Our children are growing up in exciting and yet challenging times. From pandemics, to climate change, global poverty, inequality, and geopolitical storms, it is no surprise that many people are asking themselves whether it’s smart to have children.
Many would-be parents are deeply discouraged by the state of the world. Some even feel that it is fundamentally broken or that humanity is headed for a fall. Others are less gloomy but are nonetheless concerned about overpopulation, resource strain, pollution levels, and environmental pressures.
Let’s look at what experts are saying about children, overpopulation, climate-change, and over-consumption. It behoves us to understand these issues, especially those of us whose kids will be doing family planning in a post-pandemic world facing a climate crisis.
The World in 2023: Humanity has now reached 8 billion and is on course for 10 billion by 2050. When I was a child there were only 4 billion of us and already demographers were ringing ecological alarm bells, we had begun talking about colonizing space, and China was instituting its famous one-child policy. The Chinese policy is still the most bold and coercive population control initiative ever attempted. In terms of limiting population growth, it worked. The Chinese fertility rate plummeted from 2.8 births per woman in 1979 to 1.7 births per woman today. It’s population stabilized at 1.4 billion.
Even though China abandoned the one-child policy in 2015, the idea of birth limits has persisted. It is not uncommon to hear people advocate for family planning guidelines or strict rules. There is nothing new in this. What is unprecedented is the emergence of a full-fledged anti-natalist movement lead by NGOs with names such as Stop Having Kids, BirthStrike, and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
In some English speaking countries young couples who don’t want kids for ecological reasons refer to themselves as “GINKs” which stands for “green inclination, no kids” - a word-play on the label DINK for “dual-income, no kids”.
Overpopulation and extinction advocates
It is important to distinguish between GINKs and philosophical anti-natalists. GINKs and other “voluntary childlessness” proponents are people who may have wanted children were it not for their fears related to overpopulation, resource scarcity, and global warming. Anti-natalists are outright nihilistic.
Some of them, such as philosopher David Benetar, argue that procreation is morally and philosophically wrong. Others like Patricia MacCormack see humans as so hopelessly destructive and self-serving that they feel we no longer deserve our place alongside other animals and plants.
As someone with children and a strong desire to see humanity survive and thrive, I fundamentally disagree with philosophical anti-natalists and the extinction advocates. I certainly don’t believe that life is a miserable burden. I do not resent my parents for conceiving and giving birth to me. And I don’t want the human race to commit slow suicide.
Photo by Romeo Varga on Unsplash
I will assume most readers feel the same way and so I will ignore anti-natalism and focus strictly on the fear of overpopulation and the idea of birth-limits. Specifically I will look at the common arguments for limiting births to save the planet and what demographers and sustainability experts have to say about each one.
Argument 1: Strict birth limits are going to be necessary to avoid a population explosion
While it is true that world population is continuing to grow, especially in developing countries, what many people fail to mention is that after 2050 the story is projected to change dramatically.
Below are the figures from the latest UN Population report. World population is peaking in the west. Demographic growth in Africa, India and China is expected to peak by 2100. After that the population of those countries will begin to decrease also.
Source: United Nations, DESA (population division). World Prospects 2022
Source: United Nations, DESA (population division). World Prospects 2022
Mandated childbirth limits will turn out to be unnecessary because the world population will begin to decrease naturally by the end of the century.
Argument 2: Climate change is mostly man-made so we need to reduce the number of people on the planet
Speaking purely pragmatically, population control should be low on the list of steps to address our climate emergency. Global temperatures are rising now and it needs to be dealt with now.
It will take decades to decrease emissions and decrease consumption through population reduction alone. It could be part of a set of steps to address pollution and resource depletion but it is certainly no panacea and probably not the best use of our time and resources.
Argument 3: If we reduced humanity down to a reasonable number of people then we wouldn’t have to worry about climate change. Adam and Eve could have taken a helicopter every time they wanted to go to the cinema. It wouldn’t matter in terms of global levels of pollution and CO2.
The fact is, population control will not significantly decrease the levels of CO2 because we are still talking about billions of people - unless we are willing to consider the radical approach of the human extinction movement.
It is hard to estimate the exact ecological savings of one less person on Earth. But let us do a simple thought experiment inspired by an article written by Lyman Stone.
Imagine a country reducing overall carbon emissions by 33%. They could do this by simply reducing each person’s carbon footprint. Now imagine the same country achieving the same 33% target by cutting its population by 1/3.
Take the United States as an example. In order to rapidly reduce the number of Americans from 333 billion to 233 billion, the US government would need to institute a zero-child policy. And that would still take decades and still leave 233 billion American consumers.
Not only is drastic population reduction for a country such as the United States completely unrealistic considering the US fertility rate is already below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, but population reduction is not even the right lever to pull. We will need to reduce each individual’s carbon footprint in order to save the planet. It does not matter if there are 333 billion Americans or 233 billion.
We should certainly increase access to education and encourage the use of birth control in order to limit unwanted pregnancies. However, it makes little sense to stop people from having families.
We can live sustainably on this planet even with 5–10 billion people. Our way out of the climate emergency will come mainly from meaningful technical breakthroughs leading to cleaner energy, leaner manufacturing, and more efficient transportation.
Sustainability experts and climate scientists are clear on this: It is not drastic human reduction but drastic carbon reduction that will get out of the fossil fuel hole that we have dug for ourselves.
Argument 4: Wait until the Chinese and African middle class begins to demand the same things we have long had in the West: Imported goods, overnight delivery, two cars per family, high-rise buildings, electricity grids, hot water, and air conditioning.
Fears about adding increasingly wealthy Chinese and African consumers to our global economic system are overblown. It is correct to say that as these countries become more affluent their citizens will produce and consume more.
However, let us not forget that if we are to survive the challenges of our time, we must develop more sustainable consumption patterns. So, the future citizens of populous nations in African, Asia, and Latin America will likely carry a carbon footprint that is much lighter than what we calculate for the average consumer today.
Finally, let me repeat that the populations of Africa, India and China are expected to increase but then level off by 2100 as global fertility rates continue to follow the decreasing trend that began in the 1960s. Assuming the quality of life in these countries increases, then so will literacy rates, internet access, and unwanted pregnancies.
Even with an increase in the demand for energy intensive materials and consumer goods globally, we can hope to achieve sustainable living standards and continue to have kids.
Especially as the global population curve flattens and individual carbon footprints become lighter. And if carbon efficiencies don’t happen…. well, we’re in big trouble. But even then, it’s not population reduction that is going to save the day.
Argument 5: The Earth can’t handle 5–10 billion humans. We are populating deserts, running out of fresh water, polluting our rivers, creating slums that teem with homeless people… rich countries are having to build fences to keep refugees from flowing in.
The world is vast. An interesting bit of math reveals that all of the world’s 8 billion people could actually fit in New York City standing side-by-side, 10 people per square meter.
Tim Urban www.waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-building.html
Why does this surprise people when you tell them? Perhaps because there is a tendency to rely on impressionistic data when discussing population issues: Pictures of overcrowded slums, migrant caravans, refugee camps etc.
Alarmist and apocalyptic visions emerge when we ignore the statistics in favour of impressions gleaned from media reports, internet echo chambers, and Hollywood films.
Take India for example. Movies such as Slumdog Millionaire show disturbing scenes of crowded train stations, mass poverty, and a glut of unwanted children. None of this is false but it obscures some important facts. The population of India is stabilising according to the UNFPA (UN’s health agency). It is expected to peak by 2050. Indian cities such as Deli now have a fertility rate of 1.8 childbirths per woman which matches the overall fertility rate in developed countries.
Another misconception has to do with food production. Few realize that in conditions of peace and stability we can easily feed the world’s population. Famine is brought on by war not an excess of mouths to feed. Similar misunderstandings persist about migrants. Most refugees are escaping poverty and political persecution in their country of origin, not overcrowded conditions.
So in the end is it OK to have kids? The expert consensus is “yes”. Those who want to continue having families should certainly not refrain based on the mistaken belief that going on “baby strike” will solve our problems.
Our problem is not one of overpopulation or even of resource scarcity. It is one of bad stewardship.
