Birth rates are declining in most of the world, including Australia. Here’s why that really matters

Liz Allen, Australian National University

Birth rates have been declining worldwide since the peak of the post-second world war baby boom. Birth rates have now reached below replacement in most of the world, including Australia. Put simply, populations on average aren’t replacing themselves.

Everyone from Elon Musk to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to the pope have opinions on declining total fertility (or birth) rates – the average number of births per woman.

Overpopulation has dominated popular discourse since the 1960s. While fears of overpopulation remain, especially tied to immigration, concerns have shifted to depopulation and the related economic and national security issues.

Overpopulation fears to depopulation woes

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned the 1970s would bring “people, people, people, people” and an overpopulation “cancer” resulting in famine and war. Human extinction was imminent, we were warned.

Overpopulation-associated human extinction has not come to be.

The global total fertility rate has more than halved since 1950. Average birth rates for OECD countries now sit at 1.46 births per woman, well below the 2.1 required for generational replacement.

World population decline is projected by the mid-2080s. China is now in its fourth year of population decline. South Korea has been declining since 2019 with its near-global record low birth rates. Germany has seen deaths outnumber births since 1972. Japan, Greece, Italy, Cuba and Thailand are also among those in the depopulation club.

Without immigration, the United Kingdom would also see population decline, with deaths outnumbering births. Australia is about a generation away from the same fate. Immigration controls have seen depopulation in Canada.

Birth rates a solution to the ageing ‘problem’

Enormous advancements since the 1950s, mostly in health and medical technologies like immunisation, mean humans are living longer. We’re also having fewer children, and as a result populations are ageing.

An ageing population is a mark of success and human ingenuity, but economic systems tend to view ageing societies as problematic.

Workers and working-aged people are essential to maintain a healthy economy. Individual income taxpayers are the top source of federal government revenue in Australia. Too few people of working age replacing those retiring can seriously undermine economic wellbeing, forcing governments to do more service provision with less financial resources.

Below-replacement fertility and its implications for government bottom lines have resulted in Australian politicians calling on Australians to have more babies. “Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, treasurer Peter Costello famously said in 2004.

In 2020, former prime minister Tony Abbott suggested the wrong kind of women were having children, calling on “middle class” women to have more. Talking the budget, treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2024 said it would be “better if birth rates were higher”.

Human catastrophe of low birth rates

People are increasingly saying the choice to have children is constrained by external factors. Worldwide, around one-in-five surveyed by the United Nations said fears about the future would or has resulted in them having fewer children than they wanted.

Housing affordability, economic stability, gender inequality and climate change present insurmountable barriers for having a much-wanted family.

The lack of choice to have children in below-replacement regions, I’d argue is indeed a human catastrophe. How is it that we’ve allowed society to become so hostile that children are out of the question for so many who want them?

The intergenerational bargain is well and truly corrupted.

We are confronted with the tough question of who will care for us with the children gone.

Can a human catastrophe be avoided?

The burden of having a family falls on working-aged people, especially women.

A baby bonus or one-off payment is unlikely to change people’s minds and increase the total fertility rate; such payments merely change timing. Instead, increasing total fertility rates requires a comprehensive suite of measures from a policy perspective.

Tackling the big four big domains of housing, the economy, gender and climate encompass issues such as

• secure, affordable and appropriate housing
• employment and income security
• accessible childcare
• social and workplace gender equality
• climate change action.

People of childbearing age aren’t being hedonistic when making family and fertility decisions. They’re not thinking about themselves, they’re actually thinking about the future world and weighing what that might look like for prospective children.

Loss of hope among people of childbearing age, including fears of being left behind, contribute to overall concerns about an insecure future.

Not only is the human catastrophe of low births rates reflecting more widespread concerns, such as insecurity, it could also be undermining social cohesion.

Rather than an exploding bomb of overpopulation, the world faces an economic and social implosion due to lacking substantive supports necessary to help raise much-wanted children.

Surely it’s beyond time we ask people what they actually need – and give it to them.

Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........ → May 15, 2026

AST SpaceMobile satellite placed into wrong orbit

Posted by Harry Baldock : The failed deployment could hinder commercial pilots of direct-to-device (D2D) services for AST’s mobile operator partners

Satellite company AST SpaceMobile has hit a setback this week, with its latest BlueBird 7 satellite being deployed in the wrong orbit.

The launch, which took pace on Sunday, saw BlueBird 7 carried into low Earth Orbit (LEO) by Blue Origin’s New Glenn reusable rocket. However, issues in deployment led to the satellite being placed into too low an orbit.

“During the New Glenn 3 mission, BlueBird 7 was placed into a lower than planned orbit by the upper stage of the launch vehicle. While the satellite separated from the launch vehicle and powered on, the altitude is too low to sustain operations with its on-board thruster technology and will [be] de-orbited,” explained AST SpaceMobile in a statement, noting that the cost of the lost satellite was covered by an insurance policy.

AST is currently in the process of deploying a constellation of roughly 90 LEO satellites, which will be used to provide global coverage of D2D satellite services. This will allow AST’s mobile operator partners, such as Vodafone and AT&T, to provide customers with coverage beyond the limits of their terrestrial networks.

AST currently has six active satellites in orbit, which provide intermittent coverage and have primarily been used for preliminary tests of the company’s D2D technology. BlueBird 7 was set to be the first of the company’s upgraded satellites, with 45–60 additional devices targeted for launch before the end of the year.

“The company is currently in production through BlueBird 32, with BlueBird 8 to 10 expected to be ready to ship in approximately 30 days,” said the company statement. “The company continues to expect an orbital launch every one to two months on average during 2026, supported by agreements with multiple launch providers, and it continues to target approximately 45 satellites in orbit by the end of 2026.”The extent to which the failure to deliver BlueBird7 will impact AST’s customers is unclear. VodafoneThree, for example, is scheduled to begin trials of the technology with customers this summer. AST SpaceMobile satellite placed into wrong orbit - Total Telecom

Read More........ → May 05, 2026

Your smart home can be easily hacked. New safety standards will help, but stay vigilant

Yang Xiang, Swinburne University of Technology

On a quiet suburban street, a modern Australian home wakes before its owners do.

The lights turn on automatically, the thermostat adjusts to a comfortable temperature, and the coffee machine begins brewing. A doorbell camera watches the front yard, a baby monitor streams live footage to a parent’s phone, and a smart speaker waits for its next command.

This is the promise of the smart home: convenience, efficiency and peace of mind.

But behind this smooth experience is a hidden risk: every connected device can also be a way for cyber attackers to get in.

The Australian government has responded by introducing minimum security standards for smart devices to better protect households in this increasingly connected world.

These standards recently took effect. So what’s in them? And are they sufficient to keep people safe?

Starting with manufacturers

From my experience working in cybersecurity, I’ve seen that security risks start from manufacturers themselves.

Many smart devices are not designed with security as a priority. Manufacturers often focus on keeping costs low, releasing products quickly, and making them easy to use. Security is treated as an afterthought.

For example, many devices arrive with weak default passwords such as “admin” or “1234”, which users rarely change. This creates an easy opportunity for attackers to gain access.

The Mirai botnet attack in 2016 clearly demonstrated the risks. In this case, hundreds of thousands of insecure devices such as doorbell cameras were hijacked to launch massive “distributed denial-of-service” (DDoS) attacks. This is a type of cyber attack where many computers or devices are used together to overwhelm a website, server, or network with traffic, so it becomes slow or completely unavailable to legitimate users.

More recent research has shown smart home devices can be exploited not only to disrupt systems but also to spy on households. In some cases, strangers have accessed baby monitors, and poorly secured cameras have exposed private footage online.

Another major issue is the lack of regular software updates.

Many low-cost or older devices don’t receive ongoing security patches, which means known software vulnerabilities remain open indefinitely. Attackers actively scan the internet for such devices, exploiting weaknesses at a large scale. Cloud-connected and AI-enabled systems amplify risks.

The consequences of these weaknesses go beyond individual households. Compromised devices can be used as part of larger cyber attacks, forming botnets that target critical infrastructure or businesses.

In effect, an insecure smart lightbulb or camera can become a building block in global cyber crime operations.

What are the new standards?

In response to these growing threats, the Australian government has begun introducing mandatory minimum security standards for connected devices.

These standards took effect earlier this month. They aim to establish a baseline level of protection across all products entering the market.

While the details of these standards may evolve, the key ideas are clear.

First, devices must not use universal default passwords. Each device should either require users to create a unique password during setup or be shipped with a unique credential.

Second, manufacturers must provide a clear vulnerability disclosure policy, allowing security researchers to report issues responsibly.

Third, there must be transparency around how long a device will receive security updates, so consumers can make informed decisions.

These changes shift some responsibility from users to manufacturers. Instead of expecting consumers to fix security problems themselves, devices must be designed to be safer from the start.

In practice, this means fewer vulnerabilities and greater accountability across the industry.

Regulation alone isn’t enough

However, regulation alone is not enough. Household behaviour still plays a critical role in maintaining security. Fortunately, some of the most effective steps are simple.

Changing default passwords to strong, unique ones is one of the most important steps. A strong password should be long, complex and not reused across multiple devices or accounts.

Enabling multi-factor authentication wherever possible adds a second layer of defence, making it significantly harder for attackers to gain access.

Regularly updating device firmware, also known as “software for hardware”, is equally important. Firmware updates often include patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities, and delaying them leaves devices exposed.

Users should also consider their home network design. Placing smart devices on a separate network, such as a guest wifi, can help isolate them from more sensitive information on personal or work devices.

Finally, choosing reputable manufacturers matters. Companies with a strong track record of providing ongoing security updates and transparent policies are generally safer choices than unknown or low-cost alternatives.

Smart homes are becoming an integral part of everyday life, and their benefits continue to grow. But as intelligence and automation expand, convenience must not come at the expense of security and trust.

With stronger standards, better-designed devices and more informed users, it is possible to enjoy the benefits of smart homes without exposing ourselves to unnecessary cyber risks.

Yang Xiang, Professor, Computer Science, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........ → March 18, 2026