China’s population is declining after decades of high growth. This major change in the world’s most populous country will be a big problem in itself, but China isn’t the only country whose numbers are declining. This is good news. Given that populations of other large animals have not increased as rapidly or as catastrophically as our species, we should all celebrate population declines.
Declining population eases the pressure that eight billion people put on the planet. As Head of Population and Sustainability at the Center for Biological Diversity, I have seen the devastating impact of our expanding footprint on global ecosystems. But if you listen to economists (and Elon Musk), you might think declining fertility rates mean the sky is falling.
But there’s more to the story than dollars. If the current model of unlimited growth and short-term gains is sacrificing the future of vulnerable people and the planet, population decline means a future with more opportunities and a healthy, biologically rich world. We are at a crossroads and will decide what happens next. We can maintain the status quo of our economy and continue to pursue unlimited growth on a finite planet. Or we can choose to heed the warning signs that our planet is reaching its limits, put the brakes on environmental catastrophe, and choose another way to define fairness and prosperity rooted in a rich natural world.
Everyone on Earth needs food, water, energy and a place to call home. And if we want to improve wealth equity and quality of life, demand per capita will increase even in the best-case scenario for sustainable development.
For example, as China’s population and wealth increased, so did its demand for the planet. China’s per capita environmental footprint is less than half that of the United States, but the country’s total environmental footprint is twice as large, a quarter of the imported deforestation and a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The country is responsible for 1 of Reducing consumption in high-income countries is necessary, but it will not be enough if the world’s population continues to grow.
As the population has doubled over the past 50 years, wildlife populations have plummeted by an average of 69%. We have already modified at least 70% of the Earth’s landmass, and some reports put him at 97%. Our actions have pushed wildlife out of their habitats and destroyed irreplaceable ecosystems.
Biodiversity loss is tragic in and of itself. Without millions of endangered species in the coming decades, such as elephants and hellbender salamanders, the world would plunge into deep poverty. Wild flora and fauna enrich our lives and hold together important ecosystems. The fresh water we need to live, the plants that provide food and medicine, and the forests we depend on for clean air and carbon sequestration are all present, from microbes and pollinators to carnivores and scavengers. , are products of complex interactions between different organisms. If even one thread is pulled from the tapestry, the whole system unravels.
For those more concerned about the economy than life on Earth, the World Bank estimates that ecosystem collapse could cost us $2.7 trillion annually by 2030. Extensive damage from extreme weather and wildfires, threats to communities, farms and businesses from drought and unpredictable weather. Many believe that a declining population will inevitably have a negative impact on the economy, but researchers believe that falling fertility rates will not only cut emissions by 2055, but also reduce per capita income. increased by 10%.
Declining fertility rates are usually indicative of greater gender equality. Highly educated women are less likely to have children later in life. This slows population growth and helps reduce carbon emissions. And when women are in leadership roles, they are more likely than men to drive initiatives to combat climate change and protect nature. These results are necessary policy side effects regardless of their impact on the population.
Where these cultural shifts have taken place, there is no going back. Even in China, where fertility rates initially declined due to a strict one-child policy, women are reluctant to give up their educational and economic freedoms now that large families are allowed.
Population decline is only a threat to growth-based economies. Moving to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside declining fertility will help combat climate change and increase wealth and well-being.
If the population declines, some places will have to adapt to social aging. By choosing to deliberately decline with increased happiness, we can take the fear out of family planning and create a better future for people and the planet.
we have to choose. Either he can let growth-based economies decide the fate of the planet, or he can stop pretending that demography and ecology are two separate issues.
In the first scenario, an economy fueled by endless population growth finds it increasingly difficult to cope with the environmental crisis. Communities are already struggling in the face of worsening droughts, extreme weather and other impacts of climate change. And demographic pressures make adaptation even more difficult. Population growth will further stress damaged ecosystems, reduce their resilience, and increase the risk of threats such as pandemics, soil desertification, and biodiversity loss in a downward spiral. increase.
The second is a gradual decline and all that entails, but ultimately it will reduce the pressure on the environment, adapt to climate change, and allow endangered wildlife to find refuge and recover. Enough places where you might want to protect it.
But despite how inevitable population decline benefits people and the planet, world leaders are doing little to prepare for a world beyond the never-ending growth paradigm. They now need to prepare for an aging population while realigning their socio-economic structures towards degrowth. Immigration, on the other hand, could help soften the demographic blow by bringing younger people into an aging country.
Governments must invest in health care, support caregivers, support those who want to work longer, and redesign communities to meet the housing, transportation and service needs of older people. We need to move our economy towards an economy where humans and nature can thrive. It means controlling consumption, prioritizing social and environmental well-being over profit, emphasizing cooperation and recognizing the need for a range of community-driven solutions. These practices already exist in mutual aid programs and worker-owned cooperatives, but they must become the foundation of our economy, not the exception.
We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender equity movements and the environmental movement. Environmental toxicity, reproductive health and wildlife conservation are deeply intertwined. Pollution, climate change and ecosystem degradation harm pregnant women, unborn babies and children, making it difficult to raise safe and healthy families.
Finally, the United Nations’ latest climate and biodiversity report highlights what conservationists, climate scientists and policy makers have been demanding for decades. A swift and just transition to renewable energy and sustainable food systems, and a global effort to stop humans. – now causing extinction.
Population stability and decline are inevitably achieved by putting human rights at the center. Policy makers must ensure access to bodily autonomy and reproductive health care, gender equality, and education for women and girls.
Choose a future of sustainable prosperity by addressing the immediate crisis, enabling everyone to decide if and when to have children, and planning for a declining population. I can.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily Scientific American.
