Despite the negative histrionics, AI could potentially solve the developed world’s population/productivity dilemma. Currently, the developed world is trapped between two opposing forces: Economics demands that productivity increase if living standards are to rise; however, demographics in developed nations show population growth falling below levels needed to sustain its growth, as well as the number of workers to nonworkers falling. AI has the potential to increase productivity enough to offset developed nations’ rapidly increasing need for it to do so.
Opposition to AI is mounting across society. Finance and entertainment are prominent sectors that fear it. Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently introduced “legislation that would enact a reasonable pause to the development of AI to ensure the safety of humanity.” Maine’s legislature recently passed a temporary moratorium on large data center construction in the state. NY City is backing away from robotaxi pilot programs.
Such anti-tech responses call to mind the English Luddites of the 19th century who destroyed textile machines in an effort to protect jobs. The effort did not succeed, and Britain continued ushering in the Industrial Revolution.
Another debunked 19th century theory should also come to mind: that of Thomas Malthus and his belief that population was destined to outstrip our ability to feed it. Malthus believed that populations grew geometrically but agriculture’s productivity only grew arithmetically. Only “vice,” “misery,” or “moral restraint” could limit population’s excessive growth.
Malthus was influential but wrong. Productivity increases across society have allowed populations to expand greatly over the last two centuries. However now, at least in the world’s developed economies, we see a reverse-Malthusian dilemma: Populations are falling, and are projected to continue falling, below the levels needed to replace their current numbers. Further, the ratio of workers to nonworkers within these slowing-to-declining populations is falling as well. Rapidly.
Developed nations’ productivity needs are therefore faced with a twofold demand: rise fast enough to offset the falling ratio of workers to nonworkers and also rise fast continue to increase the world’s highest living standards.
Already we see this collision of trends taking shape in the U.S.
According to the Census Bureau, between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, America’s population grew only 0.5%—the slowest growth since 2021’s 0.2% when pandemic death’s slowed it. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that based on declining fertility rates (from 2.12 births per woman in 2007, to 1.62 in 2023, and 1.60 projected in 2035 and 2055), and absent immigration, the U.S. population will begin declining in 2033.
Within this overall population projection, CBO also projects “the ratio of people ages 25 to 64 to people age 65 or older will be 2.8 to 1 in 2025…that ratio is projected to decline to 2.2 to 1 by 2055.” Even before this demographic shift takes full effect, we see labor force participation falling.
The U.S. labor force participation rate in March 2026, was 61.9%. That level is well below what we saw as recently as January 2020’s (at Covid’s onset) 63.3%. It is even further below that of a generation ago: In February 2001, labor force participation was 67.1%. With America’s projected aging and overall population decline, this percentage is only likely to continue declining.
The U.S. is hardly alone in population decline projections. Much of Europe, Japan, Russia, and China are all currently seeing their populations decline and age (Korea, Germany, Italy, and Japan). What we are witnessing is a global trend where the nations with the highest living standards are facing their greatest challenge: Maintaining their high living standards, while also facing building demographic trends of declining populations and ratios of workers to nonworkers.
Two centuries ago, the Luddites tried to stop the mechanization of Britain’s textile industry. Fortunately for Britain, they failed; the result was industrialization made the 19th century Britain’s century.
Today, AI’s opponents are opposing unknown outcomes in the face of all-too-known economic and demographic threats. Developed economies need to not only continue productivity increases, as they have in the past, in order to maintain their accustomed increase in living standards; they need to additionally increase their productivity to offset their falling worker-to-nonworker ratios. In short, fewer workers are going to need to produce far more.
Perhaps AI can be the solution to these productivity pressures. Perhaps AI will only be part of solution. Perhaps AI will exceed needed productivity targets; just as technological advances have exceeded expectations in the past. What is clear is that developed nations must fill a looming productivity gap. And that solution will most certainly come from their private sectors, not from their governments and those in them working to slow productivity increases.
