By: Dane McDonald
There seems to be an abundance of paranoia around population growth and the negative effects this growth is and will have on the environment, our future living conditions, etc. I keep hearing more and more about the need to address this growth, but without any real reporting being presented on why population management would be a good decision or if this dystopian scenario is even an inevitable outcome.
It is certainly no surprise that our growing population is increasing the pressure that our species exerts on the limited resources of our planet, and we intuitively know that that must have an event horizon were we to continue on our current path. Where this point lies, no one appears to really know, but it’s certainly looming out there. This assumed outcome has led to many individuals espousing a solution, that in their assessment would act as a magic bullet instantly solving all our problems. Population control.
The idea in short is to directly manage our population levels, like that of a global wildlife herd manager. And while most everyone seems fixated on reducing our population growth, I get the feeling that very few people are concerned with the negative effects that may arise were we to suddenly manipulate our natural breeding habits. While this idea is growing in popularity, I’ve seen very little that discusses the potential positive outcomes of continued population growth or the potential negative consequences of decreasing our birth rate. This fascinates me.
A few months back I decided to dig in and start researching everything I could about natural population dynamics and resource use of our species. You should know that I’m going to do my best to dive into this question without falling too deeply into the rabbit hole, which on this subject can be extremely dark and deep. In certain areas I’ve made the conscious decision to hold off on diving too deep as the implications regardless of my intention might be misconstrued in a negative direction.
Here we go…
Resource use.
Since the general concern of population growth is directed at our overuse of resources, I think that’s probably a good place to start.
It’s estimated that our species currently uses ~1.3-1.7 times the total annual environmental production of our planet. That’s for all of us. If we only include figures for the industrialized nations, and scale that average to every human on the planet we would use roughly 6X our planets’ estimated resources. [1]
There are some 8.7 million species on this planet and we’re only one of them, which means that 0.0000115% of the species on the planet is consuming 170% of the annual sustainable resources provided by the entire globe. [2]
To get a better sense of proportion, hunter gatherer societies used about 3kg of natural resources per day per person, agrarian societies used about 11kg per day. The current average rate of consumption for industrialized nations is 44kg per day and the average US citizen uses 95kg per day. [3]
The breakdown of this usage is certainly interesting but not surprising. The vast majority of our consumption during our species foundation was broken up into water, wood, and food. The current usage is still dominated by water with over 9,000 billion cubic meters of water used each year. [4] Coal however is our predominate energy source now, with 7,575 Mt produced in 2020 compared to 4,141 Mt of oil. [5]
GDP decoupling.
Economists have noticed a trend that began in the mid 1980’s that shows our use of fossil fuels has become more and more decoupled from GDP growth. This means that for every kg of fossil fuels we extract, we now create more wealth from its use. Essentially, we’ve become more efficient at utilizing the resources we extract. However, while we’ve increased our resource efficiency, our overall hunger for resources continues to grow. Unless this decoupling reaches an astronomically high rate, we’re still going to use more resources on a macro level. [6]
In short, we’re using a lot more resources per person, and our efficiency isn’t growing nearly fast enough to outpace the increase in resource need. Given our overuse of the world’s resources, specifically fossil fuels, it is a foregone conclusion that we need to change the habits of much of the world’s population and instill new processes for those groups of individuals that are about to enter the collection of already industrialized nations.
But does that mean we need to stop breeding?
What is our collective goal?
Something appears to be missing from the dialogue around the trend in population growth fear mongering. Why isn’t anyone asking what our collective goal or purpose is? Is it just to maintain a steady population? Live a life of leisure? Or is it something else?
I think it’s safe to say that our collective core driver is the propagation of our species and if this is the case and our species is to continue to expand and develop, this outcome derived from the use and depletion of fossil fuels was and always would have been an eventuality. It’s safe to say that while our use of natural resources is unsustainable, our technological, and societal growth, as a species would have only occurred having used these resources.
Considering the history of our species, it is unlikely that there was some “other path” that we could have taken to circumnavigate the need for finite resources to fuel our expansion. I find it incredibly difficult to chart a path from the 17th century, of candles, literal horsepower, and muskets, to super computers, space exploration, and mapping the genome using only wind, water, wood or wale oil as forms of energy sources. Perhaps there is some other form of energy production we aren’t aware of, but whether it exists or not is irrelevant given the fact we don’t know it exists.
It stands to reason therefore that our species would still be wallowing about had we not discovered the power of fossil fuels and used them to the best of our collective ability. And this, in my view is an extremely important point to recognize. Our history of fossil fuel dependency isn’t a mistake but was a foregone conclusion of our societal evolution. Whether or not we utilize these powerful stores of energy efficiently enough now and moving forward to bridge the gap to cleaner, more powerful forms of energy production is however still left to be seen.
But I think in these moments of existential crisis it’s also valuable to consider the alternative effects on our natural ecosystem had fossil fuels not been employed in the development of our society.
What were things in society like immediately prior to the broad use of coal and oil?
The story of fossil fuels in human history is far older than most would think. For thousands of years the Chinese were known to store natural gas in lengths of bamboo, and then transport the gas on long trips to use as fuel for boiling water. In other parts of the world, forests were so depleted by the concentration of populations in cities that citizens had to travel prohibitive distances to forage for firewood and therefore a more energy dense form of fuel was needed. Coal was the answer, but over time coal was in such high use in many European cities that smog and pollution caused by its use was deemed detrimental to society. It was so bad in fact that King Edward outlawed the use of coal in 1306 AD. [7]
By the end of the 17th century Europe had decimated its forests. [8]Whether for building materials, for ship manufacturing, or for heat from firewood, trees were cut. So significant a problem, many monarchs made it illegal to cut timber without royal decree. But then came the discovery of the New World which provided a relatively endless supply of mature growth timber, and as a consequence, the shipyards of the East coast of North America quickly became the largest and most well respected on the planet. This development provided a moment for the forests of Europe to begin to reseed themselves and now with the development of tree farming practices Europe’s forests are once again expanding.
Where would we be had this trend of deforestation continued without a shift onto a new form of energy dependency in fossil fuels? How much faster would the effects of burning fossil fuels have been had we not had any major forests left on the face of the planet? From the great forests of North and South America to the tremendous expanse of the Tyga, there is a good chance that nothing would have remained. A veritable global Easter Island.
It's far too easy to sit atop a mountain of technological and societal achievement so vast that even the most earnest of attempts to imagine the pain and suffering of so many generations that came before us is destined to be an exercise in futility. To lack the humility to appreciate how fortunate we are as a modern society to be unburdened from the mental strain of thinking of such basic needs as where food comes from, running water, electricity, heat, the ability to communicate instantly with anyone on the planet, and perhaps most of all to have access to a database of knowledge such that no modern man can claim to be cut off from the world. All of this is owed to the incredible power that is fossil fuel. No computer, no car, no plane, no train, no man on the moon. Given the number of us who pray at the altar of the Almighty smart phone and her apostles Tiktok, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, you’d think there’d be a greater appreciation for the lifeblood these technologies rely upon.
How fossil fuels can somehow be demonized in this modern age is to me a phenomenon and says so much about our understanding or lack thereof, of how far we’ve come and by what means and in so short a time.
Our modern world relies on an energy source that has clear negative consequences to its use. Were this not the case, it’s highly likely we would simply burn every ounce of it up, without any care in the world. This would leave us at a point of complete and inevitable societal reversal if not violent collapse. The destructive outcome of using fossil fuels therefore is the very factor that drives us to innovate towards more powerful and cleaner forms of energy production. This is a gift. And there is an often-overlooked inherent beauty of this gift.
Fossil fuels are derived from the decaying materials of organisms that predate us. LIFE. Countless generations of life, that looked nothing like us, that lived lives completely differently from us, and yet their existence 100’s of millions of years ago is the key that may allow life on this planet to proceed into a realm of relative eternal safety. We owe everything to those that came before us. Not just our human ancestors, or the lives of the animals they and we survive on, but to everything that has ever lived. Oil isn’t inorganic, it’s organic. Your car is made of and runs on the collective synthesis of billions of years of life, the computer you’re reading this on is powered by the decaying molecular structures of ancient corpses. The evolutionary process that has played out for some 3.8 billion years on this planet has created a piggy bank of energy that may allow one of its species to help transition nature on this planet to the next phase.
And while I understand and sympathize with the desire to curtail the negative effects fossil fuel use is having, I believe that this currently proposed dark future of climate change and resource depletion has always been an inevitable juncture whose evolutionary preamble was an un-accosted centuries long period of societal and technological growth.
In order to reach our full potential as a species, we needed to technically develop until meeting the end of our fossil fuel runway and then in the shrinking zone of opportunity we would be forced to figure out a new path forward. In short, it’s one phase of an evolutionary process where humanity meets a technical chasm so large that a tidal shift in behavior on a global scale is required to bridge the gap. This is our first true global crisis of the modern age.
The only other option as I see it, is to end up in a global conflict due to resource scarcity. Given our technical ability for mass destruction there’s a high probability if it comes to that we’ll destroy ourselves and everything around us. That’s still a distinct possibility, but we could however choose to do what we’ve always done; adapt and overcome.
I believe this is where we are heading and is an amazing moment to be alive to witness. But how do we make sure we bridge this gap? What’s needed?
TIME: The Industrial Revolution and an evolution of mind.
The advent and growth of steam engines during the Victorian era unleashed the power of mechanized factories, thereby expanding and lifting the middle class to un-thought of heights, while also exponentially growing the need for coal, oil and other raw materials.
The industrial revolution dramatically changed the West from a mainly agrarian society to a manufacturing society and the efficiency of industrialized labor led to a massive growth in our collective piggy bank of dispensable time. We no longer needed 99% of society in the fields farming, and therefore areas of research historically reserved only for the upper classes were suddenly available to a much larger set of citizens. STEM related fields had a Precambrian like growth starting in the late 1800’s. A more varied set of vocations meant a greater need for broadening the lanes of education. This system created a feedback loop of development wherein research led to new fields of study and business opportunities, which meant greater specialization needs at places of higher education. Within a few short decades, the insight from all of this research led to an increased standard of living, whose outcome was among other things a dramatic shift in life expectancy.
The 1900 World Average for life expectancy was ~30 years. Today it’s 71.5 years (in the US it’s around 78). Much of this growth is attributable to the dramatic reduction in childbirth deaths, but regardless our expected horizon of life has been extended by 2x that of our great grandparents and that’s simply astonishing. This shift in one’s lifespan expectation means that the average person has suddenly become concerned with a timeline that, only two generations ago, would have seemed insane (e.g. your great grandkids). While they certainly would have thought about their great grandchildren’s lives, the time horizon of our ancestors may have only been 40 years or so. The great grandchildren of millennials will most likely not die for another 105 years. Young adults today must think about their actions and the actions of society at a century long scale. In a very short amount of time, we’ve been forced to think about the implications of our behavior on a much grander scale. [9]
It also means that people can focus on solving a problem for a significantly longer period of time than that of our ancestors. As the technical complexities of our knowledgebase increases, we have gained the supplemental time necessary to train researchers and workers to a level that allows them to constructively participate in the advancement of their field. Only a century or so ago college was considered a past time of the bourgeoisie. A respite before real life started. Now it’s fairly common to see students exiting highly technical PHD/MD programs well into their 30’s, and only then to begin their journey of apprenticeship. It’s understandable that given the immense growth in our technical understanding new entrants into our society have a much longer path of education. They also have an extended opportunity to impact the learnings in their field of study. So we as a species have gained collective time. Time to learn, time to think, time to love and time to work.
When coupled with the never-before-seen level of connectivity unlocked by modern technology in the form of cell phones and the internet, this feels to me like opening the aperture of humanity’s collective consciousness. Individual citizens are tapped into news, conflicts, business, and social movements at a global scale. The situation in Ukraine is a prime example of this change. It’s a different language, a different culture, a different land most of us have never seen nor will see in our lifetimes, and yet, their plight has become a global concern. In today’s world a fisherman in Papua New Guinea can send $20 in support of a Ukrainian charity in the blink of an eye. His funds crossing countless borders, cultures, & languages all from a few clicks on his cell phone.
It’s because of these changes that I think we may be witnessing a transition of leadership styles of old, where all power was once siloed into the hands of the very few and is now starting to be distributed into collective groups of like minded humans spread across the globe. These groups are connected via digital applications, funded with digital currency, and are pushed forward via the banding of various resources.
But while we’ve gained time, network efficiency, and passion for shared interests something looks to still be missing from the equation that would unlock the full potential of these new norms.
Direction.
Historically, humans have been quite terrible at forecasting complex systems. Weather, elections, pandemics (I won’t go there), wars, etc we are atrocious at understanding such systems, yet we are extremely comfortable with participating in and making changes that affect these complex systems.
Complex systems are for obvious reasons some of the most difficult things to understand, much less forecast. A tiny shift in one variable at the beginning of a system or time segment can lead to monumental changes of the projected outcome. So while we now live longer lives, and can communicate globally, our ability to understand and project the future outcome of changes that create system wide effects hasn’t increased linearly.
As the fossil fuel “resource burn” continues to grow, coupled with our poor forecasting ability, it would appear to shorten our horizon for solving massive complex problems like changes in global weather patterns, etc. We know that the end game is that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, but we can’t tell when, and the average person has no way of solving the problem themselves. This dynamic can lead to mass hysteria.
So a problem exists with solidifying consensus on solving these problems not just among one nation’s inhabitants, but amongst the entire world. And this consensus needs to be clearly directed at a problem, but then also organized across many countries supplying various assets both human and physical which inherently means multiple levels of complexity including that of communication.
Assuming the world’s great nations recognize that global issues exist, regardless of cause, solvable only by means of a broad coalition, then it also fundamentally means that an extremely large number of humans will need to be dedicated to organizing groups, & finding and implementing a solution.
And here is how we end up where we started, population growth.
Population growth.
Another outcome of the industrial revolution and the technological growth it birthed over the past 200 years has been an increase in health, nutrition, and welfare. It is because of this that human populations the world over exploded in a very short period of time.
Demographers estimate that in 10,000 BCE there were a little over 2.4 million humans on the face of the planet. It took until 1800, some 11,800 years later for our numbers to reach 1 billion. 127 years later we had doubled that number to 2 billion. 33 years later we added another billion. 14 years after that we added another, then 13 years after that we added another billion. This has continued for a subsequent two cycles (@ 12 years each), ending up where we are today at 7.3 billion people. [10]
[10]
This growth however isn’t expected to remain constant forever. Recent projections estimate world populations will naturally expand until 2100 where it nearly hits the 11 billion mark [CS1] (8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100). If you look at the numbers closely you’ll notice that the rate of growth is projected to slow nearly to a stop by the end of the century with the growth rate slowing from 1 – 2% per year since 1950 to an estimated 0.1% by 2100. [11] [CS2]
Many projections show the peak of our population far sooner than 2100 and at much lower numbers, somewhere in the 9 – 10 billion range. Then there is a precipitous drop off. These projections tend to only include the number of children being born and the tendency for industrialized nations to see a dramatic decrease in birthrates over time as society gains wealth. However there’s another factor at work, which may cause an even greater decrease in birth rates and that is the extreme decline in male fertility.
Recent studies have shown that male fertility has plummeted in recent decades. From 1970 to 2011 it’s estimated that sperm counts have dropped by 50%-60%. We’re also seeing delayed fertility of industrialized populations pushing pregnancy into the 30’s and 40’s and this means a higher probability of genetic defects and an overall decrease in fertility. For the first time in human history the majority of women 30 and over (51%) are childless. These numbers should terrify all of us because it’s a phenomenon that doesn’t appear to be explainable with natural factors (lack of resources, lack of mates, etc) but instead seems tied to some aspect of our modern lives. Plastics, high female hormone levels in water supplies from birth control, food additives, depression, etc are just some of the proposed hypothesis for the issue at hand. [12]
Regardless, the point is that the common presumption that population growth is and always will be on an exponential growth curve and without any attenuation of resource use is simply untrue. As stated above there is strong evidence to show that global populations may in fact be in steep decline. Counterintuitively this could lead to a total collapse of modern civilization.
How so?
Infrastructure has grown directly with population growth. Industries are operated on a standard free market model which dictates that efficiencies be utilized wherever and whenever possible which inherently means that there is a locked in technical trap. These industries are functioning based on current population dynamics which can utilize economies of scale from having so much labor to work with. But what happens if the population suddenly drops off? What happens if there literally aren’t enough people to operate all the equipment in play for various industries like food, shipping, transportation, and energy? Just try to imagine running Disney World with 40% of the staff. Now imagine that’s the case for every business. Or operating an aircraft carrier, or the supply chain necessary to keep it operational. This is no small task, and industry relies on a steady supply of human workers.
All our models for industrial growth, GDP cycles, etc. rely on a fundamental underlying premise that there will be more humans in the future than there are now. If this assumption is wrong, then everything could crumble. Home prices would plummet as there will be more “boomer” homes than there are millennial and gen z inhabitants. Labor shortages will be prevalent in pretty much every industry, including food. Factories will be forced to shut down or completely retool to function without concern for loss of workers (robots), which also means downward pressure on jobs. It’s just not a good scenario to “hope for”.
In order to stop this collapse from occurring we need to pay very close attention to population growth/decreases and where these changes are taking place. We need to incentivize citizens to have more children, and we need to understand the underlying causes of infertility at a deep level. We need to work on making people want to have children again.
Assuming we solve the population issue however, what happens if these global problems don’t just need lots of people for physical labor, but they require a level of computation being performed by many people like that of the Manhattan project or the Apollo program but on a global scale.
Human IQ quantified.
What are the collective implications of a growing human population? What historical achievements wouldn’t have been possible had we lacked a large population to pull from? It’s an interesting question.
Let’s talk about the bad news first. It’s a well-documented fact that as IQ increases, birth rates decrease. This is known as Dysgenic Mating. On the whole, individuals with lower IQs have more children than those with higher IQs, and this rate of difference can be staggering. For example, World Bank data finds that globally top decile females have on average 1.62 children, whereas the lower quartile females have on average 4.49 children[13]. Some have [CS3] therefore posited that over time, intelligence may in fact decrease, as from what we can tell it’s a factor that contributes to a less likelihood of passing one’s genes on to the next generation. Essentially the thought is that high IQ is being bred out of our species. But what are we actually seeing in human populations? [CS4]
The first IQ tests were designed and administered in the early 1900s. The test results were standardized so that the “average” score was documented as a 100. So, if you scored a 100 on an IQ test you would know that you fall precisely in the middle of the populations’ IQ distribution. One would expect human populations over time to be pretty close to each other in cognitive ability (avg 1927 adult female = avg 2019 adult female) but it turns out reality is different.
Current data shows that average IQ has risen by roughly 3 data points per decade since the first tests were taken. It’s a linear growth pattern over time, and modern researchers don’t believe it’s going to stop any time soon. This is known as the Flynn Effect and it’s causes are attributed to the incredible rise in access to good food, education, healthcare; specifically the dramatic decrease in diseases (thank you vaccines), and the availability of information to the masses.
What does this mean?
If we use the Flynn Effect, we can say that the average IQ per individual in 1927 [CS5] would be represented by a 1, today the average IQ attributed to each person is 1.27x that of someone from 1927 (3 points @ 9 decades). 7.3 billion people multiplied by a 1.27 factor gives us the estimated intellectual power of our current population in contrast to 1927. This number is 9.27 billion people. The global population in 1927 was 2 billion people, that means that our population today has over 4.6x the collective intellectual capacity of 1927 humanity. [14]
[15]
To put it another way, 95% of humans fall within one standard deviation of an IQ score of 100. 2% of all humans have an IQ above 130. In 1927 there were ~40 million individuals at or above that level for the entire planet. Today there are over 146 million.
This implies that our human hive hasn’t just grown in size, but it’s also grown in intellectual capability. And this means that as a species we should (holding all other factors equal) be able to solve increasingly technical problems. Think of the daily workloads our ancestors were tasked with dealing with. The vast majority of their problems were dominated by physical tasks/undertakings. Sewing fields, laundry, cooking, clearing forests, building fences, etc. Todays’ workload for the average adult involves far fewer physical requirements, but now includes an exponential growth in abstraction and technical understanding. Emails, internet, phone calls, etc. And while the underpinnings of society still of course rely on the same physical tasks like growing crops, mining, maintenance etc, the manner of completing those tasks are in a completely different realm of mental model.
The individuals handling these basic functions of society are still required to understand and use the new technical toolset mentioned above. Just think of the amount of technical understanding a worker at a restaurant must now comprehend. Credit Cards & payment processing, computers, microphones, smart phones and robots, etc. Tractors can now drive themselves via GPS, fenceposts are put into the earth by one man using remote controlled skid steers, and minerals are being mined using robots directed by lidar. The list goes on and on.
The point here is to recognize that the workload of society is becoming increasingly abstract, and abstraction is the very definition of intelligence. As the arrow of time forces our species to navigate the deep waters of survival the problems we are faced with become increasingly complex. In order to solve these problems we are dependent on having far greater numbers of intelligent humans which inherently necessitates a larger population.
Unless we wish to wade back into the backwaters that previous generations crawled out of, it’s imperative that we address these issues with excitement, and understanding that WE are the only way out of this.
Weather systems, global markets, space travel, food production, etc. are all extremely complex systems and we are going to need a lot of humans to fix and sustain these systems.
Resource Scarcity.
If what I’ve just outlined is true, then our only real concern shouldn’t be in having less children, it should be the collective push to drive for more children. So why is everyone so afraid of the future?
Look back at almost any great military conflict between two warring groups and you will usually find one underlying reason. Resource allocation and scarcity. Making sure that one’s tribe has enough resources to flourish has always been a dominating concern, and the best way to have more resources is of course to conquer your neighbors’ lands, wipe them off the face of the planet and use your ability to sustain greater population numbers with these newly attained resources to conquer more land and defend those territories, thereby extending the tribes lifespan.
Rinse, repeat.
This was the case for the entirety of human history, but the 19th and 20th centuries were a bit of an oddball in that many conflicts were started based purely on what appeared to be political differences of the fear of living under one social system or another. Without going into any great detail on such conflicts I think it’s safe to say that the reason this new form of conflict arose was rooted in technology bifurcated into two main branches.
1. Weapons Tech: The fear of the consequences of the capability for a small group of humans to kill a much larger group of humans via weapons of mass destruction unlocked by technological achievement, inherently meant that smaller conflicts must be addressed quickly to curtail larger ones. And
2. Mass Communication: The ability for technology to manipulate and control the minds of a large group of people in order to perform horrendous acts against another group. See Goebbels or FACEBOOK
One could argue that both of these reasons are still deeply rooted in resource scarcity. A resource scarcity “of a kind”. A kind being that of people.
But the technological growth of the 20th century also made it possible for humanity to forgo conflict based purely on traditional resource scarcity. Many nations joined a group of industrialized nations, and their addition led to the growth of their economies and the overall welfare of their citizenry. As the standard of living increased the need for conflict based on resource scarcity greatly decreased. Why fight when we could go to the movies?
This isn’t to say that the 20th century was without issue. It certainly had its fair share of conflict, especially genocide. However the post WWII era continuing all the way to today has been one of the greatest periods of global peace and prosperity ever documented. So, why is everyone so terrified?
This growing movement to “address the population issue” is nothing more than a continuation of the resource scarcity factor of old. The only difference is that this tribal instinct is now pointed towards an army of yet unborn humans which threaten the survivability of “my tribe” as a culture instead of “my tribe” as a people. The fear is that a growing future generation may be the very force that destroys our materialistic way of living. And that is so painful to some that they would rather see us buck the instinct of reproduction, than to limit their need to make personal sacrifices of materialism and luxury of a life that they have become accustomed to.
It’s interesting, though not surprising, how little we see written or discussed about the potential for current society to make relatively simple changes in our living behavior in order to accommodate the future growth of our own species. Do you need 10 screens in your house? Do you need a new car every 2 years? Do you need a new phone for every member of the household? A giant lawn? A pool? The private golf club? Etc… But the very idea of changing our consumer behavior is painful. Creature comforts make life easy and help to blot out the existential threat that underlies our daily routine. The vast majority of us are unhappy, unsatisfied and without purpose. To remove any facet of those creature comforts would be to begin to remove the veil of emotional security.
On a deeper level, what does it say of our species that we’re more comfortable with the idea of aborting entire generations of our own children to curb population growth, than we are with changing our societal lifestyles to accommodate those children? It’s hard to imagine another species acting in such a manner.
In a perfect environment would you want more happy humans, or less? If it’s less, why do you assume you’d be a member of this new surviving class? Do you really believe you or your offspring are going to make the cut? The minute we start making anti quotas on children is the minute we start implementing draconian measures to control who gets to have children and why they get to have children. State mandated programs for getting “fixed”. IQ tests, genetic tests, etc. It’s a dystopian projection of the highest order and would be hard to navigate around given the underlying premise which is that some humans aren’t necessary.
If some humans aren’t necessary than the humans that exist must breach a hurdle that justifies not only their own existence but the existence of the unborn children that were forgone in order to provide the necessary resources for that child. This leads to an even darker projection that has been evident in various forms of societal government ranging from fascism to communism. Who Decides? Who decides where the hurdle is for IQ, or weight, or beauty, etc. Who decides what genetic disorders are immediate qualifications for a DQ’d life?
I refuse to believe that this path is the appropriate or correct path. It is fundamentally flawed and will break down in the same way that any artificial system that relies on tyrannical power breaks down. Mother nature’s impulse will cause individuals to make decisions to maximize their happiness regardless of the potential negative outcome, even if it leads to the early destruction of their own lives.
It is therefore irrational to suggest we focus our attention on anything remotely close to reproduction manipulation, as it is anything but a viable and sustainable option.
But what if we designed around this resource derived impulse for self-preservation? What if we used our natural super power of intelligence to engineer a solution? The simple fact is our survival as a species has depended on population growth which has risen hand in hand with technology. The more technology we have, the greater the number of people we can support, and the greater the number of people we have, the better and faster our technology tool chest evolves. This is a symbiotic relationship which ultimately allows us to solve larger and larger problems. Our ancestors were keenly aware of this and never questioned the idea that having more children was a good thing. Look at any family tree and only a couple generations ago you’ll notice grandma and grandpa were having 6 – 10 children. They needed all the help they could get, be it on the farm, at the mill, or at the office. More people means more scientists, engineers, leaders, workers, etc. It’s a resource, and the more we have the more we can collectively accomplish.
We should stop this nonsensical belief that more humans is inherently somehow a waste, annoyance, and a detriment to the world, and instead realize that it’s not the population that needs to stop growing, but our mindset around how we justify the growth.
It will be interesting to see if the growth of technology (barring the invention of a true AI) stutters and or slows following the anticipated natural decline in the growth rate of the human population, or if the development of new technologies prior to that point brings about a virtually limitless supply of resources in the form of atomically precise manufacturing, industrial scale biological farms, and unlimited renewable energy.
Such advancements may appear as impossibilities, but it must have always seemed so. Trying to solve the hardest of tomorrows problems will always feel insurmountable when looking at them through the glasses of today. I am convinced population growth would be a small concern for a more technologically advanced species. Jets, computers, cell phones, nuclear power. Were our ancestors alive today they surely would view our current state as that of an alien species without technical limitation. How we got from there to here would seem an impossible story to comprehend. We are magicians of the future and we therefore should have faith in the future projection of ourselves as being more enlightened, more intelligent, and generally more capable than our current selves. Embracing the challenge and taking steps on a global scale towards solving these problems is obviously how we get there. Pretending, however, that we can “limit” our way out of this, by demonizing future generations into non existence, is not only foolish and immoral, it is simply wrong.
[1] Global Footprint Network. (2018). Ecological Footprint (Number of Earths). Footprint Network. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.168500385.1019097386.1649967049-228420329.1649967049#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=earth
[2] Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B (2011) How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol 9(8): e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
[3] Polzin, C. (n.d.). (rep.). Overconsumption? Our use of the world's natural resources (p. 7). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/223160/Overconsumption_Our_use_of_the_world_s_natural_resources.
[4] Fischetti, M. (2012, May 21). How much water do nations consume? Scientific American. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20world%20is%20using,by%20Brazil%20at%20482%20billion.
[5] Iea. (n.d.). Supply – Key World Energy Statistics 2021 – analysis. IEA. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/supply
[6] Polzin, C. (n.d.). (rep.). Overconsumption? Our use of the world's natural resources (p. 23). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/223160/Overconsumption_Our_use_of_the_world_s_natural_resources.
[7] Simons, P. (2016, December 19). King Edward's I's Clean Air Law. The Times. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-edwards-is-clean-air-law-xrkdxj95t#:~:text=It%20was%20710%20years%20ago,punished%20by%20torture%20or%20hanging.
[8] Holmes, G. D. (1975). History of Forestry and Forest Management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 271(911), 69–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2417729
[9] Department of Economics and Social Affairs. (2019). Population Dynamics. United Nations. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Mortality/
[10] O'Neill, A. (2020, September 23). Estimated Global Population 10,000 BCE to 2100. Statista. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1006502/global-population-ten-thousand-bc-to-2050/
[11] Cilluffo, A., & Ruiz, N. G. (2019, June 17). World's population is projected to nearly stop growing by the end of the century. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/
[12] Department of Economics and Social Affairs. (2019). Population Dynamics. United Nations. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Fertility/
[13] World Bank Group. (n.d.). Fertility rate, total (births per woman). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
[14] Nagdy, M. (n.d.). The Flynn Effect: IQ gains over time. Our World in Data. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence