Synopsis:
There is a limit to the possible human population, which means population growth cannot continue indefinitely.
This is a look at the arguments for possible population targets.
Using the analogy of the egg farm, if you operate the farm then you desire the largest population possible, but if you have to live in the farm, then there is an optimum population where you are neither lonely, nor overcrowded.
Like the farmer vs the chickens, not everyone would consider the same population as being optimum. However, it goes further, with different philosophies, such as some believing ideas such as a lower living standard for the chickens would be acceptable if it allows more chickens to be alive at one time.
The goal here is to examine the arguments for larger population and those for smaller population.
While I do believe there is a range of population levels that could be described as ‘optimum’, at this stage I am not yet suggesting either no upper or lower limit. Whilst I feel that a population of 1 billion will likely fall within the optimum upper and lower boundaries, that is just a guess that will not create any confirmation bias.
Where I do take a perhaps radical step, is that the goals align with the stated goals sustainability++ of this site:
- Sustainability: There needs to be a path to sustainability beyond primary dependence on one finite planet.
- Plus: Here for a good time is the goal of maximising the experience of each individual.
- Plus: Here for a longer time means perusing the goal of being able to extend life beyond the limitations of one finite planet.
This is a topic that has previously been given a significant amount thought, at times by some very significant thinkers, who often have very different goals.
Many studies are by economists, and consider maximum economic output.
Background.
There is a limit to the possible human population.
While the recent population explosion was unprecedented, there has been human population growth throughout history. Yes, it was more gradual previously, there have been minor setbacks, but all of human history makes population growth appear normal.
Yet this pattern of continuing growth is unique to humans. The Earths total biosphere is declining from its peak 500 million years ago, so overall, humanity is running against the trend. Without the biomass increasing, the percentage of all life that is human is gradually increasing. Could it one day become just us, our food and our pets? Logically, population growth must stop at some point.
Given the reality that population growth must stop at some point, the next question becomes at what number will, or should, population growth stop.
Should humans try for the maximum population possible within our finite space, like chickens in a maximum production egg farm, or should we go ‘free range’ with a lower population in order for each individual to be able to have a better life?
Potential Goals.
Overview: Maximising overall happiness and/or economic output vs the individual experience.
Strangely, the position modern society typically applies to chickens in an egg farm is often not applied to population goals for humans. The organic egg farm would fail tests many see as critical for optimum human population, where:
- An increase total economic output is seen as sufficient justification for population increase.
- Low living standards can be seen as acceptable if that allows for a population increase.
In some ways, with that same attitude the near elimination of childhood mortality could be seen as mistake, since the children who previously died at a young age at least were able to live a short time. Similarly, following the logic to its conclusion, would be to recommend ending the lives of the elderly or and those who become disabled, in order that the resources these people would use can instead be utilised to provide for a greater population.
There is an argument that twice the people living with half the happiness is a greater amount of total happiness, yet we do not accept that for the chickens, or to excuse animals born only to be used in laboratory experiments who would suffer in those experiments.
I did have a dilemma deciding between allowing more people to live and allowing those who live to have a better life, which for me is resolved by focusing on the goal of extending the total number of people who can ever live by focusing on the solutions to extending the time and locations for people to be able to live beyond the constraints of one finite planet.
Individual vs total happiness: Millian vs The Benthamite criterion.
Probably the most diffused approaches (at least in macroeconomic theory) are average and total (or classical)
Reassessing Edgeworth’s Conjecture when Population Dynamics is Stochastic: Simone Marsiglio
utilitarianism, respectively based on the so-called Millian and Benthamite criterion. The former says that
social welfare coincides with per-capita utility while the latter that social welfare is the sum of individual
utility across the population (per-capita utility multiplied by the population size, if agents are homogeneous).
There is also disagreement as to whether total utility (total utilitarianism), average utility (average utilitarianism) or the utility of the people worst-off[3] should be maximized.
Utilitarianism: Wikipedia
Focusing on growth for the total economy.
… to be added.
Resources.
- Optimum Population: An Introduction, Klaus F. Zimmermann
- Economic discussion: The Optimum Theory of Population
- Utilitarianism
- Encyplopedia.com: OPTIMUM POPULATION
- to be added
Updates.
- 2023 April 10 th: first published, but with much still to be added.