Overpopulation Ιsn’t the Problem. Here’s What Ιs.

BY SOFO ARCHON

The “population problem” has a Phoenix-like existence: it rises from the ashes at least every generation and sometimes every decade or so.” ~Murray Bookchin

Often, when I write an article on a social or environmental issue, I receive messages from readers telling me I forgot to mention the biggest problem our planet faces today: overpopulation.

“There are simply too many of us in the world,” they say, “while resources are insufficient for everyone. As a result, people must compete for them, and inevitably some—the winners—secure enough to meet their needs, while others—the losers—are left to starve and die.” They also argue that overpopulation lies at the root of environmental destruction, depleting the planet’s resources as it goes.

Therefore, if we want to avoid ecological collapse and eliminate poverty and famine, we must first control the human population.

But how true are these claims? Let’s find out.

Overpopulation: Truth or Myth?

Currently, the world population stands at 7.8 billion—the highest it has ever been. Only a century ago, it was less than a quarter of that, about 1.8 billion. Is it any wonder, then, population alarmists say, that we find ourselves amidst both a social and an ecological crisis?

What they often fail to consider, however, is that the problem may not lie in how many people are alive, but in how people live. If they did, they might soon change their minds.

The number of humans Earth can sustain depends primarily on the rate at which natural resources are consumed. The more rapidly and excessively we deplete them, the fewer people the planet can support. Research suggests that if we reduced our overconsumption, Earth could easily sustain far more than the current population. In the words of environmental author Charles Eisenstein:

“If everyone consumed resources at the rate of an average North American, the sustainable world population would be about 1.5 billion. If everyone lived the lifestyle of an average Guatemalan, the present population would be sustainable. And if everyone lived as ecologically as a traditional Indian villager, the planet could sustain 15 billion people or even more. Most estimates put the carrying capacity of the planet at between 8 and 16 billion people […]”

Another issue often overlooked by population alarmists is food waste. Globally, it’s estimated that enough food is wasted each year to feed every single hungry person on the planet. In the United States—the epitome of waste—about half of all food is discarded rather than eaten. Meanwhile, one in six Americans lacks access to affordable, nutritious food. So, what’s the real problem here: overpopulation, or overconsumption and the unequal distribution of resources?

The Dark History of Population Control

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which became a huge bestseller within just a few years. In its opening chapter, Ehrlich vividly describes a taxi ride he once took through the slums of Delhi:

“The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrust their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. . . . [S]ince that night, I’ve known the feel of overpopulation.”

The book argued that there were too many people in the world and that, as a result, humanity had set itself on a disastrous and irreversible course—one that would soon lead to severe famines, rampant disease, social destabilization, and even genocide, among other consequences. Here’s a now-infamous statement from the original edition, warning readers about what was to come:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”

By the 1970s, most of the assumptions and predictions made in The Population Bomb had been proven wrong. Even so, the book left a lasting mark on public opinion about the supposed dangers of overpopulation, fueling what became known as the “population control movement.”

Through sterilization policies, governments around the world sought to reduce birth rates. By far the most aggressive efforts targeted impoverished “third world” countries. In the “developed” world, population control programs were most prominent in the United States, where they disproportionately affected Indigenous and marginalized communities: Native and African American women, women of Puerto Rican and Mexican descent, Asians, the imprisoned, the mentally ill, and poor whites.

Within only a few years, millions of people in India alone were subjected to forcible sterilization. In the words of journalist and social activist Yavor Tarinski:

When overpopulation was embraced by Nation-States and supranational organizations, it led to horrific practices such as forced sterilization. One of the grimmest examples is India, where during the 1970s, encouraged by tens of millions of dollars loaned from the World Bank, the Swedish International Development Authority and the UN Population Fund, Indira Gandhi’s government began large-scale sterilization efforts. Those efforts peaked in 1975, when the prime minister suspended civil liberties, declaring a state of “emergency” and sterilized over six million people in a single year, an estimated 15 times the number of people sterilized by the Nazis. And once again it was the poorest and most disempowered who were sacrificed in the name of population control.

In retrospect, it’s clear that the population control movement was never just about reducing birth rates to avoid the so-called “dangers of overpopulation.” Rather, it was largely about eliminating groups of people whom the ruling elite regarded as weaker, inferior, or, simply put, “less than human.” In other words, it was a cruel and unjust program rooted in bigotry and prejudice. As Tarinski points out, “overpopulation was used as a pretext for the ruling classes to get rid of the people on the margins of society, who have become superfluous in the cogs of the system.”

It’s worth noting that, although rarely discussed, forced sterilizations of marginalized groups still occur today in many parts of the world, including China, India, Canada, and the United States.

Living Within Earth’s Limits

As I’ve already pointed out, we don’t face an overpopulation crisis but rather a consumption and resource distribution crisis. This, however, doesn’t mean humanity can continue to grow indefinitely. Earth’s resources are limited, and even if we succeed in extracting and distributing them with maximum efficiency, we must still ensure that the human population does not exceed the planet’s carrying capacity. If it does, social destabilization and ecosystem collapse are inevitable.

The good news is that preventing such a future does not require forced sterilization. Far more effective and humane methods exist for reducing fertility rates, the most important being access to education for women and lower child mortality rates. Education broadens women’s opportunities and political power, enabling them to break free from patriarchal constraints and take control of their own lives. Regarding mortality, parents in societies where child survival is uncertain tend to have more children, hoping that some will reach adulthood. Consequently, as life expectancy rises, birth rates generally decline.

The countries with the highest fertility and infant mortality rates are mostly in Africa. Outside the continent, examples include Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan—all places where poverty and uncertainty about the future prevail.

At the other end of the spectrum, most “developed” countries—including the United States, Canada, Germany, Poland, South Korea, and Japan—have fertility rates below the replacement level (about two children per couple) and low infant mortality. In Japan, fertility rates are so low that robots are being developed to care for the elderly because there are too few people to do it. Many countries around the world, such as Finland, Estonia, Italy, Japan, and Australia, even offer financial incentives to encourage families to have more children.

But here’s the problem: people in “developed” countries consume far more resources. In fact, the wealthier a country becomes, the more it tends to consume. This means that reducing fertility rates alone is not enough to keep us within Earth’s ecological limits. In addition to eliminating poverty and ensuring gender equality, we must also curb overconsumption by shifting away from a growth-driven, consumption-based economy and moving toward a steady-state model aligned with nature. Only then can we avoid overwhelming the planet’s carrying capacity while making the most sustainable use of its resources.