Introduction
Population growth has been a topic of public and political debate since Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798.[i] Touted as one of the first publications to presage doom and gloom, it argued that human populations tended to grow exponentially while the supply of food could be expanded only at a slower (arithmetic) rate, giving 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 over the past 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 advances in science and technology have made it possible to sustain a growing world population at 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 whether a country’s population is culturally homogeneous, bicultural, multicultural, 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 pressing with globalisation.
A third bundle of issues associated with population can be described as economic. The Malthusian view referred to above could be regarded as such, as it addresses the relationship between resources and population size. Within 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. Larger, growing populations are commonly regarded as “good for the economy” because they stimulate demand and supply, thereby fuelling economic growth. From this point of view, immigration is desirable, or even necessary. 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 significant concerns in a growing number of countries.
This leads to a fourth aspect, population as a source of military (physical) power. Countries with large populations are often seen as (much) more powerful and thus a potential threat than those with small populations. In part, this reflects the traditional idea that large armies are more likely to win wars or deter potential aggressors. Larger populations also imply greater production capacity and economies of scale, including in the production of weapons. Although the link between population size, composition, and military power is not straightforward, it remains a matter of considerable concern in geopolitical and military circles and in debates, most recently amid concerns about China’s rise 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. 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, on the dominant political-economic power structures. The population issue will not be resolved by scientific debate but by realities shaped by power.
Population as an environmental issue
That the size of the human population depends on environmental conditions, particularly the capacity to provide food, has been recognised by human societies from a very early stage. It was probably the main driver behind groups splitting off from their original clans when these became too large 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 relative to population size necessitated groups to move on and/or split up, leading to the spread of humans around the world. When migration was no longer an option, overpopulation relative to available resources likely 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 population growth rate 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 has presumably rendered the idea that the population size of societies or countries is constrained by their carrying capacity outdated. But even at the global level, optimistic or sceptical thinkers[ii] argue that there are no fixed resource limits to improving the human standard of living, even at (much) higher levels. Such optimism is often combined with a belief in capitalism (“free markets”) as a driver of unleashed ingenuity, innovation, technology, and production.[iii]
There is no denying the enormous expansion in production and consumption worldwide. 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-fold, from 1,102 (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 with, 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 mask significant inequalities in living standards within and between countries. Even in 2022, more than 800 million people were still affected by hunger because they were unable to buy or access food, while about a third of all food produced was wasted. Food availability increasingly depends on trade and 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 heightened the vulnerability of food supplies (and trade in general) to disruptions caused by war, conflicts, pandemics, weather- and climate-related disasters (extreme heat, droughts, cyclones, floods, pests), and price rises exacerbated by speculation and profiteering. This has triggered growing concerns about food and supply security, and calls for greater self-reliance.
It has become clear that the enormous increases in production and consumption have exacted a heavy toll on the environment. Alongside rapid economic growth and development, water, soil, and air have been poisoned, severely affecting the health of humans and 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 attention recently paid 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 environmental (ecological and resource) limits to the expansion of human populations, and the concept of carrying capacity, notably at the global level, have 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 the collapse of economic, political, and social systems as well. 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 people view nature from an anthropocentric perspective, placing their own species above all others and treating it purely as a pool of resources 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 fertility rates remain higher than in the so-called developed world. But while the rate of population growth in these countries poses considerable challenges,[iv] developments in many other countries and in the world as a whole suggest that fertility rates have declined to the point that, in many countries, populations are declining or are expected to do so.[v] This applies not only to many European countries, but also to China, Japan, and South Korea.[vi] This has given rise to other concerns, notably economic, as discussed below. But assuming that this trend, linked to what is commonly referred to as the demographic transition, continues to affect an increasing number of countries, the likelihood of an exponentially growing global population has receded significantly.
At this point, however, it is important to remember 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 starting point for coming to grips with the proximate factors of population (P), affluence or consumption (A), and technology (T). The impact a population has on the environment depends largely on the level of per capita (resource) consumption. In this respect, people with 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.[vii] But while most of the well-off reside in high-income countries, their number in so-called developing countries is rapidly growing, leading to increased material consumption and rising inequality within those countries. With further economic growth and higher standards of living remaining top priorities for most countries, total material consumption is expected to more than double between 2011 and 2060, with all the associated environmental effects.[viii]
But at least as important is the factor T (technology), as the kind of technology, resources, and materials used and consumed 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 to elaborate on the crucial importance of this factor here.
Taken together, these three factors (P, A, T) 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 biophysical and 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 achieved by reducing the number of people with high incomes (wherever they live) and/or their per capita consumption, not by shrinking populations per se. But if increasing the standard of living (implying increased resource consumption) for 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 a significant reduction in population, even if inequalities in wealth and income are reduced.
However, behind these three factors (P, A, and T), which can be held responsible for the immediate (proximate) adverse environmental effects, lie other systemic factors that influence or even determine these effects. The level of consumption is primarily driven by the political economy, linked, for instance, to 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 levels of affluence and available technologies (which affect death rates and birth control), political-economic and socio-cultural factors influence population and migration policies, which 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, other population-related issues are at least as significant. Among these are views on the importance of having children and on how many to have. Historically, people and societies tended to regard large families as normal, inevitable, or desirable. The adjective “large” is relative: in Western countries today, a family with four or five children is regarded as large, whereas in many societies, far larger 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 a long-term partner, as reflected in the rising number of one-person households in many countries.
Thus, in the first instance, population size 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 factor is that many women, especially those with higher levels 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 cost or unavailability of child care 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 who demand a lot of attention for a long time. In modern societies, having children, let alone a larger family, has become less of a value in itself than other priorities.
Whether that is a (big) problem in and of itself is debatable. The most frequently raised concern about declining populations is economic, which I will discuss below. But whether it is good or bad for a country to have a (much) smaller population is a matter of value judgments 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 (a lack of the means of survival). Urbanisation is tied to 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 the issue from becoming a political hot topic, albeit in a distorted and skewed form. In many “developed” countries, immigration has become the lightning rod for the population debate. Immigration poses a range of challenges, including housing, wage pressures, schooling, language barriers, cultural differences, conflicting values, and social integration. It is often the already disadvantaged groups in society who are most confronted 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. 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, promoted by white nationalist and racist groups, claims that countries with predominantly white populations are at risk of being overwhelmed by non-white people due to 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 evidenced by 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 testament to the vital importance people place on their cultures. 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 seeking common ground on what all citizens of a country consider 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 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 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 significant strides in imposing this interpretation of reality on the world over 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 bad, as they imply the opposite. Not surprisingly, in countries where populations are declining, the dominant (capitalist) economic interests push for the liberalisation of immigration policies, often despite citizens’ reservations and opposition. To the extent that immigration involves (highly) educated people, one country’s gain is, of course, another country’s loss, which may be even more problematic if there is already a shortage of such people in the country of origin. Although in many countries immigration is a political hot potato, economic interests tend to prevail, often on the grounds of (severe) labour market shortages.
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 drivers of migration would be addressed and eliminated in the countries of origin. This would require those countries to achieve stable political, economic, and socio-cultural conditions that provide their citizens with 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 raising the retirement age, 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 and a guaranteed pension have 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, on 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 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, resulting in a return to the level of inequality (in wealth and income) that existed in the early 20th century.[ix] Public assets have been privatised as much as possible, resulting in the decline and breakdown of infrastructure and public services, while increasing costs for 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, how income and wealth are distributed or allowed to accumulate in private hands rather than be invested in public goods and services. The same applies, among other things, to public housing, water and electricity supplies, education, and the provision of public health services, which have increasingly 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 promoted by governments and businesses alike. No country or government welcomes a population decline, whether to reduce environmental pressures or for social reasons. The prevailing view remains that 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 greater power because they meant that larger armies of young and able men (mostly) could be recruited. Countries with large populations, notably China, have long been regarded as a (potential) threat. Relative numbers, however, have never been the only or even the main factor in determining a group’s physical power and success in conflict. In inter-group warfare, several other factors have always qualified this assumption.
The most obvious of these is that the nature of the means used matters greatly. 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 technological and military superiority. 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. Arguably, this factor has become the most important in modern conflicts and warfare. The relative sophistication and capabilities of weaponry (tanks, fighter planes, air defence systems, and others) are 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 spectrum of destructive weaponry and do not require a large army to be deployed.
However, nuclear weapons are regarded (by sane people) as unusable, as their use against other nuclear powers is almost certainly to lead 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 personnel to operate them) remain important. The one-off use nature of many such weapons (missiles, drones, munitions), and their precision-targeting of military hardware, implies their rapid depletion and large losses of military personnel. This makes it possible to replenish the supply of both, giving countries with large militaries and weapons industries an advantage over those with lower capacities. That the size of armies still plays a significant role is illustrated by the war in Ukraine, 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 are still an important factor.
Yet it is simplistic to equate large populations with great power. The relative power of a country and its position in the global (dis-) order depend on many interrelated factors. In the 16th and 17th centuries, relatively small countries such as the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain acquired great power status through a combination of factors that fostered 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 build a truly global empire and further boost its economic development and wealth. The rise of the United States as a global hegemon after WWII has its roots in many of the same factors, including natural resource endowments, large-scale immigration, and geopolitical conditions. Whether a country achieves great power status, therefore, depends largely on the existing global political-economic order, geopolitical conditions and developments, and domestic factors, of which population size is only one. For instance, although China has a far larger 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.[x] But as noted above, there are many other factors that, in combination, are more important than any single factor 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. 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, halt economic growth, and more equitably share the benefits of “development”, as well as for systemic change to advance sustainability, go unheeded. At the same time, the decline in fertility rates in many countries has shifted population concerns and debates towards the economic and geopolitical ramifications of declining and ageing populations, as well as 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 address 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, as right-wing and nationalist groups and parties exploit public concerns, prompting 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 to raise the retirement age, both of which are presented as economic imperatives. These conflicting and often polarising views and policies create 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 both a goal and the solution to 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 managing capitalism, it too relies heavily on capitalism as the motor of economic growth. Recently, China’s U-turn on its one-child policy was driven by economic concerns associated with a declining and greying population, and probably also by 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, for many people (especially women) worldwide, declining fertility rates and population growth have become a concern for many countries and governments. The imperatives of capitalism (including continuous economic growth) push governments towards adopting policies that are incompatible with environmental protection and 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 halt this trend and place the issue of population in a proper social and environmental context.
References
[i] 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.
[ii] Simon, Julian L. (1994), “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment”, Economic Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 3, 22-29.
[iii] Simon, Julian Lincoln and Herman Kahn (1984), The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. Oxford: B. Blackwell; Lomborg, Bjørn (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
[iv] Population Action International (2011), Why Population Matters, Washington, DC: Population Action International.
[v] Pearce, Fred (2010), The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet’s Surprising Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
[vi] Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (2023), “All the People. India’s Rise Is Accompanied by China’s Contraction”, The Guardian Weekly, 28 April.
[vii] Magdoff, Fred (2013), “Global Resource Depletion. Is Population the Problem?”, Monthly Review, No.January, 13-28, 24.
[viii] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 – Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. Paris: OECD.
[ix] Piketty, Thomas (2014, e-book ed.), Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
[x] Eberstadt, Nicholas (2019), “With Great Demographics Comes Great Power”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 98, No. 4, 146-157.