The map above marks every European region that crosses the one million resident threshold. Ile-de-France leads at 12.4 million residents, followed by Lombardia in northern Italy at 10 million and Andalucia in southern Spain at 8.6 million.

Geographers have called this arc the Blue Banana since French geographer Roger Brunet named it in 1989 – it takes in Greater London, the Benelux, Westphalia, the Rhineland, Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland and Lombardia, with roughly 100 million people concentrated in that band (rxo.com).

Across the EU, 95 out of 244 NUTS level 2 regions had populations between 1 and 2 million as of January 2024 (Eurostat) – most of them inside or adjacent to that same corridor.

The density range across the continent differs considerably, from 21,000 inhabitants per square kilometre in central Paris to 2 in Finland’s Lapland.

The post Europe’s Most Populated Regions appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Murmansk is the largest city in the world north of the Arctic Circle. 270,000 people live there. Real city with schools, shops, apartment buildings. Families have lived there for generations. Norilsk and Yakutsk are similar – permanent Arctic settlements where people build lives.

In Canada, Nunavut covers an enormous territory but has almost no one. About 39,000 people live across 1.9 million square kilometers (733,000 sq mi). Iqaluit is the capital and largest town with around 9,000 people. The rest is empty tundra.

The map below, created by Piotr Kapuściński’s, shows population density in the Arctic.

Why the gap? Russia invested in Arctic development during Soviet times. They needed resources from there – minerals, oil, gas. Built infrastructure, cities, permanent populations. Mining operations and factories required full-time workers. Communities grew to support them.

Canada approached differently. Companies extracted resources temporarily then left. Workers came for jobs and departed. Greenland similar. The Arctic never became worth permanent development. You don’t build cities for temporary work.

The Arctic costs enormous amounts to develop. Permafrost makes construction complicated. Heating and supply chains run expensive. You invest that money only for something valuable. Russia decided the resources justified it. Other nations disagreed.

Climate change is reshaping the picture. Melting permafrost destabilizes buildings in Arctic cities. Warming opens new shipping routes and makes resource extraction easier. The paradox is obvious, the Arctic becomes more valuable and more fragile at the same time. Whether governments maintain these cities or let them shrink as permafrost disappears remains undecided.

The post Population Density in the Arctic Mapped appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Europe is where the numbers get genuinely hard to process. Germany and Spain have been below 1.5 for years. Italy too. South Korea recorded 0.72 in 2023. Pension systems, healthcare, military recruitment, economic growth — all of these are built on the assumption that the next generation will be at least as large as the current one. In several countries, that assumption quietly stopped being true a long time ago.

How does this happen? Cities, mostly. Once people move into urban areas, the economics of family size flip completely. A child raised in an apartment costs far more than one raised on a farm where they eventually help with the work. Women who pursue education and careers postpone having children, often into their thirties, and frequently end up with fewer than they originally planned.

Latin America and North America are not exempt from any of this. The map below shows the last year each country in the region had a fertility rate above 2.1.

Canada got there first. The country dropped below replacement in 1971, when most of its southern neighbors were nowhere near that point. Cuba was next, in 1977 — post-revolutionary Cuba invested heavily in women’s education and that showed up in the birth rate within a generation. Argentina reached the same point in 1998, Brazil in 2001, the US four years after that.

South America spread across several decades. Chile and Brazil were among the first, crossing in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Colombia reached the same point in 2007. After that the pace picked up — most of the Andean countries dropped below 2.1 within the last seven years, with Bolivia and Paraguay both crossing in 2023.

Central America came last. By 2023 even Guatemala had crossed, with Honduras right at that threshold now.

Haiti, Guyana, and French Guiana are still above 2.1. Lower urbanization, less access to education and healthcare — the same conditions that kept fertility higher elsewhere for longer.

Canada has been offsetting its low birth rate through immigration since roughly the 1980s. Several other countries in the hemisphere are now looking at the same demographic math and working out what their version of an answer looks like — or whether there is one.

The post The Last Time Each Country in the Americas Had a Fertility Rate Above Replacement appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Population has never moved in a straight line. Pandemics hollowed out cities in weeks. Colonization nearly erased entire continents. The Industrial Revolution compressed what should have been centuries of growth into a few decades.

10,000 BCE

The 10,000 BCE map created puts 26% of all humanity in North America and another 24% in South America. Half the world in the Americas!

The total global population was 4.5 million. Europe, for all its land area, held only 481,000 people. Africa, despite being where our species spent its first hundred thousand years, had just 228,000. There were no cities anywhere. Most people were hunter-gatherers, spread in small bands across six inhabited continents — and the two largest concentrations were in the Americas.

The Plague of Justinian (541–549 CE)

500 CE. The world holds 253.4 million people, and 70% of them live in Asia — 176.6 million, accumulated over thousands of years in the river valleys running from the Indian subcontinent east to China. In 541, that changed.

Emperor Justinian himself caught the plague and survived, which is how it got its name. Byzantine chroniclers recorded between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per day in Constantinople at the outbreak’s height, with mass graves filling faster than gravediggers could keep pace. Historians still argue about the exact figures. What nobody disputes is that nothing in any earlier written record comes anywhere close.

The pathogen killed most efficiently where merchants and travellers crossed paths — ports, market towns, the roads connecting them. Rural Asia sat largely outside those networks and was mostly spared. Europe’s count fell from 28.6 million to 24.6 million by 600 CE. Alexandria and Antioch had been Mediterranean commercial anchors for centuries before 541; both shrank after it and never returned to their earlier scale. Asia grew from 176.6 million to 195.1 million.

A century after the outbreak, 18 million more people were alive globally than in 500 CE. The regions the plague couldn’t reach had kept adding up. The Byzantine Empire was a different matter — it never recovered the territorial control it had held before 541.

The Black Death (1347–1351)

In 1347, Yersinia pestis was back. The death toll over the following four years was on a scale the Justinianic outbreak never reached. Between a third and more than half of Europe’s entire population died. Some regions lost close to three-quarters of their people in under four years.

In 1300, the world held 456.2 million people. Asia stood at 279.8 million (59%). Europe had grown to 83.3 million, 18% of the global total, built on centuries of agricultural expansion and slow urban growth. The Americas, still entirely cut off from Old World pathogens, held around 50 million people combined.

By 1400, the world total had fallen to 442.3 million and Asia’s count had dropped from 279.8 to 270.8 million. Parts of England, France, and Italy lost between a third and half their people in a matter of years. Whole villages were abandoned. The labour shortages that followed broke open power relationships across Europe that had held for generations.

A net global decline of 3%. Unremarkable in percentage terms, historically significant as the first recorded instance of world population going backward, produced by a single pathogen moving along trade routes. The effects on European society outlasted the pandemic by centuries. The Church’s authority over ordinary life weakened sharply in the aftermath. Landowners who had never negotiated wages found themselves with no leverage. The intellectual response to the Black Death fed directly into the medical and philosophical shifts of the Renaissance. Population event and civilizational turning point — the two are genuinely hard to separate here.

The Americas, 1492–1600

Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, held between 200,000 and 300,000 people in 1500. No European city was that size. The Inca road network covered more than 40,000 kilometres. North America held 30.5 million people and South America 29.9 million. By 1600, North America was down to 3.8 million.

South America to 6.4 million. About 50 million people were gone in one century.

The primary mechanism was not conquest, though warfare was real. It was disease. Smallpox spread through populations with no prior immunity, often traveling indigenous trade networks before any colonizer arrived in person. Some communities were already devastated before they ever encountered a European.

Over that same century, the world’s total population edged up from 503 million to 516 million. Europe, Asia, and Africa more than covered the loss.

In 1500, the Americas held nearly one tenth of all humanity. In 1600, they held less than 1% of a larger world.

The Industrial Revolution (Late 1700s–1800)

In 1700, there were 595.5 million people on Earth. In 1800, there were 983.1 million. A 65% increase in one century — which doesn’t fully register until you consider that it had taken from the first Homo sapiens until approximately 1700 CE to reach 595 million. The following hundred years added 388 million more.

Improved agriculture, better food supply, and early gains in sanitation all played a role, though the gains were very unevenly distributed. Europe grew from 115.4 million to 192.9 million (67%). Asia from 386.9 million to 683.2 million (77%). North America grew from 6.8 million to 14.8 million, almost entirely through European immigration. Indigenous populations remained severely diminished and contributed little to that number. Africa added only about 2.7 million people across the whole century, going from 78.6 million to 81.3 million, even while the transatlantic slave trade was forcibly removing tens of millions from the continent.

The 1800 cartogram is the first in this series that looks anything like the world we know. Asia dominates, Europe is substantial, the Americas are beginning to refill. The billion mark arrived a few decades later. Each subsequent billion came faster than the one before it, and the intervals have kept compressing.

The Map Today

Asia has 4.8 billion people today, 59% of humanity. Africa 1.5 billion (18%), Europe 747 million (9%), North America 608.8 million (8%), South America 433 million (5%), Oceania 45.6 million (1%).

North America’s trajectory across these maps is the most dramatic of all. In 1600, the continent held fewer than 4 million people. It now holds 608 million, rebuilt through immigration. Indigenous populations never came close to recovering their pre-1492 numbers. Most of Africa’s growth happened after 1950. Asia’s share has been declining gradually as birth rates fall — particularly in East and South Asia.

Continental Peak Shares: Who Held the Highest Proportion of Humanity, and When

Asia’s all-time peak of 71.8% came in 600 CE, directly after the Plague of Justinian had gutted the Mediterranean world while leaving much of rural Asia intact. Europe peaked in 1908, after industrialization and colonial-era demographics had placed roughly a quarter of all humanity within European-origin populations. That share has declined in every decade since.

Africa at 18.3% in 2023 has never been higher in the dataset. It is the only major region where the peak is almost certainly still ahead.

The Population Peak

The UN currently puts the likely global peak somewhere around 10.3 billion, expected to arrive in the mid-2080s. In a growing number of countries, birth rates have already fallen below replacement level. At some point after the peak, the global total may start drifting downward as populations in parts of Europe and East Asia begin to shrink outright.

Africa is the only major region growing fast enough to shift the cartogram substantially in the coming decades. Asia’s share is already edging down. Europe’s absolute population is projected to shrink within decades. The 2100 map will almost certainly show an Africa larger than at any point in the 12,000 years covered here.

The post From 4.5 Million to 8 Billion: How Earth’s Population Changed Over 12,000 Years appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Before the 20th century, roughly a quarter of children in most parts of the world didn’t reach their fifth birthday. In some regions and periods it was closer to half.

Industrialization pushed childhood mortality down. Then 20th-century public health accelerated it — mass vaccination, cleaner water supplies, antibiotics. But families didn’t immediately start having fewer children just because fewer were dying. It took a generation, sometimes two, before birth rates adjusted. During that lag, population grew faster than at any point in recorded history.

Green countries are above 2.1 children per woman — the rate at which a population can hold steady without immigration. Red is below it. Africa and much of Central Asia are green. Most of the rest of the world is not.

The whole of Sub-Saharan Africa sits well above 2.1. Chad is at 5.94, Somalia 5.91, DR Congo 5.90. The region is still in that lag period: child mortality has improved significantly over recent decades, but the economic and social conditions that eventually pull birth rates down — access to education for girls, urbanization,
contraception — are running on a different timeline than they did in, say, South Korea or Iran a generation ago.

Europe and East Asia have been below replacement for a long time. Japan has been below 2.1 for close to forty years. Governments across Southern and Eastern Europe have handed out cash payments for new babies, built more daycare centers, extended parental leave — Italy is at 1.20 now, Spain 1.21. South Korea
has spent more on incentivizing births per capita than almost any country on Earth and is down to 0.75, the lowest rate of any sovereign nation in this dataset.

Iran is at 1.67. Brazil 1.60, Argentina 1.51. Mexico is at 1.87. These are countries that spent decades being associated with rapid population growth. India crossed below 2.1 around 2020 and is at 1.94 now. The Philippines was at 6.0 in the early 1960s and is at 1.88 today. The perception of these places as high-fertility countries has simply not kept pace with the data.

The world average is 2.24. Above 2.1, yes, but not by much, and without Sub-Saharan Africa it would already be below replacement.

Interestingly, Israel is at 2.75 — high for a country at its income level, the product of religious demographics anddecades of active government support for larger families. Kazakhstan is at 2.95, Uzbekistan 3.45, Tajikistan 2.99. Most of these countries are still heavily rural, and in practice it’s urbanization that pulls birth rates down more consistently than any policy. Bangladesh is at 2.11, essentially sitting on the line. Lebanon is at 2.21 and has been falling for years.

For most of the 20th century, the population concern dominating political thinking was overpopulation — too many people pressing against limited food and resources. In parts of the world where birth rates are still high, that concern is still real. But in most of Europe, East Asia, and now growing parts of Latin America, the actual problem governments are dealing with is the opposite: workforces shrinking faster than pension systems can absorb, and smaller cities losing residents with nothing reversing it. China ended the one-child policy in 2015 and has been running incentives to have more children ever since, with almost nothing to show for it. No country has worked out how to meaningfully raise a fertility rate once it has dropped this far.

By 2035, a lot more of this map will be red.

The post Most Countries Can No Longer Replace Their Own Populations appeared first on Vivid Maps.

They made their forecasts using what’s called medium variant projections. Some countries didn’t even exist yet when they made these – USSR was still around, Yugoslavia hadn’t split up – so those got added later with 1994 data once the new countries actually existed.

35 years later, here we are in 2025. How’d they do?

Western Europe went over most predictions. Eastern Europe came up way short. Luxembourg almost doubled. Andorra lost nearly half.

Luxembourg Went All-In on Banking

Luxembourg had 382,000 people in 1990. The UN said they’d have 361,000 by now. They’ve actually got 680,000. That’s 88% higher than predicted.

Steel was Luxembourg’s thing back in 1990. Then over the next decade or so, the whole country shifted into banking and finance. It became one of Europe’s major financial centers. GDP per capita went higher than anywhere else. If you worked in Brussels and could get a job in Luxembourg, you’d make maybe 30-40% more. People moved there from all over Europe.

The people making forecasts in 1990 were looking at a steel economy. They couldn’t have known it would transform this much.

Greece Got There But Not How They Expected

They predicted Greece would have 10,080,000 people. It’s got 9,938,000 now. That’s only 142,000 off, which is about 1.4%. Best prediction in the whole dataset.

But it didn’t happen the way the model expected at all. They figured the population would keep growing as the economy got better and Greece got more tied into the EU. For a while it did go that way. Tourism was booming, there was construction all over, EU money coming in, the numbers climbing pretty much on schedule.

Then the 2009 crisis hit and it really hurt the country. Youth unemployment went over 50 percent and a lot of young Greeks left for Germany, the UK, Australia, wherever they could find jobs. Birth rates fell sharply. The population dropped again until it landed almost exactly where the old forecast said it would.

Andorra’s Mountain Problem

They thought Andorra would have 153,000 people. It’s got 82,000. Almost half what they predicted.

Andorra did fine economically. It became a tax haven, businesses came in from Spain and France, money flowed. But Andorra’s in a valley with mountains all around it. You can’t just make more valley. Housing got crazy expensive. Young people who grew up there couldn’t afford it anymore and moved to cheaper Spanish and French towns just across the borders.

Now there’s a waiting list to move to Andorra. Application fee is €50,000 and it’s non-refundable. Want to live there without working? You need to invest €1,000,000 in the country. When you run out of space, economic success doesn’t fix it.

Where Eastern Europeans Went

Eastern Europe is where the forecasts went wrong the most. Poland had 38 million people in 1990 and they thought it would reach 45 million but it’s stayed right around 38 million the whole time. Romania started at 23 million, was supposed to get to 25.7 million, and instead fell to 18.9 million. Moldova was 41.6 percent below the forecast, Albania 44.6 percent. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania — the same thing happened there, all of them millions short.

Roughly 25 million people left Eastern Europe for the west between 1990 and 2015. That’s more than Romania has now. The countries with less stable governments and fewer good opportunities lost the most of their younger and educated people who went looking for better pay in Germany, France and the UK. All those people helped push the western numbers higher in ways the 1990 models never included.

Why They Got It Wrong

A lot of this was hard to see coming at the time. The forecasts came out in 1990 just after the Berlin Wall fell and while Germany was reunifying. The Soviet Union held on until the end of 1991.

EU expansion creating freedom of movement between countries with huge wage gaps? Couldn’t see it yet. Wars tearing through Yugoslavia in the 90s? Not predictable from 1990. Luxembourg going from steel to banking? Not obvious. Ireland’s economic boom? Not on the radar.

Birth rates dropped faster than expected, especially in Southern and Eastern Europe. Migration completely reshaped where people actually live.

What’s Predicted for 2050

Eurostat’s 2025 projections have the EU at about 450 million now. They expect it to peak around 453 million near 2026 and then ease back to roughly 448 million by 2050.

The headline number makes it look fairly stable but the differences between countries are big. The European Commission worked out that without any migration the EU would lose about 14 percent of its population by 2050. Migration helps reduce that loss but it doesn’t get rid of it.

Luxembourg, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France are projected to keep growing. Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia keep shrinking – they’ve already lost over 20% from their peaks.

EU fertility averages 1.5 births per woman. You need 2.1 just to maintain population. Even with about a million migrants per year coming in, population still declines because there aren’t enough young people. Demographers call this “negative population momentum.”

Bruegel’s 2024 research shows that between 2023 and 2050, natural population change will average negative 3 per thousand annually. Migration adds 2.6 per thousand. That’s still a net decline.

These 2050 forecasts could easily be as far off as the 1990 ones were. Migration is really hard to predict. Political changes, economic problems, conflicts, climate effects — any of them could cause movements we aren’t expecting. Fertility might go up if policies actually help families or it could drop more if things get harder. Remote work could also change where people want to live.

The post When Demographers Tried to Predict 2025… Back in 1990 appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Five countries worldwide break the 250 million mark: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, and Pakistan. India has 1.46 billion people, making it the most populous country. But there’s a single Indian state that, if independent, would be the world’s sixth most populous country.

We’re looking at Uttar Pradesh—241 million people in 2025. More people live there than in Brazil, which has around 213 million, or Nigeria with about 230 million. It’s even got more than all of South America combined, or Europe minus Russia.

Located in northern India, Uttar Pradesh borders Nepal on one side and states likeBihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttarakhand on the others. The capital, Lucknow, has a population of roughly 4 million.

You might expect massive urban centers with all those people, but that’s not the case. Only 22.3% lived in cities according to the 2011 census. Most live in villages and smaller towns.

So why here? Look at the soil. For millennia, Himalayan rivers have been dumping sediment onto the Indo-Gangetic plain. The Ganges and Yamuna wash down minerals from melting glaciers and deposit them across the land. Fresh nutrients arrive constantly, keeping the soil productive. Agriculture has thrived here since ancient times.

The number of people has exploded over the past century, jumping from around 47 million in 1901 to over five times that now, making up about 17% of India’s population!

The 3D map below, created by themapsdaily, shows where people live in Uttar Pradesh.

People cluster along the river valleys Hinduism is the religion of about 80% of people, Islam of 19%. In rural areas, Hinduism dominates even more.

It’s got the third biggest economy in India, around $370 billion. Farming is huge here. In 2020-21, the state grew 58.10 million tonnes of food grain—that’s nearly 19% of India’s total. Services are 47% of the economy, farming is 27%, and industry takes up 26.5% (source). Cities hold a surprisingly small share of the population:

These seven together have about 14 million residents. That’s only 7% of the state. Kanpur, the largest, holds less than 1.5%. In most heavily populated regions, big cities capture much larger shares. Here, people live spread across thousands of small towns and villages, working farms.

Kanpur does a lot with leather and clothes, Lucknow runs the government side, Agra pulls in tourists for the Taj Mahal, and Ghaziabad benefits from being near Delhi. No single city dominates.

Feeding and housing nearly 250 million creates strain. Fertilizer use runs high to keep farms productive. Housing can’t keep pace with urban growth. Traffic clogs roads. About 14.7% migrated out by 2011 hunting for jobs. Schools continue expanding, highways get built, metro systems connect more areas. Uttar Pradesh shows what productive farmland can do across millennia. River valleys that drew the first farmers continue supporting enormous populations.

The post The World’s Most Populous Subdivision: Uttar Pradesh Has More People Than Brazil appeared first on Vivid Maps.

How low has fertility gone? Try 1.0 child per woman in 2023. You need 2.1 just to maintain current numbers. Do the math and you’ll see each generation is replacing itself at less than half the necessary rate.

Look at the map and you’ll notice the crisis isn’t hitting everywhere equally. Guizhou province? 1.68 children per woman. Heilongjiang in the northeast? Just 0.52. Shanghai sits at 0.53. Demographers use the term “extinction-level fertility” to describe these numbers. Without massive immigration, populations at these levels eventually disappear.

The one-child policy ran from 1979 to 2015. Most people assume that’s the main reason fertility collapsed. Actually, the policy accounts for only 38% of the decline. The remaining 62%? Those are economic pressures that stuck around after the policy ended.

Take housing. Property prices in cities and coastal regions have made it nearly impossible for young couples to afford starting families. When your rent or mortgage eats up most of your income, having children becomes a financial impossibility. Childcare costs, food prices, everything connected to housing has climbed too.

Education is another huge factor. A decade ago, one in twenty young people went to college. Now it’s one in three. That expansion created intense competition for university spots. Parents spend enormous sums on tutoring and test preparation. Many feel they can only afford to invest in one child’s educational future.

Then there’s the cultural transformation. Work demands have intensified for young people. Women especially struggle with the career-family balance. A lot of couples now think one child is plenty. Some skip having kids altogether. The government has rolled out better maternity benefits and cheaper childcare programs. Young couples aren’t buying it.

The 2024 UN World Population Prospects report has China’s population dropping to 1.3 billion by 2050, then 633 million by 2100. The UN notes China “will likely experience the largest absolute population loss between 2024 and 2054” of any country.

Here’s something interesting. Compare China to the United States. America’s fertility rate sits around 1.6, also below replacement level. But America’s population grows through immigration while China experiences net emigration. Check out these projections:

Right now China has about four times the US population. By 2100? Just 1.5 times as many people. In three generations, the demographic relationship between these countries will flip.

India currently has 1.45 billion people. The country will grow to about 1.7 billion by the early 2060s, then fall back to roughly 1.5 billion by 2100.

What happens to China with all these demographic changes? Pension systems will strain under fewer workers supporting more retirees. Healthcare systems face similar pressures. Economic growth gets harder. The northeastern provinces show what’s ahead. Their cities are shrinking, schools have shut down, and the elderly outnumber working-age residents by growing margins.

Government attempts to boost births haven’t worked. Better maternity leave? Doesn’t help. Lower education costs? Not enough. Improved childcare? Still not working. The problem isn’t benefits. It’s that housing prices remain astronomical. Kids cost money that young families simply don’t have.

The post China’s Fertility Crisis: From World’s Most Populous to Demographic Collapse appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The countries of Western and Northern Europe have the lowest share of 15–19-year-olds with two native-born parents because they have long attracted workers, students, and families from abroad for economic reasons. In contrast, many Central and Eastern European countries cannot boast such appeal to immigrants. As a result, in places like Bulgaria and Romania, almost all teenagers have parents who were born in the same country.

Migration flows and birth origins have continued to change — I wonder how things look for newborn children today?

The post Where Europe’s 15–19-Year-Olds Have Two Native-Born Parents appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The map, which you’ll find below, shows the percentage change in population from 2025 to 2100. While a few countries are expected to grow, the majority, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe, are heading in the opposite direction. We’re not talking about small dips either. In some places, the projected decrease is more than half of the current population.

So what’s driving this trend? Three forces are reshaping Europe’s demographic landscape: couples are having fewer children, populations are getting grayer by the decade, and young people are voting with their feet by moving elsewhere. Most European countries have fertility rates that fall well short of replacement level – think 1.3 or 1.4 children per woman instead of the 2.1 needed to maintain stable numbers. The result? Not enough young people coming up to support all those baby boomers heading into retirement.

Add emigration to the mix, and you get a perfect storm. Take Belarus, Ukraine, lithuania and Latvia – these countries have watched entire generations of young workers pack up for Western Europe, chasing better wages and brighter prospects. When your most productive citizens are heading for the exits, population decline becomes almost inevitable.

That seems to be making a difference. Nations like the UK, France, and Sweden are projected to keep growing, with increases of 7%, 3%, and 7% respectively by 2100. Luxembourg leads the pack with a projected 10% increase, while Ireland is expected to remain stable at 0%. This is quite the contrast to countries like Ukraine, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Lithuania, which are all expected to shrink by more than half.

To give you a clearer view, here’s a table of the ten countries expected to lose the most people between now and 2100:

These numbers are dramatic. Shrinking countries often face challenges like fewer workers, weaker economies, aging infrastructure, and shrinking towns. In some cases, entire villages are already being abandoned. Schools are closing, and healthcare systems are under strain as the population ages.

At the same time, countries that are growing or holding steady may be better positioned to adapt to the future. Immigration is a big factor here. Nations like France, the UK, and Sweden have long histories of welcoming people from abroad, and that has helped balance out demographic pressures.

Looking ahead, these demographic shifts will fundamentally reshape Europe’s economic and political landscape. The countries with the steepest population declines will face critical decisions about managing labor shortages, funding pensions, and maintaining infrastructure in increasingly empty regions.

The post Which European Countries Will Lose Half Their Population by 2100?” appeared first on Vivid Maps.