Last week’s blog finished with the following two sentences: “Following the nature of the question – ‘reverse declining fertility,’ the responses focus on mitigating declining fertility. The next blog will focus on adaptation to declining fertility, using the same methodology.” I started to follow up with my promise to use AI in this blog, only to immediately realize that it would not be so simple. If AI and automation take over, there will be less need for workers, and therefore fewer jobs. I started with Co-Pilot (Microsoft), asking an identical question to the one in last week’s blog, only replacing mitigation with adaptation. I got a list of some of the same countries that showed up in last week’s blog. The content of what they are doing was basically identical. I decided to skip the country enumeration and focus on the AI summary that is given below:
AI(Co-Pilot) – Adaptation to Declining population by country:
🧠 Strategic Themes Across Countries
-
-
- Immigration reform is a key lever for countries with declining native populations.
- Automation and AI are being deployed to offset shrinking labor forces.
- Family-friendly policies—like subsidized childcare, paid parental leave, and housing support—are central to boosting birth rates.
- Healthcare and elder care investment is critical as dependency ratios rise.
-
These adaptations reflect a shift from growth-centric models to sustainability and resilience in demographic planning. If you’re curious how your own country is preparing for these changes, I can dive deeper into its specific strategies.
I needed more specific input, and I tried to slightly modify the question and use a different AI (through Google):
AI (Google): Effectiveness of adaptation to declining population by country
No country has effectively solved the challenges of population decline, as long-term declining fertility has proven extremely difficult to reverse. Adaptation measures have focused on increasing birth rates, boosting labor force productivity, and using immigration to offset population loss, but no single approach has been consistently successful.
Case studies on adaptation effectiveness
Challenges and conclusions
-
-
- Pro-natal policies have been largely ineffective:Despite significant investment, measures to boost fertility rates in countries like South Korea and Japan have not achieved replacement-level fertility.
- Immigration is a key adaptation tool:Countries that have adapted most successfully have used immigration to offset population decline. However, this raises social and political challenges related to integration and cultural change.
- Productivity growth is crucial:For developed countries, maintaining per-capita GDP growth in a shrinking workforce requires significant investment in innovation and automation.
- Long-term solutions are needed:Addressing the challenge of an aging society also requires major reforms to social security and pension systems, which are strained by a growing retiree population.
- A “thriving” mindset:Emerging perspectives, like those in the Nordic countries, suggest that a focus on building resilient communities and improving quality of life may be a more effective adaptation strategy than solely focusing on reversing demographic trends.
-
The key sentence in the Co-Pilot response, in my opinion, was “These adaptations reflect a shift from growth-centric models to sustainability and resilience in demographic planning.” The Google AI summary (with the addition of the word “effectiveness”) showed two new perspectives. It stated specifically that no country has yet come out with a policy that can point to a possible solution for population decline. It also singled out the Scandinavian attitude that reversing a declining population might not be necessary. The Nordic countries’ attitude also reflects the fact that declining population inevitably correlates with changing population pyramids, resulting in a major increase in older populations and a decrease in younger ones. This point is basically identical to the key sentence from Co-Pilot quoted above. Earlier blogs that emphasized environmental impact were driven by an identity with the acronym of IPAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology). Just put IPAT in the search box and scan the results. For climate change specifically, the acronym takes the form shown below (See May 31, 2022):
Following the IPAT calculation, I often hear the perspective that one should not be too concerned with declining population because it would also result in a decline in environmental damage. To me, this suggests a “back to the cave” attitude where the best policy is to return to an earlier time when the average life expectancy was in the 20-40 range. 
Figure 1 – Automation to hit major sectors (Source: SHRM)
Figure 2 (Source: SUSPS)
The two AIs responses have in common that the two adaptation policies that can be used to compensate for fertility decline below replacement, are immigration and automation in forms of robotics and AI. The situation in the US is demonstrated in figures 1 and 2. There are serious issues with both policies. The technology of automation in terms of AI and robotics is in its infancy. Figure 1 is titled “automation to hit major sectors,” meaning sometime in the unknown future. Similarly, Figure 2 shows that in the US, immigration is the most important factor that keeps the population growing. However, as the first blog in this series shows (October 8, 2025), the decline in fertility is global. Even the fertility of Sub-Saharan countries is declining. It is still well above replacement, but declining. Immigration as an adaptation to population decline cannot operate on a global scale. Politically, the reliance on immigration to reverse a declining population is a source of political shakeup in many countries. Here is how AI (through Google) summarized the issue:
Global attitudes toward immigration in 2025 are complex, reflecting a mix of welcoming sentiments in some nations and growing concerns in others. A country’s stance on immigration is shaped by economic conditions, recent migration events, the skills of immigrants, and political discourse.
Most and least accepting countries
According to a July 2025 Gallup poll, the most and least accepting countries for migrants are:
-
-
- Most accepting:Iceland and New Zealand.
- Least accepting:Macedonia, Montenegro, and Hungary.
- Other studies have found negative sentiments to be consistently high in Turkey, Italy, and Russia.
-
Attitudes in major receiving and sending countries
United States
-
-
- Shifting views:A July 2025 Gallup poll showed a significant rise in positive attitudes toward immigration. A record-high 79% of U.S. adults said immigration is a “good thing” for the country, a sharp increase from 64% in 2024. The percentage wanting less immigration fell by nearly half to 30%.
- Reasons for the shift:This change coincided with a sharp drop in illegal border crossings in 2024 and was observed across all major political groups. Support for more stringent enforcement measures, such as a border wall and mass deportations, has also declined since 2024.
- Top destination:The U.S. remains the world’s top migrant destination, with over 52 million immigrants as of 2024.
-
European countries
-
-
- Mixed sentiment:Public opinion across Europe is often more negative towards immigration than in other regions. A 2018 Pew study found a more negative attitude shift in France, the UK, and Spain.
- Negative sentiment:In countries that experienced high volumes of asylum seekers in 2015, such as Greece, Germany, and Italy, the initial public perception that immigrants strengthen the country dropped significantly. A 2023 survey identified Austria as the most anti-immigrant country, with other high scores in Germany, the Netherlands, and France.
- Varied within the region:It is crucial to note that sentiments vary significantly within the European region, and no single view represents the continent.
-
Key factors influencing attitudes
-
-
- Economics:Perceptions of economic conditions and competition for jobs can drive negative sentiments towards immigrants. However, recent research in the U.S. shows that cultural factors can be more influential than economic ones.
- Culture:Concerns that an influx of immigrants might negatively alter a country’s culture or national identity are a major driver of anti-immigrant sentiment. Positive attitudes are more likely in countries with inclusive integration policies.
- Skills:Immigrants’ skill level often influences public opinion. Higher-skilled immigrants are generally more accepted than lower-skilled immigrants.
- Politics:Political rhetoric significantly influences attitudes. The issue of immigration is often contentious and is used by political parties to shape voting behavior. A shift in the political landscape can be mirrored by changes in public opinion, as seen in the U.S. in 2025.
-
The AI’s response to the present US attitude toward immigration gave me the impression that it was hallucinating. It happens!