Population “Crisis”: A Thought-provoking Response

Is declining population growth really a problem? No, it's the one of the most positive pieces of news we've had in a long time.

Below is a question that author Douglas Tallamy answers with the most thoughtful response we've seen seen yet to those who say that our slowing population growth is a “crisis.” We, too, believe that it is not a crisis, but some of the best news we could have regarding our future on this planet. Tallamy discusses this topic and proposes some very interesting solutions to one of the most common questions about how we can care for our aging population. We don't need to increase our population infinitely to fulfill the economist's (and Musk's) Ponzi scheme dream of infinite growth, in fact, it's imperative that we don't. Excerpt below is from author's Douglas Tallamy's Book “How can I Help?”: You often say that human overpopulation is the root of our environmental problems. If that is so, why does Elon Musk call population decline the greatest threat to humanity? And why is the news that China is no longer growing in population being called a crisis?

The short answer is that Elon Musk is as ignorant of the ecological forces that drive life on Earth as he is knowledgeable in other ways. Recent headlines about population declines in China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Italy have indeed been met with cries of alarm. The feat has been explicit: fewer babies will create an existential crisis for humanity. One reason for the emergency—the one we unfailingly hear about first—is that the decline in birth rates means there will be more old people than young people for at least a few decades. Assuming the old depend on the young for care, there won't be enough young people to take care of all the old people.

But it is not humanitarian challenges that strike fear in the hearts of economists when population growth slows. Rather, population declines threaten age-old economic models that assume perpetual growth. Fewer people equals fewer customers. Our measures of "success" tend to be economic in nature, and they assume that we can—indeed, we must—enlarge our economies forever. If our GDP does not increase annually, if we don't consume more and more goods, most economists tell us we are doomed. the concept of a steady-state economy—one that maintains productivity at an even keel without growing, an economy in which we do not constantly increase our material wealth but that produces enough for all—is anathema to dominant economic models.

Sprawl will not stop if we keep growing infinitely

And so, we are told, we have a crisis, and many governments are scrambling to incentivize baby-making. What we have not been told is that reports of population declines are the first glimmer of real hope that we humans may have a future on Earth. No matter how many times or clearly we use the word sustainable, nothing on this planet is sustainable if the human population continues to grow. We do face existential crises today—several of them, in fact: We're in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event on Earth, which is rapidly eliminating the organisms that run the ecosystems on which we all depend. Climate change is causing extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, sea level rise, heat, and ocean acidification. Abundant fresh water is disappearing where we need it, rivers do not reach the sea, and immense aquifers are nearly dry. Global pandemics are inevitably plaguing crowded populations. These are real crises, all of which are caused by too many people, not too few.

And yet, incredibly, we decry the first good news about human population growth as a crisis! By "we" I mean primarily economists. Every card-carrying ecologist on the planet agrees that our global population has exceeded Earth's carrying capacity—its ability to sustain human numbers without degrading the resources we and other living things require in the future. In fact, most agree it would take from wo to four Earths to sustain our current population at a reasonable level of comfort. On a finite planet, perpetual growth is simply not an option. We have no choice but to transition to a no-growth culture as soon as possible. Transitions are often hard, though because we are forced to find new ways to deal with old problems. Curiously, the challenge we hear about more than any other—the problem of what do do about old people—may actually be the easiest to meet.

We do have old age/retirement facilities, but, as they are currently run, they will not meet the needs of large aging populations for two reasons: these facilities are too expensive for most people, and too few of the facilities exist, even if they are affordable. The second point is easy to fix, build more facilities. But what about the first? Who will care for old folks and how can we make that care affordable? A recent headline suggested that robots will save the day. Robots aside, consider this: What if we restructured care facilities to that old people take care of other old people? Fortunately, we don't all grow old and incapacitated at the same time. Millions of people remain healthy and productive for 20 or more years after retirement before they themselves need care. They are, in fact, an unlimited labor force. Who will pay these elder caregivers? No one. Instead, we can establish a barter system: If you help care for your peers at our facility, we will provide you with free room and board. Bingo! The need for an enormous young workforce to care for the elderly as well as the exorbitant price tag associated with these facilities disappears. The vast majority of care old folks require is not skilled medical attention, but unskilled efforts, ranging from movig people about in wheelchairs to helping with meals (cutting up vegetables for a salad ccan be impossible for many oldsters), or even simple companionship.

I realize I am being optimistically simplistic with this solution, and many experts will be eager to tell me why it won't work. For example, there must be some income stream into care facilities for them to operate—where will that come from? Yet ideas like this are points of departure meant to get us thining about real solutions instead of pretending the problems don't exist in the first place. Our real crisis has been, and continues to be, reliance on an economic Ponzi scheme that is designed for infinite growth on a finite planet. If we don't accept the limits of our planet soon, this will end as all Ponzi schemes end. but rather than bankrupting only the people who were duped into investing in the scheme, the myth of perpetual growth will empty our ecological bank account—the one that, when healthy, provides everyone with our day-to-day needs. It is past time that we confront the problems posed by overpopulation, celebrate the recent news of growth declines, and use our enormous brains to find ways to live sustainably on the tiny blue marble that is planet Earth. There truly is no Planet B. ~ Douglas Tallamy, from the book “How can I Help?”

Author Douglas Tallamy's Book "How can I Help?" discusses the Population Crisis and solutions on page 21.

Read the rest of Douglas Tallamy's intelligent and thought-provoking answers to common questions about how to help preserve our future in his latest book, "How can I Help?"

In the book, Tallamy answers questions commonly asked at his lectures and shares compelling and actionable answers for not only why but how we should protect nature, plant native plants and trees, so we can save this precious planet for not just humans but for all creatures who live on Earth so that we may all live comfortably and sustainably for many future generations.

Slowing human population growth can result in a better quality life for all.

Some common questions we've seen on Google:

Is underpopulation going to be a problem?

The main concern of people like Musk is that economic growth isn't possible without a growing population to sustain it. But, from a planetary, biodiversity standpoint, slowing human growth is the best thing we could hope for. Less people means that we can allow our natural environment to thrive without ever-growing pressure from too many humans to house and too many human mouths to feed.

Is the US in a population crisis?

No, according to the current projections, the US population of 338 million people will still increase by 23 million in the next 30 years. So that means we are still growing, just not at the exponential rate that we've been growing at so far—which has only caused suffering of our people and environment, and has created unaffordable housing, food and services. If our population growth slows down, we may just have a chance to live sustainably. One of the best things about slowing down our population growth is that house prices will come down with less demand of a reduced population. Building new housing is always expensive, there is no "affordable" housing unless it is heavily subsidized, which means that we all will pay for it. Nothing is free. And houses don't grow on trees.

What is the meaning of population crisis? It depends on what you think is a crisis. Economists fear that if our population doesn't increase, then our economic growth will not increase infinitely. But that is exactly what a Ponzi scheme is—and it's not sustainable. We can't keep growing infinitely on our finite planet and expect that all can live comfortably. It's just not possible. If our 8 Billion+ human population slows in growth or even declines... this would be the best thing that can happen for us and our planet. Selling more electric vehicles and building more skyrises is not going to solve our growing population issues of unaffordable housing, food scarcity, or the collapse of earth's ecosystems.

Should we be worried about overpopulation?

Yes, more people means an increased demand for food, housing, water, energy, healthcare, transportation, and so much more. Consumption contributes to the decline of nature, increased conflicts, and higher risks of large-scale disasters like pandemics and the devastating effects of climate change. At 8 billion and growing, we are quickly reaching a tipping point of what our planet can handle, regardless of how many electric cars we buy or "affordable" housing we build.

Slowing down and reversing our population growth is the only way to save our planet so that we may all live comfortably – not just humans, but wildlife as well.

It is so refreshing to read an intelligent response to the media headlines and leaders discussing our so-called "Population Crisis" as a result of reduced population growth. Thank goodness young people around the world are seeing that having children isn't necessary—in fact, most of us cannot afford to have children, so why would we bring more people into an already struggling world of unaffordable housing and food shortages? Why bring more mouths to feed into the world in which we poison our land and chop down the last of our forests to grow more food and supply materials to build more homes? With all the homeless people around the world, what would make our children more special or deserving of a place to live or food to eat? It's a question that thankfully, more and more of us are asking ourselves. If you love kids, you don't have to have children to fulfill that need: instead think about fostering, adopting, teaching, and volunteering to help those who are already here. The planet will thank you for it.