[A future with fewer people offers increased opportunity and a
healthier environment]
[[link removed]]

POPULATION DECLINE WILL CHANGE THE WORLD FOR THE BETTER  
[[link removed]]


 

Stephanie Feldstein
May 4, 2023
Scientific American
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A future with fewer people offers increased opportunity and a
healthier environment _

World Population, by Arenamontanus (CC BY 2.0)

 

China’s population has fallen after decades of sky-high growth
[[link removed]].
This major shift in the world’s most populous country would be a big
deal by itself, but China’s hardly alone in its declining numbers:
despite the momentous occasion of the global population surpassing
eight billion late last year, the United Nations predicts dozens of
countries
[[link removed]] will
have shrinking populations by 2050. This is good news. Considering no
other large animal’s population has grown as much, as quickly or as
devastatingly for other species as ours, we should all be celebrating
population decline.

Declining populations will ease the pressure eight billion people put
on the planet. As the population and sustainability director at the
Center for Biological Diversity, I’ve seen the devastating effects
of our ever-expanding footprint on global ecosystems. But if you
listen to economists
[[link removed]] (and Elon
Musk
[[link removed]]),
you might believe falling birthrates mean the sky is falling as fewer
babies means fewer workers and consumers driving economic growth.

But there’s more to the story than dollars. Where our current model
of endless growth and short-term profits sacrifices vulnerable people
and the planet’s future, population decline could help create a
future with more opportunity and a healthy, biologically rich world.
We’re at a crossroads—and we decide what happens next. We can
maintain the economic status quo and continue to pursue infinite
growth on a finite planet. Or we can heed the warning signs of a
planet pushed to its limits, put the brakes on environmental
catastrophe, and choose a different way to define prosperity that’s
grounded in equity and a thriving natural world.

Every person on the planet needs food, water, energy and a place to
call home. And if we want to increase wealth equity and quality of
life—as we should—the demands per person will increase, even with
the best-case scenario for sustainable development.

For example, as China grew in population and wealth, so did its
demands on the planet. China’s per capita environmental footprint
is less than half
[[link removed]] of
the U.S., but the country’s total environmental footprint is twice
as large, with the nation responsible for one quarter of imported
deforestation
[[link removed]] and one
third of global greenhouse emissions
[[link removed]]. Reducing
consumption in high-income countries is necessary, but insufficient on
its own if global population continues to rise.

As the human population has doubled over the past 50 years, wildlife
populations have plummeted by an average of 69 percent.
[[link removed]] We’ve already altered at
least 70 percent
[[link removed]] of
Earth’s land, with some reports putting that number at 97 percent
[[link removed]].
Our activities have driven wildlife from their homes and destroyed
irreplaceable ecosystems.

The loss of biodiversity is tragic in itself. A world without
elephants, hellbender salamanders and the million other species at
risk of extinction
[[link removed]] in the coming
decades would be deeply impoverished. Wild plants and animals enrich
our lives and hold vital ecosystems together. The fresh water we need
to survive, the plants we rely on for food and medicine, and the
forests we depend on for clean air and carbon sequestration are all
the product of complex interactions between life-forms ranging from
microbes and pollinators to carnivores and scavengers. When even a
single thread is pulled from that tapestry, the entire system can
unravel.

For those more worried about economics than life on Earth, the World
Bank estimates that ecosystem collapse could cost $2.7 trillion a
year [[link removed]] by
2030. Deloitte recently estimated climate chaos could cost the United
States alone $14.5 trillion
[[link removed]] by
2070 as we respond to the increasingly frequent and intense damage
caused by extreme weather and wildfires, and the threats to
communities, farms and businesses from droughts and unpredictable
weather. While many assume population decline would inevitably harm
the economy, researchers found that lower fertility rates would not
only result in lower emissions by 2055, but a per capita income
increase of 10 percent
[[link removed]].

Lower fertility rates also typically signal an increase in gender
equality. Better-educated women tend to have fewer children, later in
life. This slows population growth and helps reduce carbon emissions
[[link removed]]. And when
women are in leadership roles, they’re more likely than men to
advance initiatives to fight climate change
[[link removed]] and protect nature
[[link removed]].
These outcomes are side effects of policies that are necessary
regardless of their impact on population.

In places where these cultural changes have happened, there’s no
going back. Even in China, where fertility was initially reduced by
the draconian one-child policy, women don’t want to give up
[[link removed]] their
educational and economic freedom now that larger families are allowed.

Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth.
Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower
fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and
well-being.

Sign up for _Scientific American_’s free newsletters.
[[link removed]]

If populations decline, some places will have to adapt to societal
aging. If we choose a deliberate decline resulting from increased
well-being, then we could take the fear out of family planning and
make a better future for people and the planet.   

We must choose. We can let the growth-based economy determine our
planet’s fate, or we can stop pretending that demography and ecology
are two separate issues.

With the first scenario we’ll find that an economy fueled by
limitless population growth makes it increasingly difficult to address
environmental crises. Communities are already struggling in the face
of worsening droughts, extreme weather and other consequences of
climate disruption—and population pressure makes adaptation even
harder. A growing population will further stress damaged ecosystems,
reducing their resilience and increasing the risk of threats like
pandemics, soil desertification and biodiversity loss in a downward
spiral.

With the second—slow decline and all that comes with it—we can
ultimately scale back our pressure on the environment, adapt to
climate change, and protect enough places for imperiled wildlife to
find refuge and potentially recover.

But despite how inevitable population decline will benefit people and
the planet, world leaders have done little to prepare for a world
beyond the paradigm of endless growth. They need to prepare for an
aging population now while realigning our socioeconomic structures
toward degrowth. Meanwhile, immigration can help soften some of the
demographic blows by bringing younger people into aging countries.

Governments must invest in health care, support caregivers, help
people who want to work longer do so, and redesign communities to meet
the housing, transportation and service needs of older people. We need
to move our economy toward one where people and nature can thrive
[[link removed]].
That means managing consumption, prioritizing social and environmental
welfare over profits, valuing cooperation and recognizing the need for
a range of community-driven solutions. These practices already
exist—in mutual-aid programs and worker-owned cooperatives—but
they must become the foundation of our economy rather than the
exception.

We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender
equity movements, and the environmental movement. Environmental
toxicity, reproductive health and wildlife protection are deeply
intertwined
[[link removed]].
Pollution, climate change and degraded ecosystems harm pregnant
people, fetuses and children, and make it difficult to raise safe and
healthy families.

Finally, we need what the United Nations’ most recent climate and
biodiversity reports drive home, and conservationists, climate
scientists and policy makers have demanded for decades: a rapid, just
transition to renewable energy and sustainable food systems and a
global commitment to halting human-caused extinctions now
[[link removed]].

Population stabilization and decline will inevitably be achieved by
centering human rights. Policy makers must guarantee bodily autonomy
and access to reproductive health care, gender equity, and women and
girls’ education.

By addressing the crises in front of us, empowering everyone to
decide if and when to have children, and planning for population
decline, we can choose a future of sustainable abundance.

_This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by
the author or authors are not necessarily those of _Scientific
American.

_STEPHANIE FELDSTEIN is the population and sustainability director at
the Center for Biological Diversity._

_Get all the climate emergency coverage you need without the impact on
the planet. Save 30% on a Digital subscription to Scientific
American. [[link removed]]_

* population
[[link removed]]
* population decline
[[link removed]]
* biodiversity
[[link removed]]
* birth rate
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]