are critically important issues if we wish to leave a better world to the next generation, and not have it transformed irrevocably by the scientism of those creating ever more enslaving and destructive digital technologies.
