Population growth has been a topic of public and political debate since Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798.[1] Touted as one of the first publications presaging doom and gloom as human populations tended to grow exponentially while the supply of food could only be expanded at a slower (arithmetic) rate, it gave rise to what is still often referred to as the Malthusian view in environmental circles. From this point of view, the rapid growth of the global population in the last 150 years or so is (one of) the main causes of environmental degradation, given the existence of natural resource limits. Others have strongly contested this view, especially because the development of science and technology has made it possible to sustain a growing world population to a higher standard of living than ever before. Nonetheless, this debate between pessimists and optimists (or “sceptics”) is far from over.
However, concerns associated with the human population are not confined to environmental issues. Several other aspects of population have given rise to concern and debate and have thus become issues. Some of these can be referred to as socio-cultural and relate to the extent to which a country’s population is culturally homogenous, bi-cultural, multi-cultural or diverse. This issue, which is directly related to a bundle of other issues such as immigration, social integration, and racism, arguably has become the most controversial in many countries. Although the question of what binds people together has always been crucial to the (continued) existence of social groups and societies, it has become even more of an issue with the process of globalisation.
A third bundle of issues associated with population can be referred to as economic. The Malthusian view referred to above could be regarded as such, as it deals with the issue of resources relative to population size. But within the discipline of economics, population has also been seen as a “resource” in itself, not just in terms of labour, but also as a source of creativity, innovation, and development. Bigger and growing populations are commonly regarded as “good for the economy” as they stimulate demand and supply and thus fuel economic growth. From this point of view, immigration is a desirable or even necessary thing. Related to this, the composition of a population is also considered important, as an ageing population is seen as an economic problem and a shrinking population as something of a disaster. Both have become of significant concern in a growing number of countries.
This leads to a fourth aspect, population as a source of military (physical) power. Countries with big populations are commonly seen as (much) more powerful, and thus a potential threat, than those with small(er) populations. In part, this is based on the traditional idea that big armies are more likely to win wars or deter potential aggressors. But bigger populations also imply bigger production capacity and economies, including for producing weapons. Although the link between population size, composition and military power is not straightforward, it is an issue of considerable concern in geopolitical and military circles and debate, most recently in the context of the rise of China as a threat to US hegemony.
These four kinds of issues do not exhaust the range of possible views on what is important about human populations, although they are perhaps the most topical ones. This essay briefly elaborates on each of these (bundles of) issues mainly to identify the merits and weaknesses of the arguments and their underlying assumptions. However, which view prevails is not simply a matter of the quality of the arguments. How the population issue is interpreted and handled depends foremost on the distribution and exercise of power, and thus on the dominant political-economic power structures. The population issue will not be resolved by scientific debate but by the realities influenced or shaped by power.
Population as an environmental issue
That the size of the human population depends on environmental conditions, in particular the capacity to provide food, has been recognised by human societies from a very early stage. It probably was the main driver for groups of people to split off from their original clans when these became too big to be supported by local food supplies (from hunting and gathering). Exploring further afield, they established themselves in unpopulated areas where they were able to sustain themselves until, again, the relative scarcity of resources to population size necessitated groups to move on and/or to split up, leading to the spread of humans around the world. Where and when migration appeared to be no longer an option, overpopulation relative to resources is likely to have led to conflicts between groups. Also, infanticide was commonly practised as a form of population control.
With the development of science, technology and trade, the idea that the size of a society’s population living in a (more or less clearly) defined area is limited by local, regional, or national resource constraints appears to have been invalidated. Malthus’s argument that the growth rate of population would outstrip that of food production has indeed been proven wrong. With the adoption of modern farming techniques, food production has soared. Although the global population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion today, enough food is being produced to feed the world. Trade, assumedly, has made the idea that the population size of societies or countries is constrained by their own carrying capacity outdated. But even at the global level, optimistic or sceptical thinkers[2] argue that there are no fixed resource limits to improving the standard of living of humans, even in (much) higher numbers. Such optimism is often combined with a belief in capitalism (“free markets”) as a driver of unleashed ingenuity, innovation, technology, and production.[3]
There is no denying the enormous expansion of production and consumption around the world. Adjusted for inflation, global GDP increased from US$1.2 trillion in 1820 to US$108 trillion in 2015. On a per capita basis, it is estimated to have increased almost 15 times, from 1102 (international $) in 1820 to 15,212 in 2018. Much of this growth occurred after WWII, a period referred to as the Great Acceleration. Although these figures should not be confused, let alone equated, with indicators of human well-being, they do indicate the amounts of goods and services consumed. It is hard to deny that many people, especially in high-income countries, enjoy a much higher standard of living than ever before. And based on a range of other indicators, such as life expectancy, educational levels, access to sanitary facilities and health care services, housing conditions, and food consumption, it can be argued that, for most people, conditions have much improved.
Yet, even in material terms, these figures hide large inequalities in living standards within and between countries. Even in 2022, more than 800 million people were still affected by hunger as they were unable to buy or access food, while about a third of all food produced was wasted. Food availability increasingly depends on trade as well as purchasing power, as subsistence farming and local production are being replaced almost everywhere by industrial food production controlled by large, transnational food corporations. This dependence has also increased the vulnerability of food supplies (and trade in general) by disruptions in supply and trade caused by war, conflicts, pandemics, weather and climate-related disasters (extreme heat, droughts, cyclones, floods, pests), and price rises aggravated by speculation and profiteering. This has triggered rising concerns about food security, and the security of supplies, and calls for greater self-reliance.
It has become clear that the enormous increases in production and consumption have come at great costs to the environment. Concomitant to rapid economic growth and development there has been the poisoning of water, soils, and air, badly affecting the health of humans as well as many other species. Pollution and the mismanagement of resources are eroding the renewable and non-renewable resource bases on which modern societies depend. Given the amount of attention recently given to global warming and the decline of biodiversity there is hardly a need to point out that the Earth’s ecological systems are under severe stress. Modern (industrial) agriculture (food production), alongside all other economic sectors, has played a major role in this process of environmental destruction. Not surprisingly, the idea of the existence of environmental (ecological and resource) limits to the expansion of human populations, and the concept of carrying capacity, notably at the global level, has returned with a vengeance. With economic growth continuing to be the dominant goal of governments and people around the world, and the world population expected to increase by at least another two billion by 2050, an environmental collapse seems all but inevitable, triggering also the collapse of economic, political, and social systems. From an ecological point of view, humans could well be regarded as a pest, as their numbers have gotten out of control and their actions threaten the survival of numerous other species. However, in modern societies, most humans look at nature from an anthropocentric perspective, putting their own species above all others and treating nature purely as a pool of resources that are there to serve their needs and wants.
One common reaction to this threat is to (again) emphasise the need for population control. Indeed, adding two billion people to the world population will further increase environmental pressures and problems. Much of this growth is expected to occur in sub-Saharan countries where the fertility rate is still higher than that in the so-called developed world. But while the rate of population growth in these countries poses considerable challenges,[4] developments in many other countries, and the world as a whole, suggest that fertility rates have declined, even to the point where, in many countries, populations are declining or expected to decline.[5] This applies to many European countries, but also to China, Japan, and South Korea.[6] This has given rise to other, notably economic, concerns as discussed below. But, assuming that this trend, linked to what is commonly referred to as the demographic transition continues to affect a growing number of countries, the likelihood of an exponentially growing global population has well receded.
At this point, however, it is important to remind ourselves that population size is only one of the many factors contributing to environmental pressures and problems. In this context, the so-called I=PAT equation first put forward in the 1970s, offers a good start to come to grips with the proximate factors of population (P), affluence or consumption (A), and technology (T). How much impact a population has on the environment depends in large measure on the level of (resource) consumption per capita. In this respect, people on high incomes are responsible for (much) higher levels of resource consumption than those with lower incomes. It has been estimated that, globally, the richest 10 per cent account for close to 59 per cent of resource consumption, while the bottom 50 per cent consume only 7.2 per cent.[7] But while most of the well-off reside in high-income countries, their number in so-called developing countries is rapidly growing, resulting in increased materials consumption as well as rising inequality within those countries. With further economic growth and higher standards of living remaining top priorities for most countries, the total consumption of materials is expected to more than double between 2011 and 2060, with all the environmental effects thereof.[8]
But at least as important is the factor T (technology), as it is the kind of technology, resources and materials used and consumed that is directly responsible for the damage caused to people and the environment. Given what is already known about these effects, from the use of poisons and hazardous chemicals on human health and the environment to the use of fossil fuels and their effects on the global climate, among many other things, there is no need for elaborating on the crucial importance of this factor here.
In combination, these three (P, A, T) factors can indeed account for many of the immediate adverse effects. The number of people acts as a multiplier of the effects of consumption and technology, increasing the scale of these effects and problems. Although the size of a population is important relative to the size, biophysical/ecological conditions, and resources available in a particular area (and country), assessing its effect on the environment must account for the total amount of resources used, wherever they come from, and the ecological and health effects of the technologies used. The largest environmental gains can be obtained from a reduction of the number of people on high incomes (wherever they live) and/or of their per capita consumption, not from shrinking populations per se. But if increasing the standard of living (implying increased resource consumption) of 90 per cent of the world population is the main priority, reducing the total environmental impact will require a revolutionary change in technology and/or significantly shrinking populations, even if the inequalities in wealth and income are reduced.
However, behind these three factors (P, A and T) that can be held responsible for the immediate (proximate) adverse environmental effects are other, systemic, factors that influence or even determine them. The level of consumption is foremost driven by political economics, linked to, for instance, the growth imperatives of capitalism and the use of science and technology in the service of maximising profits. Although population growth and decline (the demographic transition) are linked to the level of affluence and available technologies (affecting death rates and birth control), political-economic as well as socio-cultural factors influence population and migration policies that can affect the size and composition of a population. Thus, these underlying or systemic factors are at least as important for our understanding of the population issue as its environmental implications.
Population as a socio-cultural issue
While the environmental implications of population are important, in many countries, and for many people, there are other issues associated with population that are at least as significant. Among these are views on the importance of having children, and how many. Historically, people and societies tended to look at having large families as normal, inevitable or desirable. The adjective “large” is relative, as presently, in Western countries, a family with four or five children is regarded as large, while in many societies (far) bigger families were not uncommon. By contrast, in a growing number of countries, the fertility rate has dropped well below the reproduction rate of 2.1, and many young people choose not to have any children. Some do not even aspire to have or live with a long-term partner, as reflected in the rising number of one-person households in many countries.
Thus, in the first instance, the size of populations depends on the decisions of individuals and couples. Why people choose to have smaller families, or no family at all, may be linked to a complex of factors. One is that many women, especially those with a higher degree of education, wish to pursue their own careers and that this is often (seen as) difficult to combine with looking after children. Related to that is the issue that women are often still expected to be the main caregivers, and/or the de facto inequality between men and women in this respect. The costs or unavailability of childcare services may also play a role. This relates to broader economic considerations that may influence women’s (and men’s) choices. In many countries where neo-liberal policies have eroded social welfare states, the costs of raising children (related to housing, the costs of essentials, education, participation in sports and other activities, and healthcare, among others) have increased significantly relative to incomes, as reflected in a growing number of families that are struggling financially. Also, a culture in which individualism, self-centredness, narcissism, consumerism, entertainment, and virtual relationships have become dominant values is less (or in-) compatible with having children that demand a lot of attention for a long time. In modern societies, having children, let alone a bigger family has become less of a value in itself compared to other values and priorities.
Whether that is a (big) problem in and of itself is debatable. The most frequently raised concern about declining populations is of an economic nature, which I will discuss below. But whether it is bad or good for a country to have a (much) smaller population is a matter of value judgements that go beyond the narrow interpretation of economists. People may find that their country is already overpopulated , as reflected in housing shortages, traffic jams, and crowding. To a large extent, this issue is linked to the ongoing concentration of populations in megacities and conurbations. This process is not simply a reflection of people’s changing preferences but may be driven by poverty, a lack of life chances and opportunities elsewhere, or necessity (lack of the means of survival). Urbanisation is tied up with systemic economic processes over which most people have no control and in which neoliberal governments are reluctant or unwilling to intervene. What is a sustainable, desirable or acceptable population (size) in a particular area is a question that is commonly ignored, let alone a subject of collective debate and democratic decision-making.
Yet, this does not prevent this issue from becoming a political hot topic, be it in a distorted and skewed form. In many “developed” countries, immigration has become the lightning rod for raising the population issue. Immigration generates a range of challenges and issues, including those related to housing, the downward pressure on wages, schooling, language, cultural differences, conflicting values and norms, and social integration. It is often the already disadvantaged groups in a society that are confronted most with these challenges, whereas the well-off classes are hardly affected personally. By contrast, employers draw most of the economic benefits (profits) generated by immigration. Not surprisingly, this is an issue that is exploited politically, especially by right-wing nationalist parties and populist politicians. But rather than addressing the genuine problems associated with (especially large-scale and rapid) immigration, such groups resort to scapegoating immigrants, racism, and fearmongering. For instance, the Great Replacement theory, propagated by white nationalist and racist groups, claims that countries with predominantly white populations are at risk of being overwhelmed by non-white people through mass migration and demographic trends.
On the other side of the political spectrum, liberal classes and parties, rather than confronting the genuine issues raised by immigration, often simply dismiss concerns about immigration as xenophobia and/or racism. But while racism no doubt plays a role in the opposition against immigration, the cultural challenges associated with social integration (among the others mentioned above) cannot simply be ignored. Cultural and ethnic differences can be a source of conflict, for instance, related to the role and position of women, religious beliefs, behavioural norms, and views on rights and authority. The social integration challenge raises the fundamental question of what binds people and societies together. It confronts all societies, but even more so bi- or multicultural societies, as demonstrated by the occurrence of ethnic strife in virtually all such societies.
The importance of culture is not a right-wing invention. From early human history, culture (including language) has always played a key role in binding people together as well as dividing them. Despite globalisation, there is little indication that culture is becoming less important. The resurgence of indigenous cultures is a manifestation of the vital importance that people attach to (their) culture. Although cultural diversity can be seen as enriching and positive, it requires open-mindedness, respect and tolerance on all sides, especially where norms and values clash. Where things become problematic is when a culture (any culture) is forced upon people, which tends to provoke antagonism and fierce resistance, as demonstrated around the world. A better way of dealing with cultural diversity may be to let groups practise their own cultures while trying to find common ground on what all citizens of a country see as essential and desirable for society as a whole, for instance, to advance sustainability, equity, social justice and harmony. To reduce the risk of social disintegration, countries and societies need to identify and share at least some common values, goals and rules that bind people together, despite their cultural differences.
Population as an economic issue
In capitalist economic systems, which now prevail around the world, people do not exist, nor do societies. People are reduced to economic actors: producers, investors, workers, and consumers. Producers are not workers, but those who employ them. Investors are those who put money to “work” to make more money. Workers are primarily used for their labour, a commodity that is bought on the labour market where supply and demand determine its price. Consumers are important because everything that is produced must be sold to realise profits. Consumers need to be prodded continuously to buy an ever-expanding range of products and services. Society is a meaningless abstraction. Instead, social reality is reduced to economic actors who act individually to maximise their self-interest. Countries are referred to as economies, markets and collections of economic actors who are constrained by political borders. Ideally, borders would not exist and there would be unregulated free trade and the free movement of capital and labour. This is the globalisation agenda of capitalism, which has made big strides in imposing this interpretation of reality upon the world during the past four or five decades.
From this perspective, population growth is a good thing, as it increases the supply of labour and the markets for goods and services. By contrast, declining populations are a bad thing as they imply the reverse. Not surprisingly, in countries where populations are declining, the dominant (capitalist) economic interests push for the liberalisation of immigration policies, often against the reservations and opposition of citizens. To the extent that immigration involves (highly) educated people, one country’s gain is of course another country’s loss, which may even more problematic if there is already a shortage of such people in the country of origin. But although, in many countries, immigration is a political hot potato, economic interests tend to prevail, often on the grounds of (severe) shortages in the labour market.
The growing problem of refugees and migrants fleeing unbearable (political, economic, social, and environmental) conditions and seeking a better life in so-called developed countries strengthens the case for lowering the obstacles to immigration but fuels the issues mentioned above. Ideally, the need for and the drivers of migration would be addressed and eliminated in the countries of origin. This would require those countries to acquire stable political-economic and socio-cultural conditions that offer their citizens a decent standard of living and quality of life, greatly reducing the motivation to leave. Again, this points to the nature of political-economic systems, processes and relations, as a key factor underlying population movements and dynamics. In large part, it is the destruction of local economies and the livelihoods of many people as a result of capitalist globalisation in the service of transnational corporations that lies at the root of population issues in the form of urbanisation, homelessness and slums, poverty, the exploitation of humans and environment, disease, crime, social and political conflict, and environmental breakdown, resulting in desperation and migration.
By comparison, the issue of increasing the qualifying age for retirement, which has become a hot topic in many “developed” countries, especially those with greying and declining populations, may seem insignificant. Yet, it is understandable that such measures provoke strong reactions. Along with the forty-hour working week and better working conditions, the right to retire at a particular age with a guaranteed pension has been fought for by the labour movement, infusing capitalism with a human dimension. Step by step, these hard-won achievements of social democracy have been undone by neoliberal governments under the excuse that the country can no longer afford such “luxuries” as the proportion of the working-age population declines. If anything, this is an indictment of the idea that economic growth serves human welfare. Even though GDP has grown (both in total and per capita) during the post-WWII decades and is much bigger now (in the 2020s) than even 50 years ago, suddenly such “luxuries” are no longer considered to be affordable. If so, what purpose is served by economic growth? The main difference between now and then is not that rich countries have become poorer, but that the benefits of economic growth have increasingly been seized by political-economic elites, with the result of a return to the levels of inequality (in wealth and income) that existed in the early 20th century.[9] Public assets have been privatised as much as possible, resulting in the decline and breakdown of infrastructure and public services while increasing the costs to citizens and societies. Whether the retirement age can be maintained (or even lowered) is not a question of affordability, but of political choice, in particular, of how income and wealth are distributed or allowed to be accumulated in private hands rather than put into public goods and services. The same applies, among others, to public housing, water and electricity supplies, education, and the provision of public health services which, increasingly, have been privatised or subjected to user-pays and austerity policies, with devastating results for many people.
Yet, the economic interpretation of the population issue (“good for the economy”) continues to be held up by governments and businesses alike. No country or government welcomes a decline in population for the sake of a reduction of environmental pressures, or even for social reasons. The prevailing view remains the more people the better.
There is one other reason used in support of this view, even though it may seem outdated: population size as a measure of military power.
Population as a geopolitical issue
Traditionally, in contests between groups, tribes, and states, the larger the number of fighters that could be mustered, the greater the chances of winning. Bigger numbers have always been associated with more power because it meant that larger armies of young and able men (mostly) could be recruited. Countries with a big population, notably China, have long been regarded as a (potential) threat. Relative numbers, however, have never been the only or even main factor in determining a group’s physical power and success in conflict. In inter-group warfare, several other factors come into play that have always qualified this assumption.
The most obvious among these is that the nature of the means used counts for a lot. In the course of human history, the invention of spears, bows and arrows, and swords, and the use of horses and chariots were innovations in the technology of warfare that gave major advantages. Often, relatively small groups of invaders were able to rule over much larger populations because of their superiority in technology and weaponry. This also explains much of the success of the Western European colonial powers in conquering and subjugating much of the world from the 16th century onwards.[10] Arguably, this factor has become the most important factor in modern conflicts and warfare. The relative sophistication and capabilities of weaponry (tanks, fighter planes, air-defence systems and others) is often seen as a potentially decisive factor. Computer- and satellite-guided weapons (drones and missiles) can be operated by relatively few people with devastating effects. Nuclear weapons are of course at the end of the existing spectrum of destructive weaponry that does not need a large army to be deployed.
However, nuclear weapons are regarded (by sane people) as unusable, as their use against other nuclear powers almost certainly leads to retaliation and self-destruction (”Mutually Assured Destruction”, MAD for short). From a Realist perspective, this has made the possession of (the most) sophisticated non-nuclear weapons even more important. This has led many countries, notably the United States, to increase military expenditure to develop and/or buy more such weapons. In this context, numbers (of weapons and trained people to operate them) remain important. The one-off use nature of many such weapons (missiles, drones, munition), and their precision-targeting of military hardware, imply their rapid depletion, and large losses of military personnel. This makes the ability to replenish the supply of both essential, giving countries with a large military and weapons industry an advantage over those with lower capacities. That the size of armies still plays a significant role is illustrated in the Ukraine war, where the Russians are said to have an advantage given their larger population and ability to recruit more soldiers. Even though the Ukrainians are supplied with sophisticated weapons by NATO countries, the ability to deploy these depends on trained personnel. Hence, demographics is still an important factor.
Yet, it is simplistic to equate countries with large populations with great powers. The relative power of a country and its position in the global (dis-) order depends on many interrelated factors. In the 16th and 17th centuries, relatively small countries like the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain acquired great power status based on a combination of factors that gave rise to the development of science and technology, capitalism and a capitalist class, trade and economic growth, and changing worldviews. Industrialisation gave Britain the edge over its European rivals, enabling it to create a truly global empire, further boosting its economic development and wealth. The rise of the United States as a global hegemon after WWII also finds its roots in the same factors, but also in natural resource endowment, large-scale immigration, and geopolitical conditions. Whether a country achieves great power status, therefore, depends largely on the global political-economic order that exists, geopolitical conditions and developments, and domestic factors, of which population size is only one. For instance, although China has a far bigger population than the United States, its shrinking and greying population, like that of Russia, is considered to give the US, with its growing and relatively younger population, an important advantage. For the same reasons, India, Indonesia and the Philippines are seen as rising powers.[11] But as noted above, there are many other factors that, in combination, are more important in determining where a country sits in the global political-economic order.
The political economy of population
The discussion above shows that the “population issue” can be interpreted from environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical perspectives, and in different ways within each of these. Although, with the rise of environmental concerns in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the debate has focused on population growth as a major concern, this has been dismissed by others (“optimists”) as unfounded, demonstrated by the continued availability of resources and economic growth, rising standards of living, and a doubling of the global population. Although Malthusian pessimism was brushed aside by these developments, more recently, the ecological effects of these developments (notably global warming and the decline of biodiversity) have revived the debate about ecological and resource boundaries and the Earth’s carrying capacity. However, calls for societies and the world as a whole to reduce resource consumption, bring a halt to economic growth, and more equitably share the benefits produced by “development”, and for systemic change aimed at advancing sustainability, go unheeded. At the same time, the reduction of the rate of fertility in many countries has brought about a change in population concerns and debates towards the economic and geopolitical ramifications of declining and greying populations, and of immigration. At the same time, the growing number of (political, environmental, and economic) refugees seeking a new home adds to the complex mix of population issues.
How countries and governments deal with this mix of concerns depends largely on the nature of their political-economic systems and the views and interests of the dominant elites (or classes) within those systems. For instance, in countries with liberal-democratic systems, immigration is often a political hot potato given the exploitation of public concerns by right-wing and nationalist groups and parties, which has led a growing number of countries to adopt restrictive and harsh immigration policies. At the same time, however, businesses and governments often use the declining and greying population card to push for more liberal immigration policies and/or for raising the retirement age, both defined as economic imperatives. These conflicting and often polarising views and policies make for a volatile political climate.
However, despite these conflicting views, there are a few things that virtually all parties agree on: the primacy of economic growth and (technological) development, and capitalism. Economic growth, coupled with further technological development (AI, robotics, nanotechnology, among others) is held up as the prime goal and solution for all ills. In this respect, there is no difference between the West, China, Russia and by far most other countries. Although the Chinese political-economic system takes a different approach to the management of capitalism, it too relies heavily on capitalism as the motor of economic growth. Recently, China’s U-turn in its one-child policy was driven by economic concerns associated with a declining and greying population, and probably also geopolitical concerns (rivalry with the US and India). Many countries, including China, Japan, Sweden, Italy, and France, try to address the perceived problem of a greying and declining population by providing financial incentives for having and caring for children.
Population growth, therefore, continues to be regarded as positive or even essential by governments and businesses. Although having children may no longer be a priority or even seen as desirable by many people (especially women) worldwide, declining fertility rates and populations have become a subject of concern for many countries and governments. The imperatives of capitalism (including continuous economic growth) push governments towards the adoption of policies that are incompatible with environmental protection and that are likely to further fuel the social disintegration of their societies. Nothing short of a fundamental transformation of political-economic and socio-cultural systems can bring a halt to this trend and put the issue of population in a proper social and environmental context.
References
[1] Malthus, Thomas Robert (1798, 1965 ed.), Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. London: Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s ChurchYard.
[2] Simon, Julian L. (1994), “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment”, Economic Affairs, Vol.14, No.3, pp.22-29.
[3] Lomborg, Bjørn (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; Simon, Julian Lincoln and Herman Kahn (1984), The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
[4] Population Action International (2011), Why Population Matters. Washington, DC: Population Action International.
[5] Pearce, Fred (2010), The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet’s Surprising Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
[6] Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (2023), “All the People. India’s Rise Is Accompanied by China’s Contraction”, The Guardian Weekly, Publication date: 28 April, p.19.
[7] Magdoff, Fred (2013), “Global Resource Depletion. Is Population the Problem?”, Monthly Review, No.January, pp.13-28.
[8] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 – Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. Paris: OECD.
[9] Piketty, Thomas (2014, e-book ed.), Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
[10] Cipolla, Carlo M. (1965), Guns, Sails, and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion, 1400-1700 London: Collins; Diamond, Jared. (1998), Guns, Germs and Steel. A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. London: Vintage.
[11] Eberstadt, Nicholas (2019), “With Great Demographics Comes Great Power”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.98, No.4, pp.146-157.
Humanity on Trial 