Human birth rates are falling at a rate that has some fearing population collapse, but could this be a natural instinctive biological response to ensure optimum population of the future generation, rather than any cause for alarm? Looking at nature, clearly it is not just the species with maximum children that survive as the fittest, but the species with the optimum number of children. Most species don't just multiply whenever possible at maximum rate like bacteria in petri dish and survival of the fittest doesn't just mean the species with the maximum children, it means the right number and at the right time. Analysing mechanism that vary reproduction in other species may provide some interesting insights and possible answers to at least a large part of what is happing with human birth-rates that will determine whether our future is population is one of: continued growth, collapse, or stability, on a planet where population of all life is not growing.
Arguably mankind's greatest achievement, the near eradication of infant mortality, has resulted in a population explosion resulting in overpopulation that we prefer not to mention, even though it may yet kill us. Technically we would not die from overpopulation itself, just as people don't really die from "old age", and the real risk is that an already present threat will be exacerbated and become fatal because through our greed we ignore overpopulation. Unlike old age, the overpopulation risk factor could be avoided or reversed, we may be influenced by economists dependant on Ponzi schemes, the worlds' largest corporations and billionaires who thrive off the resultant increases in inequality into believing that living conditions required by ever increasing population levels benefit everyone and not just those living in mansions.
In Australia, as in many countries, there appears to be almost universal acceptance of perpetual population growth. Population growth is seen as: Desirable because it is the path to economic prosperity. Inevitable. A requirement for supporting refugees. None reflect reality. So why is it, that so few contemplate a finite population target, given we live on a finite planet?
Humanity has just experienced a population explosion. Whether you study population or believe we are overpopulated or not, the facts are that we have just had a population explosion. Over two centuries of population reaching 50x higher than the historical long-term population growth, and even peaking at 100x higher than historical averages. Yet thought explosion including during the baby boom, women were having less babies than ever before, and as the number keeps falling the boom is ending. So, what caused the boom, why was there a population explosion even when birth rates were falling? Could our population grow until we are living life like battery hens, or birth-rates keep falling leading to population collapse?
The Myth: We are not starving yet means we aren't overpopulated. The Truth: Overpopulation is defined as when population reaches a level resulting in damaging to the environment and is unsustainable. Starvation only happens if overpopulation continues until a final catastrophic environmental collapse and is no more a symptom of overpopulation than death is a symptom of disease. Unsustainability is a symptom. Consider grazing animal on a farm. Overpopulation means unattainability and the animals eat grass faster than it grows, starvation when there is no grass left. We are not yet starving, but unsustainability means we are overpopulated, and progressively, all but perhaps the richest 1% must suffer if we fail to constrain population.
