“Population growth can exacerbate environmental degradation when it increases pressure on natural resources and generates more waste and emissions. Sustainable development requires policies that balance population trends with economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity.”
World Population Prospects 2022, UN DESA
“Rapid population growth can hinder economic development, especially when it outpaces the provision of essential services and job creation. A stable population supports long-term sustainability.”
World Development Report 2007
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Population growth must be addressed within that context.”
Our Common Future (1987), Brundtland Commission Report
The 2024 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects (medium-variant series) describes 42 of the 193 UN member states, excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as in absolute demographic decline. The number increases to 48 if micro-states and non-sovereign areas are included.
The 1980s saw two countries enter absolute decline: Hungary and Bulgaria. In the 1990s, 14 countries entered population regression: Albania (1990), Estonia (1990), Latvia (1990), Romania (1990), Armenia (1991), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991), Croatia (1991), Lithuania (1991), Georgia (1992), Belarus (1993), Moldova (1993), Russia (1993), Ukraine (1993), and Serbia (1995).
Eight countries entered regression in the 2000s, slowing down the per-country rate: Barbados (2000), Dominica (2000), Saint Lucia (2000), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000), North Macedonia (2001), Cuba (2006), Andorra (2008), Portugal (2008), and Japan (2008).
Ten countries entered population decline in the 2010s: Greece (2010), Montenegro (2011), Poland (2012), Grenada (2012), Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013), Italy (2014), Slovenia (2014), Trinidad and Tobago (2014), Mauritius (2019), and Tonga (2019).
The 2020s saw seven countries enter this same pattern so far: South Korea (2020), China (2021), Slovakia (2021), Monaco (2022), San Marino (2022), Uruguay (2022), and Seychelles (2023). The chronology is as follows, represented as a consistent bullet point series:
1980s
- Hungary (1980–maybe 1981-1982)
- Bulgaria (1989)
1990s
- Albania (1990)
- Estonia (1990)
- Latvia (1990)
- Romania (1990)
- Armenia (1991)
- Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991)
- Croatia (1991)
- Lithuania (1991)
- Georgia (1992)
- Belarus (1993)
- Moldova (1993)
- Russia (1993)
- Ukraine (1993)
- Serbia (1995)
2000s
- Barbados (2000)
- Dominica (2000)
- Saint Lucia (2000)
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000)
- North Macedonia (2001)
- Cuba (2006)
- Andorra (2008)
- Portugal (2008)
- Japan (2008)
2010s
- Greece (2010)
- Montenegro (2011)
- Poland (2012)
- Grenada (2012)
- Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013)
- Italy (2014)
- Slovenia (2014)
- Trinidad and Tobago (2014)
- Mauritius (2019)
- Tonga (2019)
2020s
- South Korea (2020)
- China (2021)
- Slovakia (2021)
- Monaco (2022)
- San Marino (2022)
- Uruguay (2022)
- Seychelles (2023)
151 out of 193 member states are not shrinking. Sixty-three have peaked, 42 are shrinking — many only recently, and the rest are growing. Which is to state, based on known data, the apparent conclusion faces us.
The United Nations’ World Population Prospects 2024 approximates a peak of 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in The Lancet estimated a peak of 9.73 billion in 2064, and the Wittgenstein Centre’s 2023 estimate is a peak of 10.13 billion in 2080.
This means 29 years on the earlier extreme up to 64 years on the later extreme until the peak human population. The reality: The likelihood sits somewhere between those antipodean projected extremes. Population decline, as an absolute global issue, will become urgent about two generations from now if population growth is simply the idea.
This is both a that and a why issue. If you argue that population should increase without a reason, then you ignore the most important question: What quality of life is desired for all human beings with the population? This becomes a valuable question for the constituents of global eudaimonia. (Only from the perspective of homo sapiens.)
Having population growth for the sake of more people seems narrow, to say the least. If the only other option is the nihilistic, suicidal decline of the species, then the false dichotomy takes on an international, species-wide caricature. Another option is sustainable population growth. Experts have proposed this.
Until space mining becomes practicable, easily accessible resources on Earth remain finite. Sustainable population growth provides the benefits of resource balance, economic resilience, higher quality of life, environmental protection, social equity, and climate adaptability.
The most significant issue facing humanity is anthropogenic climate change. Climate systems respond to physical inputs, not human governance failures or political boundaries. Growth for growth’s sake is uninformed and valueless. Regression for the desired decline of humanity can be seen as nihilistic, another valuelessness.
Sustainable growth harbours the non-polyannish universalist values of human rights, empiricism of science, and compassion of a humane consideration of every person, young and old. Now, with humanistic values, if we want sustainable growth, what works?
Fundamentally, until synthetic means of human gestation exist, which remain scientifically feasible while complex, universal concern and evidence depict one approximate half of humanity: women, and trans people, with relevant reproductive mechanics intact.
For those who want to have children and for those who want to support their free, uncoerced decision to have children, population dynamics tells us some things: equal parental leave, affordable childcare, flexible family-friendly workplaces, support for dual-earner families, reproductive autonomy and healthcare access, and shared domestic responsibilities.
Another social factor is valuing family and children. Some conservative and libertarian commentators have proposed this. That’s true. However, what better way to support this through funding, policy, and role alignment than by establishing a comprehensive program grounded in the reality of shared values—values that only appear to be superficially or paradoxically opposed?
However, children and families are highly personal and individual choices. Some people believe relationships are not for them. Children are not for them. Thus, the messaging should be informed, culturally appropriate, and targeted in an evidence-based manner to those who want either or both, then providing a culture and infrastructure environment in which the sustainable growth models can flourish, while targeting anthropogenic climate change and other problems.
A values-driven, evidence-based approach to population policy can foster a sustainable and worthwhile world in which people who want children are empowered to have them and humanity grows in balance with nature.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is Director of Advocacy for The New Enlightenment Project. He is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes forThe Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Photo by Neelakshi Singh on Unsplash
