In their new book After the Spike, demographers Dean Spears and Michael Geruso make the counterintuitive case for worrying less about overpopulation and more about depopulation. Comparing it to climate change, they say population shrinkage is coming and once it starts it could be hard to stop. The highest number of births the planet has ever seen was in 2012, when 146 million children were born. The global population has continued to increase since then, even though the birth rate has fallen, largely because the world has gotten better at preventing the deaths of children. But now people are having smaller families, and in the next half century or so, death rates will exceed birth rates. That's what the two associate professors of economics at the University of Texas at Austin refer to as "the spike," the period of sharp growth and possibly equally sharp decline in population. Spears, who is also the founder of r.i.c.e., the Research Institute of Compassionate Economics, which is focused on child health in Uttar Pradesh, has seen this process happen in real time in India where the average birth rate (i.e. the average number of children a woman will give birth to in her lifetime) has dropped to fewer than two as the country has got more prosperous. TIME spoke to Spears and Geruso about why there should not be fewer people on a planet that feels like it's straining to sustain the 8 billion we have, why people around the world are choosing to keep their families small, and what, if anything, should be done. Why the World Needs More People, According to These Experts The fickle nature of scientific consensus is one of the more interesting phenomenons to me. I happen to think they might be right this time.
“We're not advocating for endless population growth generation after generation. What we're proposing is that we should consider whether we should welcome depopulation, remaking the future by default, or if instead it would be better for the world's population to stabilize at some level, perhaps at a level much lower than today's.”
They're wrong. There were 4 billion people on the planet in 1975. 50 years later we have 8 billion. The planet would be vastly better off if there were fewer humans on it. Humans would be better off too.
See the impending economic depopulation crisis in China as exhibit A for the consequences that can be involved in societal depopulation. What it means for the generations in countries where there are not enough children to take care of them is many of them will die in a government facility without any family to take care of them. See what the Obama administration did with the VA, and you have a good picture of what a begrudging government taking care of people it views as a draining inconvenience on the government's income statement looks like. We should never forget the government does not love you like your family does. The generations who allow this to happen to themselves bring this on themselves.
Yes, that is the result of doubling the world's population in the last 50 years. It's a ponzi scheme. With a ponzi scheme someone's always left holding the bag.