One Finite Planet

Optimum population of humans: Ideally, how many people can, or should, the Earth support?

Page Contents
Topics

Relevant Topics:

All Topics
More On This Topic

Why Population growth even before the explosion?

Throughout history, although no other species on Earth has experienced such long term overall population growth, even before the recent population explosion, the human population kept slowly growing.

Yes, we recently had an unprecedented population explosion, driven by is hidden by by the near elimination of previously tragic infant mortality, but against the background of long term growth, many of us never didn’t even realise their was an explosion.

But what drove population growth even before the explosion? What will now happen as the explosion ends?

Read More »

Ghost cities and ghost homes: housing finance crisis?

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.”

Attributed to Kenneth Boulding in: United States. Congress. House (1973) 

This applies to not just to population growth, but just maybe also to the growth in value of housing.

This page is a look at ‘ghost cities’ and ‘ghost homes’, and the window they provide into how distorted investment can become in the pursuit of growth.

The end result of the distortions can be overvalued assets funded by highly leveraged ordinary citizens. If that is the case, not just with ghost cities but beyond, the correction will clearly present a financial crisis.

Read More »

Population Growth Advocacy: Mislead Immigration Support, or Greed & Tribalism?

In Australia, as in many countries, there appears to be almost universal acceptance of perpetual population growth. Population growth is seen as:

  1. Desirable because it is the path to economic prosperity.
  2. Inevitable.
  3. 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?

Read More »

Optimum Population Responses: nature’s birth control.

Human birth rates are falling at a rate that has some fearing population collapse, but could this a natural biological repose to threats of overpopulation, rather than any cause for alarm?

This raises the question as to what controls population in other species and, why is overpopulation rare? Would all species not population controlled by predators just multiply like bacteria in petri until dish resources are all consumed, or does nature, and even potentially humans, have other mechanisms to constrain population at a more optimum level? In practice, resource constraint and predation alone as population control would for many species would result in repeated huge population swings, so logically, there must be more.

Analysing population mechanisms in other species may provide some interesting insights and possible answers to at least a large part of what is happing with 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.

Read More »

Population on a Finite World: No Vacancies.

Every niche on Earth where life is possible, is filled by species to maximum capacity. Except for brief periods following Earth changing events, or other change of circumstances, there have been no ‘vacant’ liveable environments on Earth for over 4 billion years. Any increase in population of one species, requires a reduction in population of other species, in a process Darwin declared “survival of the fittest”.

Read More »

Table of Contents

It can seem like the human population can grow forever, but analysis makes it clear growth must stop eventually. The question becomes at what level should it stop?

Do we go for the maximum possible people before everything collapses, even if average living standards could be far better with a smaller population? Is it like a chicken farm in an egg farm, where having less chickens is seen as preferable if it means chickens get better living conditions? What population strikes the right balance for humans?

Optimum population of humans: Ideally, how many people can, or should, the Earth support?

It can seem like the human population can grow forever, but analysis makes it clear growth must stop eventually. The question becomes at what level should it stop?

Do we go for the maximum possible people before everything collapses, even if average living standards could be far better with a smaller population? Is it like a chicken farm in an egg farm, where having less chickens is seen as preferable if it means chickens get better living conditions? What population strikes the right balance for humans?

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)
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).

Reassessing Edgeworth’s Conjecture when Population Dynamics is Stochastic: Simone Marsiglio

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.

Updates.

  • 2023 April 10 th: first published, but with much still to be added.

Comment?