The "population problem"

There is no problem. As far as I can see, ecological concerns about overpopulation are both overblown and dangerous. Despite this, many environmental organisations continue to stress that there are too many of us, most prominently the Global Footprint Network, which publishes the Ecological Footprint Calculator (which has its own weaknesses). Not to mention the quite insane groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

First of all, it is not necessarily the case that there are too many people for the Earth's carrying capacity. The issue is more to do with over-consumption in affluent countries. Hickel & Sullivan (2024) have shown that every person on the planet could have decent living standards with only 30% of the current use in resources and energy. Even if this was too high for permanent sustainability, this sort of redistribution and degrowth would go a long way towards the immediate and near-term health of the planet.

Second, population growth is already decreasing as a global average, and parts of the world are already below replacement rate. The world population growth rate is currently just under 1% per year. The global birth rate (measured as children born per women; divide by two for the number of children born per person) stands at 2.2. (The replacement level for a static population is generally considered to be about 2.1).

The affluent West is far below replacement rate. The average number of children born per woman in the European Union is 1.4. Australia: 1.5. North America: 1.6. There is generally a negative relationship between income and birth rate (see below, source). The two most populous countries are also below replacement: China remains at 1.0, India at 2.0.

It can be presumed that sustainable development in those lower-income countries with high birthrates, along with better access for women to contraception, family planning, and bodily autonomy, will reduce these rates over time long before the planet becomes overburdened (to be fair, this is the case made by the Global Footprint Network). This is, in my mind, a reason to promote immigration from high-birth rate countries to low ones (that is to say, from poor to rich). This benefits: a) those individuals coming from high-birth low-income countries who can enjoy a higher standard of living and access to those things listed above, b) the high-birth low-income countries which can diminish the impact of the legitimate overpopulation issues that may result there, and c) the low-birth high-income countries that will be less at risk of unsustainable population decline. This is an oversimplification, but I think the point still stands.

Third, the idea of overpopulation is harmful one, especially when taking into account that the majority of population growth today is happening in Africa. The fact the "population control" would therefore need to be implemented (forced) onto Africans is an obviously racist and eugenicist one. (See also: ecofascism.) It also feeds into the useless anti-immigration policies of many parties (including the "Sustainable Australia Party" which campaigns for an almost four-fold reduction in immigration intake for a country that is pretty much empty). And emphasis on the notion that majority-white countries aren't having as many children feeds into "Great Replacement" conspiracies.

This is all to say that, if I had my way, we wouldn't be talking about population concerns at all, and instead promote a healthy freedom of movement between rich and poor countries. Ideally, living conditions would improve in low-income countries, and material consumption would decrease in affluent countries, making humanity's relationship with the Earth more sustainable.