The early 2000s were marked with the fear of a population explosion where we constantly were told that the world is overpopulated. Overpopulation made regular headlines and family planning was encouraged widely, sometimes even extremely. “Hum do, Hamare do,” was a popular slogan and policy too saw changes that were said to promote healthy family planning, despite criticism for some methods. This was a fear that started with The Population Bomb by Thomas Malthus in the West, who theorised that eventually population will outgrow our ability to provide food, but he failed to account for the role of technology. In developing countries, which are often in the first two stages of the Demographic Stage Model, concerns about poverty, unemployed youth, and such lead to the discourse on overpopulation, regardless of benefits of pitfalls of the idea. In the first stage of this model, high birth rates and death rates are seen, with high infant mortality due to need of farm hands and lack of medical help. In the second stage, due to advances in medicine mortality drops but birth rates stay high.
Now, the tables seem to have turned and we hear fears of aging populations, a population collapse, and falling fertility rates. In Japan and Korea, we are seeing this become a reality and now countries like Russia are encouraging childbirth via banning “child-free propaganda,” while others are offering financial incentives to couples who have kids. In India, too, we see politicians encouraging people to have kids. This is because many places are rapidly entering the last two stages of the Demographic Transition Model, where birth rates and death rates both stabilised and eventually birth rates drop. This is where fears of an aging population emerge, with folks wondering if we are heading towards economic collapse and pension problems.
At the same time though, there are environmental concerns and rapidly approaching climate change, caused by human actions which is making people wary about having kids, for fear of their life and also to keep their environmental footprint low, however debated. Let us look at some discourse on that.
Today people are asking, are there too many people or too few? Some experts like Hannah Ritchie, PhD and Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube, have turned to science and are against eco-facism or forcing people to have less kids for environmental reasons. They also question whom do we stop from having children and wonder how ethical that is, while saying that progress is dependent on human brains. Some people have also tried to plant enough trees to cover their child’s life, making them carbon-neutral, an idea which has both merits but also seems narrow-sides in the emphasis on carbon dioxide alone. Experts have also noted that the chart that shows how much children increase one’s environmental impact, adds the perceived impact of several generations to yours, which might not always be the case, and is a prediction at best.
On the other hand, experts like Corey Brahshow, argue that we need to have one less kid each, and not exceed the replacement rate aka 2.1 births per woman. Acharya Prashant, too seems to be of the opinion that having children remains a driver of climate chaos while Gittmarie Johanson, an advocate for climate positive living, recently shared on her socials that we need new generations to come up with innovative ideas as well. ClimateAdam, a climate scientist, has also shared the breakdown that overconsumption and lifestyle are more of a driver of climate change than population alone. While, most liberal leaning people agree it’s a couple and a woman’s individual choice, the messaging is making many question what’s the right choice. Philosophy Tube’s creator has also made a thorough video debunking both the “moral panics” of over and under population, by showing how aging populations might not be the devil people seem to view it as and also pointing out how the fears of a declining population aren’t new.
But what if we are asking the wrong question?
What’s the right question in the population debate?
There are two crucial terms here. Biocapacity and ecological footprint. Biocapacity is the amount of biological resources the planet can produce while ecological footprint is the demand of humanity on nature. When ecological footprint or human demand exceeds the Biocapacity of a place (and we share said Biocapacity with other species) we are in danger. While imports and migration can manage this, you skew the equation enough and we are looking at ecosystems collapsing and resource scarcity.
Hence, the question is not whether there are too many or too few people. At least not from the environmental perspective but where there are enough resources for the people, which is why increasing population in low-impact households isn’t the threat many perceive it to be, as ClimateAdam points out in his aforementioned video on the topic. However, the question then becomes can a place support its population with an adequate quality of life and what is a good quality of life?
Perhaps, the question isn’t whether there are too many of us or too few but whether we are supporting parents, personal choices, and ensuring that there is enough for everyone to have an adequate life without exceeding the natural resources we have or hurting ecosystems and biodiversity. Unfortunately that number too is hotly debated, and of course, will vary from place to place, even without considering cultural ideas of population and fertility health, which again is dependent on systemic support and the quality of natural resources available in one’s place of residence, among other things.
Also check:- Winds of Winter: How Likely Is a 2026 Release?
Yet, what we can take away from this is that while the population question remains nuanced, living a life where we have what adds value to us but where we don’t over consume regularly is the best choice for the planet, as we have discussed in our article on value-core. But that’s just one author’s opinion.
Stay tuned to NB news for the latest updates on the world and more such stimulating opinions.
