Category: Population

Related directly to population issues.

Categories
Population

Degrowth

 

Recently I wrote about 2 words that have negative implications to many people, “population” and “overpopulation”. I’m introducing a word that will be new to many people so, fortunately, it has few adverse meanings.

What does “degrowth” mean? Being new, it has been used in a variety of ways. Wikipedia defines it as “…critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development”. The website degrowth.info writes: “Degrowth critiques the global capitalist system which pursues economic growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction.” To me, the most important aspect of degrowth is decreasing human population voluntarily. Unfortunately, one source seems to have another idea.

I have subscribed to Matt Orsagh’s blog “Degrowth is the Answer” for months, so when he published “By Disaster or Design”, I read it and found it rich in economic discussion—an area where I am poor. I was surprised to find little support for slowing population growth. Here is a quote from that white paper; “Degrowth is focused on living within planetary boundaries, using policy, cultural changes, and green energy to get there…. Population control is not a goal of degrowth.”

I agree about population control. I believe that the only way that population should and can be reduced humanely is by removing barriers to access of voluntary, effective family planning. The control must be by the individual, not any outside or governmental entity.

We do agree wholeheartedly on one point—humanity needs to stop living beyond our planet’s means. To illustrate how we are abusing our planet’s resources, Orsagh uses the planetary boundaries model generated by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. It shows that humanity has already pushed through six of the nine planetary boundaries. Unfortunately, the Stockholm group does not focus on slowing population growth, but rather on actions such as wealth redistribution and degrowth.

Although the majority of economists assume that growth is beneficial and will continue indefinitely, a few are more rational. The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) has been around longer than proponents of degrowth, with a more modest goal—to arrest our economy’s growth. CASSE aims for a stable population, and stable consumption of energy and materials at sustainable levels. With these stabilized, we would be much closer to sustainability.

Both CASSE and Orsagh seem to rely on fear for motivation. They warn us what will happen if we don’t slow growth. Furthermore, I feel that neither has a realistic path to stop growth. How can we persuade politicians to support policies to slow expanding the economy, when they are getting rich from the status quo?

Growthbusters, on the other hand, relies on humor as well as thoughtful concern about our current pro-growth economy. It recognizes the importance of contracting both our economy and our population. Its originator, Dave Gardner, also has a serious side that includes running for city council and co-hosting a series of podcasts. Please check out his short videos on YouTube for some laughs.

For a sobering view of out future without degrowth, I suggest the recent article “Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries”. The first sentence of its abstract reads: “There are increasing concerns that continued economic growth in high-income countries might not be environmentally sustainable, socially beneficial, or economically achievable.”

How do we achieve degrowth? Orsagh wrote: “Degrowth is not going to come from the top. It will have to come from the grassroots, and that means people sharing these ideas, talking to other people, and slowly, over time building to a critical mass that those in power can’t ignore.” I believe that the best way to promote degrowth is by taking away barriers to voluntary family planning.

©Richard Grossman MD, 2025

 

Categories
Consumption Family Planning Population

Does “Overpopulation” Carry Too Much Baggage?–7-2025

Some words carry baggage, which may interfere with their utility, and even with their use. “Population” and “overpopulation” are examples of this vilification. 

For years people concerned about the human effects on our environment have avoided using the word “overpopulation”. Is it time to end that taboo?

This word implies that there are too many people, and that we are injuring our environment. Thus, it is critical of humanity. To some, the word also recalls past histories of abuse, genocide and racism.

How many people does it take to be overpopulated? Thirty years ago, Professor Joel Cohen wrote the book “How Many People Can the Earth Support”. The answer to the title’s question is, “it depends”—in part it depends on our lifestyle. Cohen found a wide range, the maximum human population ranges from fewer than one billion to over 1000 billion people.

 Here is a typical definition of “overpopulation”: “…when there are more people than can live on the earth in comfort, happiness, and health and still leave the world a fit place for future generations.” That definition looks at our use of limited resources, but it only considers the effect of too many people on our own species. What about the rest of the living world?

Philosophy professor Phil Cafaro suggests a new definition that considers the impacts both on humans and on the rest of life. In the abstract of a recent paper, he wrote:

“Human societies, or the world as a whole, are overpopulated when their populations are too large to preserve the ecosystem services necessary for future people’s wellbeing or to share the landscape fairly with other species.”

What is unique about this definition is that it includes harm to other flora and fauna, as well as to our own species.

My favorite way to measure human’s effect on the natural world is with the Ecological Footprint (EF). An individual’s EF is a measure of the demands made by a person on natural resources, using the areas of biologically productive land and water as its yardstick. Overall impact increases with increasing population, of course, and also increases with increasing consumption.

The planet can support more people if their consumption is low. For example, Kenya, a low-income country, has an average EF of 2 acres per person, versus the USA with over 20 acres. Currently, the global average EF of an individual is almost 7 acres.

Unfortunately, there is only enough productive land and water for each person to draw from 4 acres, on the average. Thus, using the Ecological Footprint as a measure, the planet is already overpopulated. Indeed, we are overpopulated by a whopping 75%! If, however, we all consumed as little as Kenyans, we would be fine.

Regrettably, there are not many people who want to decrease their consumption. Still fewer actually make the sacrifices necessary to consume less. Instead, many millions are trying to increase their income so they can consume more.

On the other hand, there is a long history of people aspiring to limit their fertility. For centuries women have tried to have control over their family size. All too many have risked death to abort unintended pregnancies. Now that effective contraception and safe abortion methods are available, the fertility rate is decreasing in most parts of the world. Sadly, the latest estimate is that over 250 million women want to avoid pregnancy but are not using modern, effective contraception. The “low hanging fruit” to approaching sustainability is to remove barriers to family planning.

Let’s accept that we are overpopulated, and start using that word fearlessly. I suggest that you explore The Overpopulation Project (https://overpopulation-project.com). You will find useful information about the relationship between human numbers and ecological sustainability.

©Richard Grossman MD, 2025