Ever since Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, population has been a topic of debate. Initially, much of the debate was driven by the fear that population growth would outstrip food production, resulting in widespread starvation and societal collapse. This fear was allayed by the “Green Revolution” in the 1970s, which increased agricultural production enough to feed a rapidly growing world population, from 3 billion in 1960 to 8 billion in 2022. More recently, in several countries, including China, Japan, and many European countries, concern has shifted in the opposite direction, towards declining populations. In particular, this concern focuses on the economic consequences of the “greying” of populations and the shrinking of the working-age groups. Some refer to these developments as posing a demographic crisis. India, which recently has overtaken China as the most populous country with over 1.4 billion people, is said to have its population policy right, while China got it wrong. To address these issues, increasing immigration is often proposed as a solution, a highly controversial topic in many countries. At the same time, the world population is expected to grow to 10.4 billion by the end of the century. Given the existing and aggravating environmental pressures and problems, this raises the question of how many people the Earth can support, especially with expectations of ever-higher consumption levels.
Thus, the “population issue” has shifted in focus, from food production to composition (greying, immigration) and population decline, to over-consumption and environmental pressures (sustainability). However, many of the contributions to the debate take a narrow view, looking at a single aspect and/or driven by a particular economic or political agenda. The debate is often cast as one between pessimism and optimism about the number of humans that countries or the Earth can sustain. Both positions reflect an anthropocentric worldview. Non-human nature is seen as important only inasmuch as it serves human interests. From an ecological perspective, but stated in human terms, it can be argued that humans have become a pest that destroys the conditions essential to the survival of numerous other species. That they do so is not just because there are too many of them. Even smaller societies have often wreaked havoc on their local environment. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that, as a species, humans have detached themselves from and stand apart from, or above, the rest of nature. To prevent humans from destroying the natural fabric on which their survival also depends, they must consciously and collectively integrate environmental imperatives into their thinking, behaviour and institutions.
If they were to do so, societies would maintain their numbers at levels considered environmentally sustainable, both locally and globally. Respecting the existence of all other species, they would restrict their ecological impacts and, within those limits, determine the size of their populations based on what they collectively consider desirable, based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. This is, of course, not how the world works at the moment. Initially, the size of populations is determined by the decisions of individuals or families, which are not easily controlled collectively. Second, how governments interpret or define the population issue and what they do or don’t do about it is foremost a matter of political economy. Whose views prevail collectively and are converted into policies and given effect depends on the distribution and exercise of power within political-economic systems.